Where is the evidence for Atheism?
Offline *poke, poke.. oh look I still exist, I haven't been discommunicated by lord pissant “Deluded God” who injects new rules to the forums and declare himself “Thy petty e-peen Lord”, Bleeeat!
They Deluded God commands:
I bring to thee a hypothesis I fancy over all others. Believe in what I say if not you are lost! I will banish thee from these Forums if thy are a unbeliever.
Thanks Deludedgod I rather listen to the scientific community who favors other more plausible hypothesis.
To the point at hoof. Is there any evidence to material origin? I hear many times atheism is a lack of belief. This is true but not full truth because to not believe in god created universe then the only alternative thing to believe is in naturally created universe. Where is the evidence for naturally created universe?
We don't know what caused the BB so you can assume material or immaterial creation so it's a leap of faith you have to make because there isn't any physical evidence for either one. This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.
Bleeeat!
- Login to post comments
Offline Where is the evidence for Atheism?
It is YOU who has the burden of proof.
Where is the evidence that justifies theism?
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Quote:Llama wrote:
“I have no idea since there is no proof” is not a substitute for a fact. It's either a yes or no answer. The Universe was designed or it was a blind accident. If it was not designed then what was it? If it's not a blind accident then what was it?
There are many possible options, not just two. The ‘god-designed-it’ one is only ever seriously considered because it has a long tradition behind it, not because it is a reasonable hypothesis in its own right. It is the least likely option of all. It has no evidence to support it.
Other possible options are:
Virtual Universe: The universe is a virtual universe created by highly intelligent aliens or our future, evolved selves doing ‘ancestor recreations’. This is not as way-out as it sounds.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/
Multiverses: Physicist Max Tegmark says parallel universes almost certainly exist which wipes out the “fine-tune” argument of ID. If our universe is one of a vast number, it is to be expected that some should be life-fostering. So much for the ‘anthropic principle’!
Big Bang: the universe itself inflated into existence out of nothingness - a vacuum fluctuation, i.e. The Big Bang. A vacuum fluctuation has zero mean energy therefore no original concentration of energy is needed.
............................................................
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov
- Login to post comments
Offline This is why I also think Atheism is a faith because it's not supported by evidence.
Since then BB theory is part of atheism philosophy ? As long I remember it is lack of belief in God.
BTW disprove that my God of flying penises is not bigger then yours. Fail.
Ecrasez l'infame!
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:I wrote this in a response on another message board, but most of it fits here.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
For me, the existence of a God would be entertained by that profound and supremely religious (as well as philosophical) question posed by Leibnitz:
"Why is there anything at all rather than nothing?"
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?
Science has this arrogance about it that believes if it can't ever answer a question then the question is a non question. Most of humanity assumes that God is unaswerable because he is understood to be a being of infinite wisdom, intelligence, power and complexity and by definition unknowable because our brains are finite. Atheist agree that God by definition (even if they don't believe in God) is those things infinite in all ways. Scientists being intimately aware of their profession already know that God can never be understood no matter how much time, energy and money is spent. This is why most scientists are atheists because God they feel threatens their profession. Scientists just don't like being told “sorry you can never know”. Scientists have a secret hope on the back of their brains and that hope is “I don't know now but in the future I may know” Scientists already know that in the future they will never know God. God is the one force in the Universe (well not in it literally) that can never be known no matter how much science advances and scientists hate this idea. They hate the idea because it goes against their hope and that hope is what motivates them to strive to know more.
Somethingness being a natural state rather then nothingess is indeed an ASSUMPTON that's the keyword here. You can't make scientific claims on assumptions.
“A answer that doesn't have to provoke the supernatural” ok this is full of assumptions.
One you must assume the Universe only came about by blind accident
Two you must assume the supernatural doesn't exist (or else atheism isn't true)
Three you must have faith in “A” eternal causation (but not in the only know eternal causation, God)
Forth this eternal causation you have faith in must be blind and dead.
Fifth you believe in the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause but you think it's dead and blind (you replace God with some dead stupid force)
ok enough I can go on.. this is really special pleading that makes me sick. Those 5 assumptions don't have 1 shred of evidence at all!
Yes the Universe was a transition event but that tells us nothing of where it came from. Theists don't believe the Universe come out of nothing so they believe in a transitional Universe. Just clearing up any possible misunderstandings. Again another hypothesis is presented as a placeholder for fact this is what I call “Atheism of the Gaps”. I still prefer the membrane hypothesis because string theory is the leading contender in fact the only contender for a unifying theory on the Universe.
“And if there is at least one plausible, naturalistic explanation, why invoke the supernatural?”
Again more assumptions. Natural is a word hijacked by you atheists. Natural is ASSUMED to mean to be with out God, with out 1 piece of evidence to make it true. To me Natural is a product of God no more then Car is a product of Man. It's an assumption but I have real world observations to back it up, much better then hypothesis, science fiction or imaginations.
Say one day man does discover what caused the Universe and let's say the Membrane Hypothesis was infact proven to be fact. I use the Membrane for no particular reason other then it's my favorite one and the more likely one only because String Theory predicts it and String Theory is the leading contender to a unifying theory.
If this day comes man will have a new question “what caused the membranes?” Do you think science will be satisfied with membranes? no. It's like a child asking “why, why, why, why, why, etc?” Science will not assume the membranes are eternal and uncaused they will seek to find out what created the membranes. It's the infinite regress problem. If the membranes are physical (they have mass, volume and occupy a place in space and exist in time) then it begs the question how did the membranes get there. Physical entities must always have a cause. You can say that's an assumption I made, but is it? If you look what defines a physical entity it's defined by the very thing in which it's an effect to a cause. If you have a physical thing with out a cause then forget science and believe in magic or a nonsensical unexplainable Universe, where any thing can just happen with no cause. If that's your answer then you and I can use that answer for anything.
- Login to post comments
Offline IMO , God (or WTF?), is a no-brainer, non debatable concept. Atheism is about saying no to religion, dogma, superstition, idol worship, separatism, patriotism.
Science studies god mathematically, philosophy interprets linguistically, religion spins into dogma ....
Call my atheism a religion of faith if you wish .... for in this sense I AM indeed a deeply religiously devoted Atheist, and my prophets are many and wise, as even my story Jesus was an atheist buddha. The christ IS us all, for those who are "awake" ..... Atheism saves, Religion poisons.
- Login to post comments
Offline Science has this arrogance ... God is unaswerable because he is understood ... a being of infinite wisdom, intelligence, power and complexity and by definition unknowable because our brains are finite.
This is what all my antipathy against religious zealots boils down to.
Science (not a sentient entity) is somehow arrogant. How can that be? I will readily accept that some scientists may be arrogant, just as some priests may be arrogant, as indeed anyone may be arrogant.
Anyone may also be humble, and that includes priests and scientists.
Then follows this: God is unanswerable...
Fine, I agree, hence I am an agnostic.
and then: he is understood...
I beg your pardon? I beg your pardon?!?
One moment he is unanswerable, and the next moment, he is, with mindbogling arrogance, suddenly understood to be something? Oh, I see, so you understand him to be something? And what, pray tell, is it that makes you, with your finite mind, capable of understanding God all of a sudden?
THAT is why I am an atheist. Because all the understandings of God that various selfrightious, despicably arrogant, religious wankers throw around carelessly, are at best paradoxal, and more usually, utterly silly.
Paradoxal because, as the above quote states, he is understood to be un-understandable (being infinite, so incomprehensible to a finite mind).
I am not the one who claims to understand how or why the universe is. YOU are! And with incredible audacity you then go on to claim that I am the arrogant one?!?
Confound you sir!
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Offline Where's the evidence for not believing in Leprechauns?
The same place you'll find the evidence for atheism.
Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)
- Login to post comments
Offline Isn't the evidence for atheism - theism?
Slowly building a blog at ~
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:I wrote this in a response on another message board, but most of it fits here.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
For me, the existence of a God would be entertained by that profound and supremely religious (as well as philosophical) question posed by Leibnitz:
"Why is there anything at all rather than nothing?"
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?
Science has this arrogance about it that believes if it can't ever answer a question then the question is a non question. Most of humanity assumes that God is unaswerable because he is understood to be a being of infinite wisdom, intelligence, power and complexity and by definition unknowable because our brains are finite. Atheist agree that God by definition (even if they don't believe in God) is those things infinite in all ways. Scientists being intimately aware of their profession already know that God can never be understood no matter how much time, energy and money is spent. This is why most scientists are atheists because God they feel threatens their profession. Scientists just don't like being told “sorry you can never know”. Scientists have a secret hope on the back of their brains and that hope is “I don't know now but in the future I may know” Scientists already know that in the future they will never know God. God is the one force in the Universe (well not in it literally) that can never be known no matter how much science advances and scientists hate this idea. They hate the idea because it goes against their hope and that hope is what motivates them to strive to know more.
Somethingness being a natural state rather then nothingess is indeed an ASSUMPTON that's the keyword here. You can't make scientific claims on assumptions.
“A answer that doesn't have to provoke the supernatural” ok this is full of assumptions.
One you must assume the Universe only came about by blind accident
Two you must assume the supernatural doesn't exist (or else atheism isn't true)
Three you must have faith in “A” eternal causation (but not in the only know eternal causation, God)
Forth this eternal causation you have faith in must be blind and dead.
Fifth you believe in the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause but you think it's dead and blind (you replace God with some dead stupid force)
ok enough I can go on.. this is really special pleading that makes me sick. Those 5 assumptions don't have 1 shred of evidence at all!
Yes the Universe was a transition event but that tells us nothing of where it came from. Theists don't believe the Universe come out of nothing so they believe in a transitional Universe. Just clearing up any possible misunderstandings. Again another hypothesis is presented as a placeholder for fact this is what I call “Atheism of the Gaps”. I still prefer the membrane hypothesis because string theory is the leading contender in fact the only contender for a unifying theory on the Universe.
“And if there is at least one plausible, naturalistic explanation, why invoke the supernatural?”
Again more assumptions. Natural is a word hijacked by you atheists. Natural is ASSUMED to mean to be with out God, with out 1 piece of evidence to make it true. To me Natural is a product of God no more then Car is a product of Man. It's an assumption but I have real world observations to back it up, much better then hypothesis, science fiction or imaginations.
Say one day man does discover what caused the Universe and let's say the Membrane Hypothesis was infact proven to be fact. I use the Membrane for no particular reason other then it's my favorite one and the more likely one only because String Theory predicts it and String Theory is the leading contender to a unifying theory.
If this day comes man will have a new question “what caused the membranes?” Do you think science will be satisfied with membranes? no. It's like a child asking “why, why, why, why, why, etc?” Science will not assume the membranes are eternal and uncaused they will seek to find out what created the membranes. It's the infinite regress problem. If the membranes are physical (they have mass, volume and occupy a place in space and exist in time) then it begs the question how did the membranes get there. Physical entities must always have a cause. You can say that's an assumption I made, but is it? If you look what defines a physical entity it's defined by the very thing in which it's an effect to a cause. If you have a physical thing with out a cause then forget science and believe in magic or a nonsensical unexplainable Universe, where any thing can just happen with no cause. If that's your answer then you and I can use that answer for anything.
Bleeeat!
- Login to post comments
Offline Science has this arrogance about it that believes if it can't ever answer a question then the question is a non question.
Not at all. If science can't answer the question, then the next question that must be asked is: why not?
If the answer is 'we don't know how, but we hope to in the future', then great, the question is one we'll continue trying to answer scientifically.
If the answer is 'because the question is one that falls outside the bounds of science', then the question is not a scientific question. That doesn't make it a non-question, it's a question where the answer must be sought by other means if it is to be sought at all.
The problem comes when you try to find those other means. What other means are there that can provide an answer that can be trusted? Do you simply trust an answer because someone tells you to? Or do you seek independent verification? That's the problem with religion: there's no independent verification. There's only 'trust me'... and I haven't seen any reason why I should. If all you can really provide is 'trust me, cuz I said so', then I don't think I will. Would you? Let's try:
There's no reason to believe in God. Trust me.
Are you an atheist now, Llama? No? Then why would the reverse work?
Most of humanity assumes that God is unaswerable because he is understood to be a being of infinite wisdom, intelligence, power and complexity and by definition unknowable because our brains are finite.
Unanswerable? What's the question?
Atheist agree that God by definition (even if they don't believe in God) is those things infinite in all ways.
I don't. I'll agree that your definition fits some of the available god-concepts, but not all of them. Odin, for example. Kindly prove to me that Odin didn't create the universe.
Scientists being intimately aware of their profession already know that God can never be understood no matter how much time, energy and money is spent. This is why most scientists are atheists because God they feel threatens their profession.
I'd say science threatens God a lot more than God threatens science these days. Do you really think that Intel is going to stop their research on miniaturization in favor of praying that God will make their microprocessors smaller?
Scientists just don't like being told “sorry you can never know”. Scientists have a secret hope on the back of their brains and that hope is “I don't know now but in the future I may know” Scientists already know that in the future they will never know God.
A)Neither does anyone else. When you ask a question, do you like being told 'you're not going to get the answer'?
B)It's not exactly a secret hope. It's kinda one of the aims of scientific inquiry. Saying it's a secret hope is kinda like saying 'pssst. 1+1=2. don't tell!'
C)Most of them do, yes, which is why science doesn't generally attempt to inquire into religious concepts.
God is the one force in the Universe (well not in it literally) that can never be known no matter how much science advances and scientists hate this idea. They hate the idea because it goes against their hope and that hope is what motivates them to strive to know more.
Scientific inquiry is concerned with truth, and things that can be demonstrated. I'd be willing to guess that most scientists don't concern themselves with god-concepts in their research. Here's a hint: How many government grants were given out in the last 10 years for projects looking to prove/disprove the existence of God through science? Compared to all research grants?
Many scientists are in some manner religious. You'll notice, even they don't generally go around including God in their avenue of scientific inquiry. God isn't an avenue science can investigate. All science can say is 'Not a clue. Find another way to answer that one.'
So find one. Find one that can be trusted the way the scientific method can be trusted. And kindly include its track record of accuracy, so we can compare it in order to determine that it can be relied upon.
“A answer that doesn't have to provoke the supernatural” ok this is full of assumptions.
Oooookay... let's see yours!
One you must assume the Universe only came about by blind accident
No, you simply have to not assume if came about through supernatural means. That doesn't mean you have to assume it didn't. It could just as easily mean you're not making any assumption at all, but rather keeping an open mind until there's some evidence. If you've got some that goes beyond 'because someone said so', let's see it.
Two you must assume the supernatural doesn't exist (or else atheism isn't true)
You know, we've gone over this. We've gone over this multiple times. Atheism in and of itself makes no assertion, it simply refuses to accept that the theistic assertion has any weight. Does the supernatural exist? There's no compelling reason to believe it does. That doesn't mean there's hard evidence to show it doesn't, only that there isn't hard evidence to show that it does.
Three you must have faith in “A” eternal causation (but not in the only know eternal causation, God)
Why? Why can't you say 'I don't know what it is, and I'm not going to jump to any conclusions'? After all, Llama, it's thursday, and you still haven't told me what color socks you believe I'm wearing. So? What color? You must have an opinion formed, because you refuse to accept 'I don't know'. So answer... or are you a hypocrite?
Forth this eternal causation you have faith in must be blind and dead.
Well, I don't know what qualities it 'must' have, because I don't have the slightest clue what 'it' is. Nor do I care.
Fifth you believe in the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause but you think it's dead and blind (you replace God with some dead stupid force)
Or... we don't believe in any of it. We wait to see what reliable evidence might be found before we jump to conclusions. Do you believe everything you're told?
ok enough I can go on.. this is really special pleading that makes me sick. Those 5 assumptions don't have 1 shred of evidence at all!
Nor are they assumptions that need to be made in order to say 'I don't accept the claim for divine creation without independent evidence.'
Yes the Universe was a transition event but that tells us nothing of where it came from. Theists don't believe the Universe come out of nothing so they believe in a transitional Universe.
Really? Because the second verse of Genesis (Genesis 1:2) begins:
And the earth was without form, and void;
Without form and void. Nothing. In fact, I'd be highly curious to see what theists who actually believe in divine creation do think on this issue. I don't mean 'do you believe in divine creation?', I mean 'if you believe in divine creation, do you believe God created the universe out of nothing?' Because you see, here's the thing:
If God didn't create the universe out of nothing, then God didn't create the universe. It was already there. And if God did create the universe, then he has to have created it at a point when it didn't exist. Not 'when it wasn't in its current state', but when it did not exist. If God's just causing the transitition, then he's not creating anything, he's just altering it.
So: Did God create the universe, Llama? Or did he just poke at it? And if he didn't create it, then it would seem you're left with a 'blind' causation for whatever form the universe took prior to this one.
Just clearing up any possible misunderstandings. Again another hypothesis is presented as a placeholder for fact this is what I call “Atheism of the Gaps”. I still prefer the membrane hypothesis because string theory is the leading contender in fact the only contender for a unifying theory on the Universe.
Except that atheism can't fill gaps. Atheism makes no claims. SOCKS, Llama! What color are my socks?!?
“And if there is at least one plausible, naturalistic explanation, why invoke the supernatural?”
Again more assumptions. Natural is a word hijacked by you atheists. Natural is ASSUMED to mean to be with out God, with out 1 piece of evidence to make it true. To me Natural is a product of God no more then Car is a product of Man. It's an assumption but I have real world observations to back it up, much better then hypothesis, science fiction or imaginations.
Natural is a product of nature. Is God a product of nature? If he caused it, then no, he's not. If he's not natural, then the things he does aren't natural. They're 'supernatural'.
You claim you have real world observations to back up 'Natural is a product of God'? Let's hear them. And demonstrate why you feel they back this up.
In addition, it's not an assumption. It's Occam's Razor: If you have an explanation, don't add more complexity that isn't needed. If anything, it's a warning against assumption: Include no elements that aren't required by what's observed.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline Gee Wizz religious ones ..... sure "god is why", but now what, religion ? What ain't god? ...So what would one worship and how ??? Anyone one with half a brain is in awe .... The blind in need of religion dogma can't see the miracle in everything, of every moment ....
You religious folks say "god" and I say , "of course", then you get fucking weird, praying and shit .... What a sad joke and dangerous blind bunch the religious have always been ....
I hate lies, innocent or not , because I love freedom and have No Master, No Idol , as I am 100% god .... "Condemned to be Free" (condemned to be god). Who would deny their self, and so then me ??? Why do you keep me/you nailed to the cross ???
- Login to post comments
Offline
Science has this arrogance about it that believes if it can't ever answer a question then the question is a non question.
Most of humanity assumes that God is unaswerable
because he is understood to be a being of infinite wisdom,
intelligence, power and complexity and by definition unknowable because our brains are finite.
Atheist agree that God by definition (even if they don't believe in God) is those things infinite in all ways.
- Login to post comments
Offline Why do you keep me/you nailed to the cross ???
1)It makes it harder to leave you in a pocket when I go to do laundry?
2)It fits perfectly on the dart board!
3)It matches my 'Imperial Executions' decor? I've got you on the wall between the headsman's axe and block, and the life-sized standee of Darth Vader choking a rebel fleet officer to death.
4)My car needs a really cool hood ornament, and you just don't get cooler than having a dead god strapped to the grill. It's even better than a deer!
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline Perfect , I give this a 10 , from the laughing buddha, BMcD ,
"My car needs a really cool hood ornament, and you just don't get cooler than having a dead god strapped to the grill."
I need a love song now .... 
- Login to post comments
Offline
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.
You're assuming nature means to be with out God and this has not been proven. What you call mystical powers are powers you don't understand and a obvious characature of the powers of God. Absence of evidence is not evidence, evidence is evidence. Imagine our court system using your lack of evidence hypothesis to trial criminals...
Absence of evidence is evidence is not scientific it's not even legal. Science has stricter demands of evidence then our Courts yet you want me to accept your weak argument, I can't do that, I think too much, sorry. You say there hasn't been proof for the supernatural eh, says who.. you? Are you a leading authority on supernatural happenings or just an atheist with his agenda? I thought so. It's up for debate wether or not the evidence we captured of supernatural phenomenom is legitmate or not so you can't go claiming it's not for sure.
No. Not at all, in fact. Faith requires belief. Ignorance is not belief. Ignorance is the admission of lacking knowledge. Belief is an assertion of knowledge. To take your own example, if "I don't know" is the correct answer, then it is, by necessity, a third option. To say it's not is to introduce an arbitrary, and artificial limit that quite obviously doesn't exist in reality. After all, I don't believe there is a god. I don't believe there isn't: I don't know. And until I do know, I'm not going to claim to know. And that is still Atheism. Whether there is or is not a God, I still don't know, so claiming I do, even if what I claim turns out to be correct, is still untrue, and I refuse to do it. Guessing correctly doesn't mean you know anything, and claiming it does would be a lie.
I don't know is not a third option, what you're doing here is playing with words. If I have a light switch and I tell you the light will either turn on or remain off and you say you have a third option a third outcome and that outcome is “I don't know”, I will have to first refrain from getting upset at the idiocy of that comment and second I will say I can guarantee you, your “I don't know” outcome will fail 100% of the time. The light can only turn on or remain off not perform a “I don't know”.
The Universe can only have two possible sources of creation, a dead and blind one or a living and intelligent one not a “I don't know” source. You say I'm introducing a artificial limit to a question that can only have 2 outcomes and you have failed to provide the third outcome or any number of outcomes. I have shown you “I don't know” is not a outcome. I flip a coin, I ask you heads or tails and you tell me you chose “I don't know”.. need I go on. It's utterly stupid. The I don't know option has ZERO percent chance of happening for Llamas sake it's not even a third outcome, LOL!
Basically what you're saying is that Atheism doesn't need evidence to be true, “I don't know” is good enough. If you're claiming Atheism is your faith and you don't know if it's true that I accept because that is honest. Atheism needs to do better then “I don't know” or else it's a faith.
Because "I don't know" is still Atheism. You want evidence that it's real? I don't know. Can you prove I do know? If not, then you're left with evidence (my statement) that I don't know. So: I don't know. Atheism.
“I don't know” is Agnosticism. If you claim to be an Atheist, what you really are is a Atheist with out balls. Fence sitting will not help you.
Ok: You claim DG ignores the scientific community's position. In fact, he's a part of the scientific community, and is in accordance with their majority position. Can you do better in your assertion otherwise?
I never said he ignores the scientific community's position, I said he favors an unpopular hypothesis of the origins of the Universe. Unpopular doesn't make him wrong or right but it certainly doesn't carry validity either. I chose to believe in the Membranes and not in Vacuum Inflation, so?
Why shouldn't it be? There's no evidence supporting the existence of a deity. There are rational explanations that do not require the existence of a deity. The existence of the simpler (naturalist) explanations means that the case for not needing a deity is stronger than the case for needing one. So why should we believe there is one? And if we can't be convinced to believe, then we are left, once more, with Atheism.
So you want to replace the God hypothesis with a Atheistic hypothesis and not on grounds on evidence but because you fancy Atheism over Theism. Lol, listen you can believe what you want but don't you say Atheism is true. Because nature can run on automatic it seems doesn't say much about it's source. Man can create systems which run with out intelligent intervention for long periods of time what makes you think God can't do the same. This is one more reason why you can't look at nature and deduce no God because you see no puppeteer pulling the strings. Enough with this, absence of evidence (you say there is no evidence for God, I don't believe this) is not evidence. Evidence is evidence you can't substitute evidence with the lack of evidence courts don't do this neither does science. As an Atheist you can't say I don't need evidence for my Atheism or else you need to start calling it a faith.
No, it doesn't. Atheism makes no positive claim whatsoever. Atheism claims only: "I do not make any positive claim for the existence of God(s)." That. Is. It. Nothing more.Origins of the universe? We have ideas. We don't claim to know. In fact, Science doesn't claim to know anything, only to have amassed enough observation in accordance with current theories to be reasonably sure. But at the same time, if tomorrow it could be demonstrated that 1+1=3, then science would be forced to set aside everything predicated on 1+1=2 and attempt to come up with new explanations that fit the observed data, including the anomalous instances.
So in other words Atheism doesn't need evidence to be true? Ok how about this I'm a theist and I don't believe in a blind dead causation. You can't disprove a negative so there for I conclude using your logic that since there is no evidence for a blind dead causation that's my evidence for Theism being true. This is essentially what you're saying for your Atheism I just had to switch places with you.
Your second statement was a neutral statement but I will comment any ways. Ideas is no substitute for evidence, sorry. I'll keep harping this if you Atheist keep talking this nonsense. If Atheists can come up with ideas to prove Atheism, why can't Theists do the same? Watch me demonstrate. It has been observed in nature that nature itself is finely tuned for instance if the inflation of the Universe was 1 billionth of a billionth too fast or slow the Universe will either not exist or not support life. This is a fact made by science. With that I have an idea. My idea based of scientific fact is that the Universe appears to be a conspiracy by a powerful creator to support intelligent life. I can't observe your multiverse so I can't count it as evidence but I can observe our Universe and I can count it as evidence. I hope you seem my point now.
Bleeeat!
- Login to post comments
Offline "Blind dead causation" = straw-man = fail.
- Login to post comments
Offline Llama, please explain to me how you worship your idol. Please offer a prayer or something special of your personal wisdom. In religious "language", why are you not god, or are you?
I AM GOD, 100% of me (as You), regardless of what knowledge we have, will have, imagine or discover in the future. I am what I am, the force .... just as you.
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't know is not a third option, what you're doing here is playing with words. If I have a light switch and I tell you the light will either turn on or remain off and you say you have a third option a third outcome and that outcome is “I don't know”, I will have to first refrain from getting upset at the idiocy of that comment and second I will say I can guarantee you, your “I don't know” outcome will fail 100% of the time. The light can only turn on or remain off not perform a “I don't know”.
The Universe can only have two possible sources of creation, a dead and blind one or a living and intelligent one not a “I don't know” source. You say I'm introducing a artificial limit to a question that can only have 2 outcomes and you have failed to provide the third outcome or any number of outcomes. I have shown you “I don't know” is not a outcome. I flip a coin, I ask you heads or tails and you tell me you chose “I don't know”.. need I go on. It's utterly stupid. The I don't know option has ZERO percent chance of happening for Llamas sake it's not even a third outcome, LOL!
Ok. You seem to be missing an important step here. "I don't know" isn't claimed to be the factual state of whether or not X occured. "I don't know" is the state of our knowledge/belief. We don't know. We might form theories, but we don't know, and if we don't know, then asserting belief is dishonest.
Basically what you're saying is that Atheism doesn't need evidence to be true, “I don't know” is good enough. If you're claiming Atheism is your faith and you don't know if it's true that I accept because that is honest. Atheism needs to do better then “I don't know” or else it's a faith.
A faith in what? In not knowing? Remember, I'm not saying 'there is no God', I'm saying 'I don't know, and since I don't know, I can't believe in God'. Atheism isn't an assertion of truth; it's a statement of 'I don't believe'.
“I don't know” is Agnosticism. If you claim to be an Atheist, what you really are is a Atheist with out balls. Fence sitting will not help you.
Actually, I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know, and so I don't believe. I also don't believe there is no God. Why? Because I don't know. Atheism is simply the lack of belief, not the assertion of disbelief. Agnosticism is the admission of ignorance. Not mutually exclusive. As is clearly explained in other parts of the site, you can be an agnostic athiest, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist. None of those positions is inherently self-contradicting, even if some of us might feel one or more are flawed. For example, I feel that agnostic theism is flawed, because belief is an assertion of knowledge.
So you want to replace the God hypothesis with a Atheistic hypothesis and not on grounds on evidence but because you fancy Atheism over Theism. Lol, listen you can believe what you want but don't you say Atheism is true. Because nature can run on automatic it seems doesn't say much about it's source. Man can create systems which run with out intelligent intervention for long periods of time what makes you think God can't do the same. This is one more reason why you can't look at nature and deduce no God because you see no puppeteer pulling the strings. Enough with this, absence of evidence (you say there is no evidence for God, I don't believe this) is not evidence. Evidence is evidence you can't substitute evidence with the lack of evidence courts don't do this neither does science. As an Atheist you can't say I don't need evidence for my Atheism or else you need to start calling it a faith.
No, I don't want to replace anything. You're the one adding an element that hasn't been proven to exist to the data. All I'm saying is 'don't add anything in that you can't prove exists'. Do natural processes exist? Yes. Can we demonstrate they exist? Yes. Can the same be said for God? No. So why add God?
Again, I have to ask, what do you mean by 'say Atheism is true'? Atheism is 'I don't believe in God'. I don't believe in God. That would seem to indicate that atheism is true in my case. Atheism is not true in your case. Does God exist? I don't know. I make no claim that he does, I make no claim that he doesn't. I'm simply saying: Until you can prove God exists, don't add God to the equation.
So in other words Atheism doesn't need evidence to be true? Ok how about this I'm a theist and I don't believe in a blind dead causation. You can't disprove a negative so there for I conclude using your logic that since there is no evidence for a blind dead causation that's my evidence for Theism being true. This is essentially what you're saying for your Atheism I just had to switch places with you.
Atheism isn't a claim. It's an absence of one. I'm not claiming 'the universe is definitely caused by natural processes'. I'm claiming 'we have evidence of natural processes, so we can include those. We have no evidence for God, so have no reason to add one. If there were evidence for God, we would include one.' You are adding an element to the data that is otherwise not present. It is not shown by any evidence that this element even exists. I'm not adding this 'blind dead causation', I'm saying that as things stand, the evidence exists for natural processes to exist. They are already part of the data. There's no evidence that supports adding 'God' to the data. If you can come up with some, then great, let's see it.
Your second statement was a neutral statement but I will comment any ways. Ideas is no substitute for evidence, sorry.
And that is exactly our position. What evidence do you have that God exists?
I'll keep harping this if you Atheist keep talking this nonsense. If Atheists can come up with ideas to prove Atheism, why can't Theists do the same?
Except I'm not trying to 'prove' atheism. Atheism does not make any claim. Gnostic atheism makes a claim: "God does not exist". I am not a gnostic atheist. Atheism itself only says 'I don't believe in God'. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in anything that can't be proven to me. I also don't believe God doesn't exist. That can't be proven, either.
Watch me demonstrate. It has been observed in nature that nature itself is finely tuned for instance if the inflation of the Universe was 1 billionth of a billionth too fast or slow the Universe will either not exist or not support life. This is a fact made by science. With that I have an idea. My idea based of scientific fact is that the Universe appears to be a conspiracy by a powerful creator to support intelligent life. I can't observe your multiverse so I can't count it as evidence but I can observe our Universe and I can count it as evidence. I hope you seem my point now.
Welcome to the Anthropic Principle. The Universe must have been designed because it's just perfect for us to exist. Except it's putting the cart before the horse.
The universe is not perfectly suited to us. We are a result of the universe. We only see a universe that perfectly fits the criteria needed for us to exist because if it didn't, we wouldn't.
Now, which is the simpler answer? That some inconceivably wise and powerful being made everything just so for us, despite most of the volume of the universe being completely inhospitable to our survival? Or that we exist as we do because we're a result of the universe around us? Occam's Razor cuts far, far better than Beaver's Cleaver, sir.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't know is not a third option, what you're doing here is playing with words. If I have a light switch and I tell you the light will either turn on or remain off and you say you have a third option a third outcome and that outcome is “I don't know”, I will have to first refrain from getting upset at the idiocy of that comment and second I will say I can guarantee you, your “I don't know” outcome will fail 100% of the time. The light can only turn on or remain off not perform a “I don't know”.
Damn! My strobe light is a logical impossibility!
So, what's the minimum photons/nanosec for a light to be considered "on?" What if I had a light the produced exactly one photon/nanosecond, but it pointed away from you. Could you tell if my light was on or off?
You are bound by your preconceptions, Grasshopper. When you can snatch this koan from my hand, it will be time for you to leave. (Hah! I said, "snatch." )
The Universe can only have two possible sources of creation, a dead and blind one or a living and intelligent one not a “I don't know” source. You say I'm introducing a artificial limit to a question that can only have 2 outcomes and you have failed to provide the third outcome or any number of outcomes. I have shown you “I don't know” is not a outcome. I flip a coin, I ask you heads or tails and you tell me you chose “I don't know”.. need I go on. It's utterly stupid. The I don't know option has ZERO percent chance of happening for Llamas sake it's not even a third outcome, LOL!
Your preconceptions shine through with your word choices, Grasshopper. "Creation." This usually implies an intended result, from an intentional cause.
What if the "dead and blind" creation was similar to the process of evolution through natural selection? What if universes are "born" from other universes, where the laws of physics determine their ability to birth new universes? Natural selection would favor those that are capable of birthing new universes.
There is your "third option," and I'm not even trying.
Basically what you're saying is that Atheism doesn't need evidence to be true, “I don't know” is good enough. If you're claiming Atheism is your faith and you don't know if it's true that I accept because that is honest. Atheism needs to do better then “I don't know” or else it's a faith.
Atheism isn't a faith. It's a lack of faith.
But basically what we're saying is, "I don't know" is the only honest answer. Anything else is self-delusion. "I don't know" is never good enough, though. We like to say, "I don't know, but I am going to try to find out." That's a much better answer.
Your claim is, "I have no objective evidence, but I feel it's true, so it must be true." That is faith, my wool-producing friend.
So you want to replace the God hypothesis with a Atheistic hypothesis and not on grounds on evidence but because you fancy Atheism over Theism. Lol, listen you can believe what you want but don't you say Atheism is true. Because nature can run on automatic it seems doesn't say much about it's source. Man can create systems which run with out intelligent intervention for long periods of time what makes you think God can't do the same. This is one more reason why you can't look at nature and deduce no God because you see no puppeteer pulling the strings. Enough with this, absence of evidence (you say there is no evidence for God, I don't believe this) is not evidence. Evidence is evidence you can't substitute evidence with the lack of evidence courts don't do this neither does science. As an Atheist you can't say I don't need evidence for my Atheism or else you need to start calling it a faith.
This is logical mush. I like mush, especially with brown sugar or maple syrup.
Lack of evidence in spite of devoted effort looking for evidence is, in fact, evidence for the lack of existence of something. It might not be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. If God truly existed in any effective way (that is, not some wishy-washy pantheistic or panentheistic way), you'd expect to see his mark on everything in the universe. Otherwise, he is indistinguishable from nature, in which case, he effectively doesn't exist as anything more than a thought.
If someone assures you there is a full-grown elephant in a room, and you walk into the room to discover no elephant, and you explored the house and grounds of this person and continued to not find the elephant, wouldn't you take that as evidence that that specific elephant does not in fact exist? If you continued to hang out with this person, and the elephant continued to not manifest itself, wouldn't you continue to believe the elephant doesn't exist? And if your friend continued to insist he owned an elephant, and in fact it was "just in the next room," no matter which room you are currently in, wouldn't you begin to doubt him? Just a little?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
here is the evidence we are atheists.
You've listed some material things. Yes, including my mind. Mind has a material origin, does it not? If not, what is immaterial about it?
The big bang happened, that's highly probable. What happened before that, we don't know. To assume (because it's an assumption) that nothing existed before that, and that the universe needed "creating" is an argument from ignorance.
Oh, well then. Help me out with the immaterial part of the universe: where is it again? I'm just wondering if you have any immaterial you'd like to show me.
Problem 1: your God is arbitrary. How many versions of God do you think you could find if you surveyed all the different types of Christians (most especially the ones you personally don't think are "real" Christians)? Probably a bunch, right? I mean, some people don't even take the bible literally! Those wacky ... non-literalists. Anyway, your understanding of a personal God is but one version that you may only be able to agree upon with yourself. Why do you figure it's possible that that "God" created the universe? Why not a different God?
I'm not sure what you mean by "accidental", but everything is physical. There is no non-physical, because if something is non-physical, it doesn't exist.
100%, based on the fact that there is no immaterial.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Llama says, "There are lots of real immaterial things and forces in our Universe so right there your argument is false and incomplete." ~~~
Atheism Books.
Please list in detail what you think is a "real immaterial thing".
Do not list forces such as gravity as it is a word describing mutual attraction between mass which is a material thing.
Why accept either. Say after me, I don't know. There is not enough information to indicate what happened prior to this Universe, you have said this yourself. That being the case just how can you conclude how our Universe originated? You are guessing!
I don't care what Ritchie Ricardo or Richard Dawkins believes.
It's fairly clear you will use your standard of seeing your god confirmed in the Universe with no proof and we will require Yahweh or your version of God on a lab table so to speak.
This means you are an atheist when it comes to Ba'al, Thor, Zeus,....... You have one more god than I do.
You are wearing your assuming hat not your skeptic hat, it must have been dark in the room when you put it on and you were confused. Turn on a light and take another look. Things are what they are, forces and actions occur because of physical laws. A magic wand or designer not required. There are many design errors in your finely tuned Universe a good engineer would not have made.
If there is no evidence there is no reason to make a claim. I have no evidence my neighbor is a drug dealer so that must mean he is a pedophile according to your reasoning.
Your generalizations are inaccurate and no less wrong then if I claim all theists are terrorists because Muslims attacked the WTC on 9/11.
You are trying to redefine the word atheist to mean something it does not. Atheism is no belief in a god, no more.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Ok all of that is total rhetoric. Hate and love whatever you want for whatever reasons none of that will make it true or false.
Nice talk but you have failed to provide us the third option between, blind accidental universe or designed universe. Unless you know what you're talking about and provide with us an alternative to the two absolutes you're blowing off hot air. “I don't know” is not a third option it's an admittance of ignorance. It's like saying either the light will turn on or stay off when I flip this switch you say “you forgot the third option, the I don't know option”... need I say more?
So let me ask you a question.. As an atheist you don't believe in the blind accidental universe?
To me naturally created means created by blind accidental forces. You can wince all you want, in fact I myself object to using the word naturally created as it's understood here. It's never been established that the natural can only come about by blind forces but I recede the word natural to you atheists much to my disdain. YUCK!
No you make the presumption with out siting the evidence that nature is a phenomena that only comes out by blind accidental forces. I don't know what you're getting at but the Universe and nature are one of the same. If you're applying both are separate from each other then you have a different personal interpretation of what nature is. I mean look the Universe emcomposes nature.
So let me ask you a question.. As an atheist you don't believe in the blind accidental universe?
Bleeeat!
You don't see that in making it about belief it, by nature, gives more than two options?
Look, I know your goal here, so let's make it simple:
I'll say that, given the evidence in hand, the universe is a function of "blind" forces. "Accidental" doesn't actually fit - but that's a nuance, so I'll let you have it.
Then you'll ask if I "believe" that the universe "just happened" "accidental" "Material cause"... however you care to phrase it. I'll answer that, given the evidence in hand, that yes, that's what I suspect.
Then you'll ask "Where's your evidence"?
Given how what we know about the origins of the universe is sketchy at best and there are a great deal of conflicting hypotheses, I'll have to say I really don't have much, if any.
And you'll crow your "victory" and call atheism a religion, because I seem to believe in something without evidence.
That you're ignoring that all I've said - at most - was "it seems likely" and I really just haven't a clue about the origins of the universe will not have any effect on your thinking about the argument.
Satisfactory?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I got yo' back, Jill:
Hey, Llama? Take a look.
Your evidence sits above.
No, I don't 'believe' the universe came into being on it's own. I know it did, courtesy of the hard work of NASA and machinery like the Wilkenson's probe.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
to answer your title question, Llama, I'll ask you a question in the same vein. Where is the evidence for boulders? Doesn't that sound rather simple to you? how can there not be evidence for a state of being or a physical object? sheesh...
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
As an atheist I don't believe in the god concept.
As a skeptic I don't see evidence for the designed Universe.
Science has clearly shown that this current Universe resulted from the Big Bang. That's as far as it's gone so far. More will come be patient. The ancients created stories to explain what they didn't understand. Observations and research have shown they were wrong.
You keep asking for that which is not known yet and inserting the ancient answer of ignorance to fill in the unknown. I personally don't know what began the Big Bang or what was before. You don't either but insert a god did it. There is no belief or faith on my part at all while your position seethes with it.
The real position is we don't know yet, but we will or our descedents will. Magic and superstition will not be required.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
My dear Llama, what do want from me god ? To deny myself ? Why do you deny yourself ? Is the Christ not in you too ? Ever read the long hidden dead sea scroll books ?
Didn't the story Jesus say he and you and everything are god. Didn't bible Paul and his kind pervert that simple non superstitious story Jesus message? Didn't story Jesus say this is the kingdom of god / heaven NOW ?
Everyone is 100% god, and if your god definition says otherwise, your god definition is wrong. In religious language "blind" .... the Devil of wrong thinking as, idol worship, separatism, fear of life, greed, dogmatic patriotism, self inflicted hell.
Being "saved" is much easier theses days, it's called atheism ..... Reject the dogma god of abe. When story Jesus said the laws will always be true, wasn't he meaning the laws of nature, as today we call physics ?
I AM atheist , I AM god as YOU, just as story Jesus, a buddha, reads to me .... as all is ONE. It is a terrible shame and curse what dogmatic religion has done to humanity.
Please help passionate Llama, to destroy this religious dogma curse. Re visit jesus, with your own wisdom common sense mind. The "good word" was simple, NO Superstition, No Master. Paulines and Christianity etc, are perversions of the simple story Jesus message.
Science is the way to study the AWE, gawed, the force, and the nature of all things including the mystery of consciousness .....
Story Jesus did 40 days alone confronting his "devil", and story Buddha nearly starved doing the same. Without endangering ourselves I suggest we all do the same.
Good luck ....
Atheism Books.
Yes. You need to say why that is not an option. Next thursday, which pair of socks will I put on, Llama? I'll make it easier: will they be white or black? If 'I don't know' is not an acceptable alternative, then surely, you must have some belief about whether I will put on a pair of white socks, or a pair of black socks.
As an atheist? How about 'as me'? As me, regardless of my atheism, I don't claim to know. I claim to suspect, but I don't know, and if I don't know, I can't believe, because belief is an assertion of knowledge.
To me 'naturally' means 'through natural processes'. Anything "supernatural", by definition, is not merely "natural", and thus anything it does is also not "natural".
Until we know everything about the universe, all science claims is that things appear to match our models, or that those models are flawed. Nothing more. How blind are natural processes? Well, they fit our models and appear to be blind, to the point of it being reasonable to proceed from a point of comfortable assurance that they are blind, but that doesn't mean evidence to the contrary can't show up tomorrow... only that the observations we have so far would seem to indicate that it is at best exceedingly unlikely.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Hey, Llama...
Can I play the piano?
Well...?
Either I can or I can't, right?
So which is it?
Answer: You don't know. Without more information, you never will. A familiar dilemma, eh? Sort of like trying to explain the origin of the universe.
"I don't know" is the only honest reply in such circumstances.
Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)
I don't know what definition of the Universe you're using. The most commonly and understood definition of the Universe is every thing we can observe with our senses is part of our Universe. The Universe is 13.8 billion years old so to say it didn't have a start is to say it's ageless when clearly it's not. The Universe transitioned from something you just think it's blind and accidental with out the evidence.
I don't have to answer what God is because that's not the topic of this thread. The topic if I need to remind you is where is the evidence for atheism in other words where is the evidence for blind accidental Universe?
Take quotes of context more please! Nature is a word hijacked by you Atheists. Nature in itself is not evidence for accidental or designed origin, it's merely a product of either force. Like I said before I concede the word “nature” to you materialists for the sake of convenience. You said BB was created by a force of nature and there is no evidence for supernatural creation, where is the evidence for natural origins versus supernatural origins. Oh I bet you think you present but I have to correct you with the truth and erase you assumptions.
Of course every thing I percieve is natural that's not the question at hoof. Again you assume with out any evidence at all that what we see (universe) came from some accident. Show me that accident please. Hypothesis, ideas, science fiction are no substatute for facts.
“Excellent admission” Quote out of context more please! “We don't know” is a nuetral statement it doesn't advance your faith in Atheism. If the best Atheism has is “We don't know” or wait for science to figure it out (atheism of the gaps) then it's a FAITH because neither one of those comments is evidence for Atheism.
Immaterial by definition is something that is not matter. Something has to have volume and mass to be defined as matter. You are injecting a new definition by assuming immaterial can't exist. Your mind is immaterial, gravity is immaterial as well I suppose you think neither one is real either?
You've obviously taken this braindead gait. You are a follower of ignorant followers of irrational beliefs. (this is your comment and it's pure rhetoric, I can easily flip this one on you)
The Universe being physical says nothing about it's source of origins. You say the Universe is it's own evidence? You mean like the Bible is it's own evidence or maybe you mean like God is his own evidence? I hope you see the flaw in your argument. The Universe is not purely physical obvious immaterial forces like gravity and perhaps dark matter, dark energy exist so again you made another mitake.
Again Atheism makes a positive claim by virtue of it's negative claim to God. If you remove God then you must have blind accidental forces as answer for universe creation. This blind accidental cause must be proven to be scientific fact to in order for Atheism to be a scientific fact. If not then it's a faith.
Bleeeat!
We have evidence for a 'blind' and 'accidental' universe. You can stamp your little feet and assert otherwise until the shearer comes along to get your coat, and your assertions still won't be true.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
fuck man, accidental? how is it accidental? What the fuck do you mean by accidental? Like it was a mistake? Like a collision with the singularity? an unstable singularity that released it's stored energy, remember again how the singularity was extremely high temperature (lots of energy) and released that energy, so far this is a natural explanation without an accident per se. Oh and the universe doens't give a fuck about your thoughts on it, it simply is, you may not like it, fuck you hate it by the looks of it, but it is the way it is. There is no god that looks over you and gives a fuck about you or your thoughts or actions.
Okay.
Okay.
No.
I am. I don't have a god belief therefore atheism exists.
See Wiki
See merriam-webster.com
a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
I don't agree with this statement and I don't care if you don't like that I don't.
What is this? I don't know what this gibberish means.
Where did you get the idea the explosion that started our Universe was an accident of the laws of physics?
Tell me what religion is observing and running experiments to test out their theory of theology? They accept beliefs on faith and run no experiments to prove their faith. Atheism is having no faith or not having a belief.
A mind is a brain, a brain has mass. If you mean thoughts, they are electrical impulses which use electrons, electrons have mass.
thoughts - brain waves - neural impulses- see here
See here for electrons - Electrons have an electric charge of −1.602 × 10−19 C, a mass of 9.11 × 10−31 kg based on charge/mass measurements equivalent to a rest mass of about 0.511 MeV/c².
See Wiki on gravity
gravity - a (1): the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2): a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation, gravitational force
Again, see definition of gravity - it is the force of attraction of MASS.
Dark matter - "s matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe."
No.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Blah blah blah, we disagree Llama. I wouldn't matter so much to me, but the evidence and history of your idol worship is worse than sad.
I have no problem with my "belief and faith", that your "belief and faith" is an enemy of humanity. No problem with to word "god" as well, as I am god, as you, because everything is god, and there is nothing separate to worship. I reject your god ... okay ?
Can we get along understanding that we disagree ??? Your overall God of Abe club record really sucks .... might you people ever fix it ???
- When I read the words of the Atheists, I don't interpret them as godless, but as God of Abe less .... thank god !
It is the god of abe worshipers that are godless .... As far as gods go, that Abe God is maybe the worse ever invented. Heck, I much prefer the greek and indian gods .....
Get free Llama, you are 100% god .... how could you not be ???
Atheism Books.
... I guess I was ridiculing you, but I feel strongly that you are deserved of ridicule.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Ok, see, how we've gotten to the heart of your difficulty, Llama. Faith is a belief in something. If Atheism says 'I don't know', then what is it Atheism is claiming to believe? Does God exist? I don't know. Atheism. And remember, if you're going to tell me 'I don't know' isn't a valid position to hold, what color socks am I wearing as I write this? Your continued failure to respond to these posts will be, should you respond to any later posts, taken as an admission of defeat.
Energy is not matter. Energy is very much material in nature.
And, once more: Your mind is material: It is the electrochemical reactions between the neurons in your brain.
Gravity is an effect of matter; a measure of the warping of space-time by mass. Also material.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
I'm not going to get into theology with you that is not the point of this thread. You're making the argument that lack of evidence for one thing is evidence for the other. That kind of weakness can't be used in a court of law and especially in science.
There you go.
Take quotes out of context more please!
No, how about I have no idea since there is no proof. Science has explained origins to the BB. No one has explained anything from before that event.
“I have no idea since there is no proof” is not a substitute for a fact. It's either a yes or no answer. The Universe was designed or it was a blind accident. If it was not designed then what was it? If it's not a blind accident then what was it?
Your standing on it.
Lame, you failed to prove or even show 1 piece of evidence for your blind accidental origins for the Universe. If you're answer is not a presupposition then I don't know what is.
Bleeeat!
That's what's known as a "false dichotomy". You've given two options where many could, in fact, be true. The Flying Spaghetti Monster could have sneezed, and thus, the universe would have been "accidentally created". You've forgotten many other hypotheses that you could present for the origins of the current universe.
I don't think any of us have evidence for a "blind accidental" universe. I can't know what that means, truthfully.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
No, actually my point was the idea the Universe was designed, created, constructed, or fabricated is an ancient belief based on no evidence. Science by experiment and observation has put forth a theory that suggests with high probability the Universe we currently observe began at the Big Bang. As more observations and testing brings new concepts into focus these positions will be redefined. Prior to the Big Bang there is nothing to observe or test. There is no way to know right now whether a universe existed prior to the Big Bang, if the FSM blew his nose and made us, or what.
What is your evidence of that which existed prior to the Big Bang? In detail please supply the identity of the designer you somehow detect and how you have made such detection. Please do not use theology in your answer as this is not the point of this thread as you pointed out.
Certainly, I'm just keeping pace with your omissions and distortion!
Pretend you are in court. They ask, what color socks did BMcd wear on Thursday July 31, 2008. Were they black or white. I don't know is not an acceptable answer.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Llama, as you really seem to like this "designer creator" concept, of which I assume you'd say was always there, do you think it did a perfect job?
I've pondered this designer concept, as we all have, and come away thinking , whatever. I have found no urge or reason to look for some way to worship such a "force or god thingy". What do you do, and suggest the rest of us do?
What is your mission, your message?
A few simple questions for you. And why have you been ignoring me? Can we agree that god is all things, and in no need of worship? Isn't religion a human snide or useless begging to the why, reason, design, of all things, we often call god?
Isn't Religion Blasphemy, isn't Atheism most Gawedly ?
Get "saved" be an Atheist !
Atheism Books.
Hey friend, you are still making sense good job. He seems to ignore what he doesn't want to answer and addresses only small points. Since you mention gawd in your post he'll blow you off as this "thread is not about theology".
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Thanks pauljohn ... for all your shared wisdom .... love ya man, your many posts ....
as written into eternal history !
Atheism Books.
Ok lets take an example:
You are playing a game of chance with somebody, if you lose you are to be killed, if you win you are to be left alive and your opponent is to be killed.
The rules are thos: There are 12 cards, numbered from 1 to 12. And you both draw 6 cards and then one by one show those cards, the one with bigger sum of cards at the end wins. Before anybody saw any cards you both gave equal chance of winning. You both show the first card, you got 12 and him got 1. Nobody still knows whoever will win, but your odds just increased dramatically. If anybody would bet now they would bet that you win, because it is more likely.
So same with gods. We still haven't saw all the cards, but it looks like gods existance is less likely.
Atheism does not require any faith, we just bet for something more likely and with every discovery made by man that possibility increases.