False dichotomy. A third option is: "I don't know."

Personally, I see no evidence for a god or gods created universe. Nothing that I do understand about our universe requires the existence of a god or gods to have happened. I don't understand what folks like Dr. Hawking are talking about when they discuss the early universe. I can't argue for or against any position about the absolute beginning, for that matter I can't even argue that there was a beginning or not.

I am therefore an agnostic atheist who doesn't have the first clue how all this got started.

Your argument from ignorance is trumped by a argument about ignorance. =^_^=

Llama

   I think this idol worship thing, this kind of thinking is destructive. In religious language, the devil is in your ear.  Jesus called Peter Satan .... and so I shout at you, in different words .... "Why are you fighting what you and we are ....as all is one,  as all is the thingy .... ???

  What possible good is this false division you worship ?     Makes no sense to me. 

                                                           ???

 

You're still here, aren't you? So perhaps you ought to cease this nonsense about me "banishing you". I did no such thing. The threat was idle. I was just seeing if it would wake you up. Speaking of which, you still haven't returned to the thread in question (which is now 6 weeks old) in which I point out for the 17th time that what I have written is drawn solely from mainstream Cosmology and demonstrate this. If you wish to review that thread, it is somewhere in the month-old backlog. Let me see if I understand the situation correctly: A mathematically illiterate (and barely literate in English) incompetent presumes to instruct a man trained in mathematics, physics and cosmology on the finer points of these particular disiplines. This is beyond absurd. Please return to the thread in question if you wish to vindicate yourself and remove the impression you have generated of yourself. I don't think I need to tell you what this impression is.

Whining about people here WONT make any case for the magical being you claim is real.

Prove to  me Allah isn't real.

Prove to me Yahwey isn't real.

Prove to me Vishnu isn't real.

Prove to me Thor isn't real.

Prove to me there is not an giant invisible teapot orbiting Jupiter.

Atheists don't have to disprove magical fictional claims anymore than you would have to disprove Harry Potter flying around on a broomstick.

 

Damn Brian37 is always right by me   , except one time , long ago , 

.... as he and others said, I wasn't god , as he , as you !          

Yeah, that god of abe is our ancient curse to shake off, as so we evolve ....  as we do, as we will forever .....  till our demise .... as is written in all eternity ..... "and that's the way it was" , Walter Cronkite    

 EARTH people !  Defining god !  How painful it is, as pleasure is just yet a tease 

                       The supreme devil of earth, is the god of Abraham

Wow.  Llama, why not just stay away?  You're not worth your amusement factor here.

Actually, atheism is supported by evidence; specifically, the lack of direct evidence for or against the existence of any supernatural entity. With no way to prove or disprove the existence of Lugh, Morrigan, etc, there is as much reason to believe in them, Zeus, Thor, Pele, or Great Cthulu as there is to believe in the deities of the 'major religions'. So then you are left with: Does a deity exist? If so, which? All with no evidence to support any position, which leaves us with only one empirical result: We don't know.

And if you don't know, that's not belief. And if you don't believe (which, for the quadrillionth time, is NOT the same thing as saying 'I believe there's no God'), then you're an atheist. You want to prove it's wrong to be an atheist, prove the supernatural exists. If you cannot prove this, then you have no grounds to rail against those of us who take an 'undecided' position.

Hey! I care! I care whether or not you worship me!

 

Llama,

You make a few assumptions based on what you may or may not have heard a few atheists say. For you to state that, 'the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe', shows your assumptions and indeed your misunderstandings as well.

First, it isn't the "only" alternative, as JillSwift and others have pointed out to you.

Secondly, your phrase "thing to believe is" makes the assumption, in light of your reference to Atheism, that Atheists believe. Real Atheists don't believe. We have knowledge and thought (and of course a lot of other things too), but no belief. Oh, an Atheist may from time to time use the word belief or believe, but generally that's in our reference of Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. OR it refers to an intention which has nothing to do with religion, gods, saviours and the like. As examples: "I believe I'll go make us some tea.", "I believe I can make it to the top of the next hill".

Lastly, your use of, "naturally created", makes me wince. It's acceptable to some I suppose, but I personally begin to wonder whenever I hear a believer use that phrase. It nearly implies that nature isn't a "natural occurence". Guess it's the "created" part that makes me skeptical about the intended use of the phrase.

So in my mind, the last half of your sentence should be more correctly phrased as follows:

....then one alternative thing to think is that nature occurs. or

....then one alternative viewpoint would be that the Universe and nature occur.

 

As a side note to the many Atheists posting to this thread; thank you for all these excellent responses. They are of great value to me as I continue to learn from each of you.

 

I'll repeat many things that have been posted, but I will express them differently.

There is no evidence of a begining of the universe. However, the big bang (which is what you are referring to) is simply a transformation of something that has always existed.

What is 'god' and where is the evidence for it?

True, the big bang was induced by nature as there is no evidence of supernature.

The evidence is obvious; just look around you. Everything you perceive is natural.

 

 

Excellant admission.

 

 

Immaterial does not exist by definition, therefore there is no choice.

 

 

You've obviously taken this braindead gait. You are a follower of ignorant followers of irrational beliefs.

 

 

The universe is physical. It is its own evidence, axiomatic.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief of the common definition of the god-thing.

 

So no, I don't have any faith in my lack of belief.

I KNOW I lack a belief. 

 

 

I wrote this in a response on another message board, but most of it fits here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a good question. Postulating the existence of a creator god does not get rid of the question, though, for wouldn't that god be something as well? It's still a good question, though.

One assumption implicit in the question is that nothingness is a more natural state than somethingness. We don't know this to be the case. Our best scientific knowledge does tell us that there was a transition event (the Big Bang) from an unknown, and possibly unknowable, state to our universe. Was that pre-Big Bang state nothingness? Well, it was probably as close to the idea of nothingness as we can get. So the question becomes "What caused the transition from the state of nothingness to our universe?"

It is true that science cannot answer that question now, and it may never be able to answer it. We can, however, come up with scenarios that provide and explanation, are compatible with known science and do not invoke the supernatural. Victor Stenger has done just that. Here is a short summary of his ideas, and here is a long, detailed explanation from a published journal. (I'll have to admit, the mathematics in the journal article are far beyond my comprehension.) The reason his article appears in a philosophy journal and not a a physics journal is that the scenario he presents is not testable by any known means, and is not meant to represent what actually happened. All he is doing is presenting a plausible, naturalistic explanation for how the universe came to exist. And if there is at least one plausible, naturalistic explanation, why invoke the supernatural?

I'll freely admit that I have a bias toward natural solutions over  the supernatural. But I don't think the bias is unfounded. Everything else that we have sought to explain has yielded a naturalistic explanation. Why should the beginning of the universe be any different?

where is the evidence for atheism? let's see here....

theism requires supernatural belief. atheism is the opposite. nature has been proven, mystical powers have not. that gives much more credibility to atheism.

i don't know why you can't grasp this simple concept the first time around but i will repeat what many people have told you: if there has never been any proof for the supernatural, atheism doesn't require evidence. you need to prove there is a god, otherwise there is not.

 This is one of the basic theistic attacks and has never made any sense to me.

 

Theism posits a god, power, an explanation..  whatever.

 

Atheism does not.  period.  Me, myself, as an atheist, do not use evolution, the big bang, physics, or any other proof to disprove the existence of a god.  I merely point out how erroneous the arguments for a god are.  When your logic fails you, what are you left with?

 

Theist: 'I don't know how the universe came about, so it must be the eternal sky-grandfather.'

A-theist: 'Why sky-grandad, why not sky-cousin, or sky-mom, or sky-dog?  Frankly, there's no reason to believe in any, and they aren't needed to explan anything we know about.  So, I will continue believing that none have.'

 Theist: 'But.. then how do you explain the universe?'

A-theist: 'I don't, but when I can, I'll give you a call.  Why not go burn some animals to your sky-pops.'

Theist: 'Sky-Nana is going to be upset with you.'

 

Mind you, this is ~exactly~ the same reason I don't believe in leprechauns, werewolves, astral teapots, or any other mythological claptrap.  I needn't be able to prove leprechauns don't exist, that's the default position.  You, however, need to prove that leprechauns do exist.

Hey hypocrite you called deludedgod a piss ant and you ignored the point, deludedgod is very much a part of the scientific community.

You have YET to demonstrate that you are even capable of doing simple arithmetic.

Who turned your computer on for you?

String theory is absolutely not the leading contender. It has made exactly zero currently-testable predictions. String theory started as a simple explanation for quantum mechanics, and has turned into a quagmire of unresolved problems. To top it off, there isn't even a single "string theory;" there are multiple string theories.

ST is merely the best-funded contender. It currently has no more ontological status than vacuum theory, or the relative state formulation, or any of the dozens of other contenders.

In any case, string theory is more about the universe as it is now, and not about the universe as it was initially formed, during the first few attoseconds of the universe. That's like trying to use the theory of evolution through natural selection to discuss the formation of the first self-replicating molecule.

As you are trying to use science as a foundation for a logical proposition, I suggest you learn at least a little bit about the philosophy of the scientific method, and the specifics of the hypothesis you wish to use in your arguments.

Finally, simply by having at hand several hypothesis for the initial formation of the universe is sufficient to destroy any "belief." We can now make the assumption that the universe was formed in a naturalistic fashion.

Otherwise, you have to invent something that has never been observed, has never caused an event that has been observed, nor has in any other fashion been seen to operate within the universe. So, you can use one of a plethora of naturalistic hypothesis, or you can create a supernatural being to explain what is otherwise perfectly explicable.

Your choice.

Hahahaha.

You were talking about beliefs, Alpaca. I can "believe" something, or admit I don't know and not believe anything. I'm not limited to having to believe something. I lack a belief in god. That makes me an atheist. Here's a hint for the dim witted camelids reading: There's a subtle but important difference between having no belief in god, and believing there is no god.

If you want to force me into choosing between material and immaterial, lama glama, fine: Material origin. Why? Because there's no such thing as immaterial. It's what the word means, after all.

Remember: The non-existent looks a lot like the immaterial.

 

*yawn*... because I don't need evidence for atheism.  My atheism is the lack of a belief in a creator.  Nothing else.  By asking for evidence of atheism you're actually asking for proof that god doesn't exist, there's no two bones about it.  Unfortunately for you this argument has come up a million times before.  You can't prove a negative.  The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish evidence for their claim.  If there is no evidence for the claim, in this case the existance of god, then it is safe to assume that the claim is untrue.

I can't see and haven't been shown any evidence for god's existance.  Thus I am an atheist.

Llama?  Are you still unwilling to site your "scientific" sources for your whole "The big bang is the beginning"?

I noticed you refer to it on this thread even though you never defended it on another thread.

Can you define what "immaterial" means? Not existing in a material sense sounds a lot like not existing at all. Also, how is it a leap of faith to not believe in immaterial things? I can't imagine what an immaterial thing could be. Maybe if you could demonstrate that "immaterial" does not mean "non-existent" then you could make some headway in convincing us atheists.

I know of course that "immaterial" is practically a code word for "imaginary" but I'm just throwing this out there as something you would need to do to make any headway in convincing the godless.

This reminds me of a Dilbert comic in which the boss promises everyone will receive more benefits, but they will be non-tangible benefits. The joke being that non-tangible (read: immaterial) is exactly the same as imaginary.

Has it ever accured to you that there is no evidence for neither a “what” or “who” brought forth creation. The best we can do is presume and neither one of us will be right (based on physical proof). God of the gaps vs Atheism of the gaps.. why is one better then the other? You presume God is a myth, based on a faith that he doesn't exist (atheism).

Just because we don't know everything about the universe is not, nor should be an excuse to incert a meaningless accidental causation.

Your idea that a accidental cause started it all is nothing more than human ego projecting itself on the world around it. It is a false attempt at self Godhood.

Actually it was in the news a elderly lady survived death what I mean is her body went through the early stages of rigormortis when she came back to life. Also a court in America ruled a house haunted. Little tidbits I thought you should know.

All I got from you is “this crap isn't real” with no evidence at all to back up what you said.. you just say it with out the evidence. And those 2 lines and the third below I basically cloned from you because those statement made by you where neutral statements they do nothing to forward or retreat your claim which is why I was so easily able to turn it back on you, enjoy.

So unless you have some emperical model to demonstrate your atheism, you are in the same boat as any other material lover fundy by any other label.

Weak! If that's the best he got and that's what you praise then I laugh at you. Bleeeat!

Hmm the immaterial doesn't exist.. so I guess your mind isn't real and what you wright being a product of your immaterial mind isn't real either. Photons which have no mass and volume isn't real and my eyes evolved to see isn't real either. Gravity has no mass and volume either I guess that's not real too and it's only my imagination that keeps me firm on my chair instead of floating off into space.

Well the Universe was created because it started as the BB. The question still remains was it a accidental start or one by design? By the way the Universe is what we observe and sometimes test not by what we hypothesis what it was before the BB.

What's convoluted about it? Either the Universe had material cause or nonmaterial (immaterial) it's two choices if this is convoluted to you then you need to go back to your coloring book. Most scientist say the Universe was created because it always wasn't here that's why we give it a age and it's something like 13.8 billion years old. Come to think of it ofcourse the Universe transitioned from one state to another it had to be that way it couldn't just pop into existance with no explanation. Atheist just think it transitioned from some unknown accident, Theist think it transitioned from God. If God created the Universe it came from him or it was a transition from his powers.

You presume the only evidence is physical, I don't hold that belief. As an atheist you can't presume any thing or else you take it by faith. Where is the evidence that the only evidence of accidental Universe is physical evidence, ask yourself.

Where do you get your probabilities from? There isn't a single shred of evidence the Universe came about from accident.. so I ask you again what is your probability for a material causation for your Universe?

That's an easy one.

Because one requires you invent something for which we have no prior evidence. One requires something to exist in the universe that goes against the observed nature of the universe. One makes the universe more complex than required. One requires you to believe in something with powers that have no basis in reality.

Theism requires the addition of something to the universe that just isn't there, simply to give you a warm fuzzy feeling that you know what's going on. Atheism (especially rational agnostic atheism) simply says, "The only thing we can know about the universe is that which we observe. As God or the effects of God have not been observed, we can know nothing about the existence or non-existence of God."

Theism insists we do know something about God.

And that is why atheism is better than theism.

Once again, no. Atheism does not require a belief that God does not exist. It only requires a lack of belief that He does. "I don't know if there is or isn't a God" is atheism.

Actually, there's no insertion going on at all, except by theists. You're the ones adding an observed element to the equation: divinity. All we're saying is 'we have ideas that seem to work, but we don't know for sure.'

So our statement that we don't know, but that (insert math here) seems to fit the observations is ego? Where is the ego in accepting that 1 + 1 does seem to come out to 2?

Sources, please. Also note that rigor doesn't set in for a number of hours after death, by which time there is massive amounts of brain damage as cells individually die (note: cessation of brain activity doesn't mean all your cells are dead. Clinical death occurs while individual cells are still burning what fuel they have) and/or burst from dehydration. So, once again, sources, please. Back up your assertion, or withdraw it.

Except that we're not the ones making a positive assertion. You are. So where is your evidence. Again: back up your assertion, or withdraw it.

I've already demonstrated it to you:

Point 1: There is no evidence for or against the existence of God.

Point 2: Where there is no evidence, hypotheses can be offered, but not tested.

Point 3: Where hypotheses cannot be tested, no theory can be developed.

Point 4: Where no theory can be developed, no conclusions can be drawn.

Point 5: Where no conclusions can be drawn, nothing can claim to be 'known'.

Point 6: If it cannot be claimed to be 'known', then it cannot be 'believed', as 'belief' is an assertion of 'knowledge'.

Point 7: If no belief can be asserted, then you are left with atheism.

A)your mind is actually very material. Your mind is the interaction of electrochemical processes in your brain over time, nothing more.

B)Photons have energy. Energy = Mass * (Speed of Light in a vacuum)^2. Ergo, Photons have mass, just a really, really little one. Also, energy is not immaterial.

C)Gravity is a property of space-time. Gravity is an effect of mass. Your statement that 'gravity has no mass' is like saying 'Dark has no color'. And gravity, as a measurable effect of mass, is most certainly not immaterial.

No, this state of the universe appears to have began with the Big Bang. Current theory does not seem to indicate any reason to believe there was not some state of existence beforehand.

 

That's like saying a song is a 'transition' from a musician's mind. It's not. It's a distinct and separate thing. However, here's what you don't seem to be getting:

Naturalist cause for Big Bang State = requires adding no unobserved factors to the observable data.

Theist cause for Big Bang State = requires adding an unobserved factor to the observable data.

No matter how much you try to say, bleat, or whine that God is a simpler answer, He's not. God is, by necessity, a more complex thing than anything He creates, simply because His complexity includes the complexity required to conceive of the complexity of the created thing. Thus, adding God at least doubles the complexity of your answer. Occam's Razor would have us discard any complexity that is not necessary to explain the data. Simple common sense would tell us not to go adding in complications we don't have evidence for.

Thus, until there is evidence for God's existence AND active role, the case for not adding God to the observable data is stronger than the case for adding God.

 

 

Why does it have to be an accident? Like what another singluarity crashed into ours?? I mean come on, the singularity was an unstable singluarity which is why it expanded it's energy outwards (Big Bang) so it is another natural explanation, an unstable singularity that let it's internal energy expand outwards.....or god did it....which is the more likely answer ummmm yeah the NATURAL explanation is more likely than god did it.

 

Ridicule is not an argument, can you do better then that?

 

I suppose you mean material when you say natural. There are lots of real immaterial things and forces in our Universe so right there your argument is false and incomplete.

Either believe in accidental or purposeful cause..of course, is there a third option? No. There is no evidence at all for accidental cause to the Universe so why should I believe it? Richardo Dawkins choses to believe in accidental despite the lack of evidence so it can suite his atheistic faith.

Confirmation of God, and what standard will we be using, yours, mine, society, science? I agree the idea of other false Gods is foolish. Don't bunch God with witches and sorcerors please they're not even in the same league. I have plenty of facts that pile up that lead me to God, such as the finely tuned universe and more. I am wearing my skeptical hat and I turned it to skepticism to atheism.

So what you're telling me is that lack of evidence is in itself evidence? So because there is a lack of evidence for accidental universe one should believe in purposeful universe? I hope you see the error of your judgment now. I would love to see your reasoning used in a court of law and need I remind you? That science has tougher demands of evidence then that! There is evidence of purposeful universe because it is finely tuned for life, I'm telling you that's not evidence for an accident.

No. no, no, no it's not as simple as that. Atheism makes a positive claim of accidental universe exclusively because it makes the negative claim of God and this fact can't be negotiated with. Let's say I can prove the supernatural exists that doesn't mean I proved God exist. Most Atheists think atheism makes only 1 claim and that claim is there is no God, but if followed to it's logical conclusion it also makes the case for the undesigned Universe. Where is the proof of our undesigned Universe?

 

I'l also point out that the universe in no way exhibits a quality of being designed for life.  To say so is brazenly ignorant.

 

That is, in the words of Kent Hovind, 'Willfully ignorant -- that means dumb on purpose'

 

The argument for the fine tuned universe is 'there is life in the universe'

 

In fact, the universe has way more un-lifable space than life-able.  The argument that life is so wasteful that it requires something the size of the universe to support what little amount of it we take up is ridiculous.  To the point of being simply argumentative with the sole purpose of being unlikable.