Well, he is pretty damned good.

I have to admit, I'm usually pretty interested in what Bob and DG have to say too, yeah.

1. You'll find many, if not most atheists, are open to the existense of some type of creator. I myself am open to the idea, but I do not BELIEVE in a god. There is a huge difference in belief in a god and knowing that a god exists. Personally, I don't find belief in a god illogical. No one can prove with 100 percent certainty rather or not a god type creator exists and scientists cannot prove any ultimate cause for the beginning of the universe. You are assuming all atheists prescribe to the same beliefs and this is not the case.

2. Why couldn't a creator create the universe using the Big Bang? Sure, the big bang could've been caused by an intelligent being, but who? I've just started reading some really good articles on space and time and it is a lot to digest. Science cannot detect the presence of design in nature.

3. Like I have said, I am open to the idea. Something had to exist before the beginning. I just find matter and energy existing before the big bang more probable than an intelligent designer.

4. If god didn't have a "beginning" then it stands to reason that god could survive the creation of the universe. I don't see the point of this part of your post.

5. A generic god is meaningless so why even bother bringing this up? Remember atheism is a lack of belief in god and very few atheists state unequivocally that there is NO god. Atheism is based on degrees justa as religions can be. Atheism has no dogmas attched to it.

6. What about negative numbers? Actually, isn't this like stating that the odds of evolution happening are like 1 to 100 ^100000? If we only look at a snap shot in time and space then the odds are slim, but with a universe billions of years old and with the number of possible planets ordering in the trillions it is not impossible. Remember science reasons with probability and not with emotion.

I don't see any of your cited evidence that the "infinite" movement is slowing down. The new emerging string theory may hold the clues to the creation of the universe. This is the beauty of science over religion in that it can change as new data becomes available to prove or disprove older ideas.

7. Touched on this somewhat in 6. How can science detect design? We are natural creatures and we live in a natural universe. Implying god did something is just taking the easy way out. The first scenario I find more plausible, but that is because we are making natural observations and not supernatural observations. Maybe the second scenario is right, but using scientific methods to measure attributes of god is meaningless. The short answer is (I know you don't want to hear it) I don't know, but neither do you. Science and religion are not equals and opposites. They are two very different animals entirely. No one knows what happened before the big bang. Scientists theorize what the beginning may have been like, but it takes the arrogance of religion to know without a shadow of a doubt that a sky daddy came into being on it's own with a need to create. Face it....... NO ONE knows for sure. I have no problems with "I don't know" from either side and I find it the best stance on the issue. Even if science comes up with an explanation it would be just a scientific theory because it cannot be tested conclusively.

9. My body is composed of matter, which cannot be destroyed. When I die my carbon may be recycled into new life so the thought of an afterlife makes sense to me. With that being said, heaven and hell are silly stories and nothing more. No one has ever died and come back to test the existence of an afterlife so it is still an unknown. Not sure I would call it illogical or not as the fear of death is pretty powerful. I myself, find no comfort in living in eternity when no one has ever come back to tell what it's really like. Personally I think I would get bored at some point and kill myself (if it's possible).

10. Now you show your true colors. You've gone from some vague sky faery to jesus. Just because I, like many/most atheists, accept the possibility of some generic creator does not mean that I agree that a personal god exists. At best, I could accept a deistic god, but not the myth of allah, ahura mazda or bible god.

Are you saying that it's possible mohammed rode into heaven on a winged horse? At what point does someone's religious claim just seem to ignorant to be true?

The more specific your arguments become the more evidence you have to provide to defend your position. Beliefs aren't necessarily illogical, but when that belief starts to get presented as fact then I have a problem with it. We hold beliefs often based on fear or superstition, which may be illogical, but it can be difficult to seperate the two. Logic is useful to prove facts as emotion is often counter intuitive to rational thinking.

 

Who died and made you God?

I guess that it is perfectly logical for me to believe in a magickal pixie that dies if I say I don't believe in her but resurrects if I clap my hands and can let me fly if I have a happy thought and guide me to a magickal place in the sky where I will never grow old.
Funny thing, we actual have evidence of the Big Bang, its called the Cosmic Background Radiation.
Also Funny, I’ve seen the Pixie of which I speak. You still cannot say the same for your magick sky-daddy.


Believing there might have been one? Sure. Believing there is one and you know anything at all about it? Retarded.
And once again, your problem is you are thinking of time as a linear progression from the past to the future.

Furthermore, Heat Death is by no means the 'end' of the Universe in the sense that it will cease to exist. What it does mean is that all life will cease to exist and the Universe will become a homogenous void with no energy at all. How that would look I have no idea, however it does not mean it will end in the traditional sense.

Why? Perhaps when the Universe Collapses it transitions however briefly into a state in which the change in entropy is negative. It thus builds up energy from an unusable to usable form until it has too much energy at too high of a density and explodes. For all we know this has always happened. I of course cannot prove that this happened, however it is possible.
Furthermore, If Theism is Logical, then what about the many Eastern Religions that propose a constant death-rebirth cycle like I have just described with no creative force behind it, simply a constant existence.
Again, your problem is that you are thinking of Time as a Global constant that pertains to all of existence, both inside and outside of this universe. Infinite Regression ceases to become a problem once you start imagining time as a local variable that ceases to have meaning before and after this Universe.

Um, wrong. While it does follow that anything created must have been created by something, it does not under any circumstances mean that something has to be intelligent. If a bunch of gasoline is in a mostly contained area and is struck by lightning it will explode (or burn, or something), no intelligence involved. I don't see why it is impossible that the Universe had a non-intelligent cause stemming from whatever Multi-Verse the Universe may be contained within. This MutliVerse is eternal, and the situation within it just happened to be right for the creation of the Universe. It may have been right in other places in the MultiVerse thus leading to other Universes, or our Universe could spider web into other Universes, or what have you. We don't know, We're Working on it. Check back in a couple of Decades.

Sounds fair. Of course you haven't proven that such a being exists or even proven that such a being is necessary.

It is illogical because there is a Non-Sequitur in premises two and three. Namely, there is no connection between the universe being created and it requiring an intelligence to be so created. It is entirely possible that the Universe is simply the result of a creative Process in a larger Multi-Verse that has a different set of physical laws, including a different sense of Time and Space.

You’re going from Stealing Underpants to Profit without step two young man.

Quit Capitalizing the entire word, its annoying and makes you look like a 13 year old who's trying to scream his way to victory. Furthermore, as I have just shown, there is no logical connection between the Universe having a beginning (something that itself is unproven in that the Universe could simply have transitioned from a different state to this one) and there needing to be an intelligence behind it.


Actually the current Evidence points towards the Universe's expansion speeding up. However if it were slowing down, that may actually lend more evidence to the idea of a set of collapses and expansions infinitely progressing, like a Sin wave. Because if its slowing down it will eventually stop, and then it might start to shrink.
Before you try to latch onto this, depending on what part of the Sin Wave we are currently on, it could still be speeding up only to later slow down and collapse again. Personally I think the Universe's Expansion acts like a Spring. We are currently closer to the source of the force than the Equilibrium Point, and thus are being pushed away. I have nothing to back this up, and it is illogical to assert it as fact or even believe it to be the case, however it is my hypothesis.

negative Infinity exists as a number, this claim is retarded to anyone who has passed Algebra I. You sir, have not passed Algebra I, you probably haven't even passed basic math. You Certainly haven't passed Logic 101. Go back to school and learn some things before you try to play in the big leagues.

Your entire argument in Scenario One amounts to the tautalogical statement "If things were different, then Things would be different." I've heard a lot of retarded Creationists state, with full confidence, that if the gravitational constant were one perent different then life could not exist. Of course we have not evidence of this whatsoever. Perhaps life as we know it could not exist, however that is meaningless unless you consider life as we know it to be the end desire, in which case you are already assuming there to be an intelligence behind the Universe and are thus Begging the Question.

You make a common mistake. Namely, the Universe is not 'Tailor Made' for life, Life evolved to fit it. Furthermore, if your 'powerful, sentient being' was spontaneously created then it doesn't solve the problem of what created it. It also necessarily means that this being must not be eternal, and must not be Omniscient, Omnipotent, or Omnipresent as it is impossible for anything to transition from a state of non-perfection to a state of perfection, just as it is impossible for anything to actually arive at Infinity, it may only approach Infinity.

My personal refutation of this argument goes as follows;
"Suppose you take 50000 coins of various values and drop them off the top of the Empire State Building. They land in a certain configuration. How probable is it that they would have landed in that single configuration? Astronomically small, impossibly small.

How does that change the fact that they did?"

Patently retarded claim. If I make a prediction and it is wrong, then that by definition proves that 'I Didn't Know'. Saying "I Don't Know" is the only 100% honest response one can give to any question for a prediction. That being said, we can predict things based on past experiences, however there is always some measure of uncertainty involved, even if it is so amazingly small as to be negligible.


Again, it is logical if you are already assuming a Prime Mover exists, which as I have shown does not logically follow from the evidence or even your own premises. If you assume a Prime Mover exists and created us with some intent for our future, then it is logical that he would try to communicate with or influence us in some way, even if it is just a black Monolith somewhere. The existence of a Prime Mover has not been proven however, Empirically or Logically.

You, Sir, are patently retarded. Good Day Sir.

{Dies Laughing or Salutes, one of the two, possibly both.}

The idea of an infinitely long (eternal) afterlife is abhorrent. It is horrifying.

Think about this really, really hard for a moment. You aren't talking about extended your life for some appreciable period. You aren't talking about living fow a few thousand years or even a few million years. You're suggesting that you would continue to be consciously aware of your surroundings FOREVER.

We can't even intuit numbers much beyond a few thousand, much less intelligibly comprehend what it would be like to be around for that long. And there would always still be an infinite amount of time stretched-out ahead of you! It would never, ever end! An entire googleplex of centuries later, and you'd be no closer to closing the chapter of your existence than when you were just a few seconds old.

 

Thank goodness that the notion of life beyond brain death is a flawed notion.

 

WOLF You little shit you are illogical because you contradict yourself and don’t understand definitions of complex things. And if you make me copy my answers to your copy pasted questions I will start using the caps lock.

 

Translation : wolf is full of shit and doesn’t understand evolution because evolution is the adapting to the surroundings not the other way around so there can not be a universe pre made for evolution. Nice way of self humiliating yourself about not understanding evolution.

 

Wait a second didn’t you assume a few sentences before that everything needs to have a evolution ready universe for itself so how the fuck did this  powerful being get this evolution ready universe to evolve ? Nice way of contradicting yourself boy.
 

Oh, please.

No one said that beliefs were irrational - just beliefs without evidence. Whip out that evidence for God and I'll believe all over it.

I remember when we had evidence of human rights, liberty and freedom (pre-Bush cabal).

The moral relativist claptrap you are trying to put on us (we can't say rape, murder, coercion, etc.  is wrong) has already been discussed and you choose not to see it (must be those Allah issued blinders). Those incidents you raise are wrong because they aren't beneficial to individuals or society.

That seems a lot more reasonable than the theist view of "X is wrong unless God says I can do it".

Straw-man.

Argument from ignorance.

Get a new game.

You are comparing two completely different things: a supernatural explanation (God) of a naturalistic event (the origins of the universe), versus the logical behaviours in an organized, cooperative society. These are quite obviously very different things. Conflating them won't strengthen your case for God.

For a rational reason for the restrictions against murder, rape, theft, and so on, all you have to do is look at the phrase "cooperative society." Should you desire the benefits of a cooperative society, you must abide by the rules that make cooperative society possible.

That is the most rational, least emotional guide to morality you have. Then, you can start layering on top of that the emotional morality, a result of empathy, love, and understanding.

Nobody said the universe "created itself." As far as potential models of the origins of the universe being testable or not testable: that remains to be seen. We currently have a few areas of ignorance in physics that need filled before we can tackle the origins of the universe (the uniting of gravity and quantum mechanics, for example). However, it is a bit premature to say that our models will always be too incomplete. As for predictions, almost all our physics-based models of the origins of the universe make predictions. These predictions may not be testable at this moment, but they are predictions, nontheless, and will be testable as our knowledge continues to grow.

This is a confusing sentence, but I'll answer it as I think you intend it.

The default assumption in science (and rationality) is that things don't exist until there is evidence they do exist. For instance, we can assume that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. Now, this is a bold statement, one which cannot ever be proven, as to "prove" it, you'd have to do an instantaneous inventory of all invisible creatures across the universe, throughout all time, and certify that none of them are pink unicorns, as invisible as they may be.

As you might imagine, this is a prohibitively difficult task.

However, I can assert with some certainty that there are no invisible pink unicorns.

Now, this leads us to the idea in rationalism of "burden of proof." This is merely the concept that the one making extraordinary positive claims has the responsibility of providing evidence supporting the extraordinary positive claims. Here, "extraordinary" is anything outside the accepted ontology (in our case, scientific knowledge). "Positive" means a claim that something exists, rather than a claim that something doesn't exist.

As you are the one making an extraordinary positive claim, the rationality of your position is predicated solely on your ability to provide logic or evidence supporting your claim.

On the other hand, the negative claim ("God does not exist" ) needs no supporting logic or evidence. This is because, if the claim is untrue, simple logic or evidence will show that God does exist.

See how that works? This is the way rationality works. You accept things for which there is evidence, and do not accept things for which no evidence exists. This isn't "belief" or "not-belief." It is acceptance.

So, no, a lack of belief in God is not irrational because "it is merely a belief." In fact, it is the exact opposite of belief: it is a lack of belief.

You're welcome! Better luck next time.

Wow, you're not going to be able to enact a philosophical beat-down on all the atheists with an obvious strawman non sequitur like that. 

 

I'm not going to argue against the idea that your belief in god is logical or not, as it has been done to death in this thread already.

It is my position that all faith is illogical. Careful however not to assume that a given "faith" based belief is not true. Lack of evidence is not enough to establish a belief as untrue. It is however enough to establish said belief as irrational, unjustifiable, or illogical. A logical argument requires a set of premises established by coherent evidence.

As far as the morality of God goes I have a test so simple I have a hard time figuring out how even a mental midget such as you has not already thought of it. Ask yourself how you would feel about events in the bible if a human were responsible. For example, how would you feel about the great deluge if it were brought about by a single man? Would you say that a person systamtically drowning the entire population of the earth (save for a boat load of life) is morally just? And please refrain from using the "mysterious ways" cop-out. That shit doesn't fly around here.

In general, observation of the structure and progression of events in a universe may give clues as whether it appears to be in a steady state, which would support the idea of an indefinitely old Universe, as was proposed by Sir Fred Hoyle for our Universe, whereas any process analogous to the expansion of our currently observable universe would imply a starting event. Hoyle suggested the idea of 'continuous creation', where matter was  formed spontaneously between galaxies at a rate which would keep the average density of the Universe constant. When no hint of this process was detected, and observations of very distant objects which were of earlier states of the Universe, due to the time their light would take to reach us, showed differences from the current state, all consistent with a finite origin.

The fact that the sky is dark is also a clue, since if the universe was both very large and infinitely old we would have expected that light from all the stars in the universe would have had time to reach us. This is not an perfect argument, since there could be something attenuating the distant light, but it is significant part of the evidence.

Now if we are thinking of a 'metaverse' which triggered the Big Bang which spun off our universe from some event occurring within that larger context, that is pretty much purely speculative at the moment, but based as always on extrapolation from our knowlege of physics gained within our own universe. One scenario has higher dimensional objects moving around in a manner analogous to the stars within one of 'our' galaxies, and occasionally colliding and thereby initiating a Big Bang singularity, which would expand within its own space-time. Quantum theory seems to prevent a true zero-size singularity, so there is no paradox there.

What is it with you and this insane "universe that created itself" phrase?? No-one thinks in those terms except confused medieval-minded theologians.

Of course any concept based on extrapolation from current theories and observations has more explanatory power than "GodDiIt", which has zero.

As to your point that a rational argument is not necesessarily true, due to being based on inadequate evidence, well sure. But in the long run, it is the only approach which by definition is likely to converge on the truth, insofar as we have any chance of getting close to such a thing in any particular case

A random guess does have a finite possibility of being exactly correct, but unless we can actually test it as we would for a scientifically derived hypothesis, we have no way of actually knowing that it is in fact correct.

The concept of germs, like that of atoms, was proposed by rational argument before they were actually directly observable.

You are the one making really dumb analogies and repeating insane nonsense about self-creating entities.

Do I believe in freedom as an ideal?

No, I do not. I believe there is no such thing as freedom. We are al restricted in the choices we can make, some of us more than others. Some people have very little freedom at all, in that their decisions and choices are restricted by being born into poverty, by being born with no legs (or losing limbs fighting for "freedom" ), and so on.

I do wish to have liberty, though. That is, within the limits of my life, I wish to be able to make choices for myself. Now, for me to accomplish that, I need one of two things: I either need to be one of the ruling class (not likely), or I need to make sure that as many people as possible also desire liberty, so that those of us not in the ruling class are able to excersize liberty as well.

For the rest: it's possible that torture is required to extract information to prevent an attack.

However, it is positively known that torture has led to an increase in recruitment in the Iraqi resistance. It's also led to an decrease in respect and trust abroad.

So again, the moral decision is also the logically-correct decision.

This is a value judgement. Do you believe the Iraqis are fighting for their freedom? Do you believe Americans are fighting for the Iraqis' freedom? If so, you have a situation in which two people are fighting each other for the freedom of one.

Who's wrong in this case?

In these situations, there is no "moral" answer. The moral answer would've been to not get into the war in the first place.

However, WWII was definitely a moral war.

*sigh*

First, I urge you to read up on research into the origins of the universe. Even Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time would be good, though there are better.

It isn't the predictions made from "a universe that always existed." This is a statement of existence, and not a scientific statement. You have to ask, "In what way has the universe always existed?" or, "In what way did the universe come into being?" These are questions that can be answered with specific explanations, and these specific explanations will have predictions.

That is why I referred to models in my post. These are mathematical models based on the current best knowledge in physics and astronomy. As an example, the theory of the big bang made some predictions about the character of cosmic background radiation. One prediction: we'd be able to see variations in cosmic background radiation that was, in essence, the sound of the big bang. This prediction turned out to be correct.

In the same way, specific models of the origins of the universe will necessitate certain features that we currently haven't observed, or have observed but not been able to take a good accounting (such as dark matter and dark energy).

But that's just it: God doesn't remain in the picture. God answers no questions without bringing about even greater questions. God answers no questions that aren't answered more satisfactorily by other answers. In logic, God is neither necessary nor sufficient. He's not necessary, because we have answers for these questions that don't require God; and he's not sufficient, because introducing him introduces even greater questions that have no answers.

I don't believe there will be a grand unification theory. I hope there will, but it's entirely possible the universe is not comprehensible, and not coherent, and not consistent.

From what we've observed, though, the universe is coherent and consistent. That means that everything fits together, like a puzzle. This is the basis of science, and that fact that science works indicates that these base assumptions are correct. So, I have observation and data and logic to back up my hope that we will some day unravel the last puzzles of the universe.

In that respect, I have quite a bit of empirical data that God does not.

There seems to be some misapprehension about the nature of scientific understanding here.

The proper stance about germ theory prior to the discovery of germs was, "I don't know." Now, because of the current state of affairs at the time, most people didn't accept germs as an explanation. But that's because "most people" then (as now) were ignorant of the scientific method, and the philosophic restrictions the scientific method places on knowledge.

For instance, Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms in the 1670s. However, it took almost 200 years until Louis Pasteur showed that microorganisms weren't spontaneously created in the air, and to definitively link them to infections and diseases.

During that 200 years, there was plenty of evidence linking germs to disease. There was simply no investigation into it. Why? Because the "common knowledge" was that germs (and life) were spontaneously created. Although this myth had no scientific evidence or research, this belief held back scientific research. By application of belief rather than science, the study of disease was held up almost 200 years. In spite of the evidence and data (including Leeuwenhoek's excellent data concerning microorganisms), myth kept knowledge at bay.

Don't confuse lack of knowledge with lack of evidence. In the history of science, once an idea is presented, it is generally very quickly put to the test.

A rational stance is one built on a given ontology. Rationality is limited by the completeness, cohesiveness, and consistency of the ontology. As it is, we know we have an incomplete scientific ontology. Therefore, it is entirely possible a rational position today will be irrational tomorrow, as our ontology expands.

Here's the difference:

Science is self-correcting. As the amount of data increases, our understanding of the data may change. This happened with physics at the beginning of the 20th century. It turned out that Newton's Laws were not universal after all. They weren't wrong, they were just not a complete description of the way gravity and inertia works within the universe.

Now, what I'm getting at is this:

We've had the concept of God for a long, long time. The God hypothesis has never answered any problems satisfactorily. There has been no evidence, or even logical necessity, for God. Therefore, it is irrational to assume God.

Basically, God presents more problems than he supposedly answers.

Yes, but the irrational position is never correct.

As I pointed out, germs were never questioned once they were discovered. Their existence was easy to prove: "Look through this microscope."

What took a while was the association of germs with infection and disease. The reason it took a while was because of the commonly-held myth of spontaneous generation of life. There was not much of a debate once Pasteur did his experiments. There was never a "teach to the controversy."

Science and evidence won out, and in short order, once myth had been tossed out.

1) you little ignoring shit Stop dogging my replies that show your errors in the most basic areas of life and peace address my response to your bullshit ,  warning this will be repeated until you address this  :

2) You sir are a complete retard why don’t you kill yourself  , maybe if you would poses some other ability then acting retarded you would comprehend that you can actually test the existence of bacteria and other micro organisms without seeing them simply take some row fruit and put it under a sealed container the fruit will be eaten by bacteria and this will be manifest in the macro world. Now take a similar fruit in a sealed jar and boil it in 100 C after this the fruit will not rot maybe it will lose consistency and melt do to evaporation of water from it however it will not rot.
Dude are you so retarded that you don’t understand this ? How can you presume people would suppose actually respect your other idiocies if you are so stupid that you don’t understand basic proofs in science.

No you are the retard that is not understanding biology or proofs and this simple proof of mine would suggest that the bacteria hypothesis haze some validity therefore is testable therefore falsifiable and therefore logical if the experiment is repeated multiple times.  , you are simply retarded and have no idea what you are talking about.
Here is the difference germ theory or previously germ hypothesis is falsifiable if something is not falsifiable its nonexistent irrational bullshit like your god concept.
 

It is irrational to believe something without evidence

It is the rational position when you don’t have evidence to admit that you don’t know.  These two statements don’t contradict each other.  When you don’t have evidence it’s rational to except that you don’t know and not believe something you just make up.

That’s true a person can believe something irrational and still be right, but their belief is still irrational.  Let’s use your example of germs to see why.  Imagine that during the time before we knew about germ every single person in the world picked one random belief without taking any evidence into account.  What are the chances that one of those people would just happen to pick germs?  Very low considering all the different things people can imagine.  It would probable be far more likely for them to pick something like dragons or unicorns which are more in keeping with the workings of the human mind. 

Now tell me why your belief in god is any different then guessing hoping to choose germs at random? Even if you refuse to consider a universe that was not created by god/gods, there would still be infinite possible god/gods to choose from.   Let me give you an example.  There are four being named Namic, Goric, Torma, and Skeel.  Namic created the universe, Goric governs the universe, Torma will destroy the universe, and Skeel is responsible for all life in the universe.  You’re argument works just as well for justifying the belief in these four gods as it does for justifying belief in your own. 
 

So what is your contention? That your belief in the irrational is justified because you have a one in a googolplex chance of being right? Why? What makes you think that your belief in God is about to be proven true like germ theory instead of like the virtually infinite number of irrational beliefs championed throughout history that turned out to be bull****?

Furthermore, it's kind of misleading to compare God theory with germ theory. You're not going to conduct an experiment to prove the existence of God. God, by definition, is supposed to be impossible while germ theory was simply an idea that didn't receive adequate backing yet.

 

In quantum mechanics, everything is changing, dynamic, while in general relativity, everything is smooth, perfect. Reconciling the two areas is a matter of understanding the difference in size and, I don't know, string theory? Meh.

It depends on the ontology from which your are judging "rational." In morality, there are various frameworks from which you can judge moral actions. For instance, if the politician can do more good by caving on "the right thing" (which is hard to judge, as you've given no specifics) and getting voted into office, then it is a moral judgement. If that "right thing" is important enough to the politician, then it is morally correct to stand up for it, and lose the election. It depends on her judgement on how she can do the most good for society.

As for WW2, if the soldier values the circumstances of his life, then he will fight to maintain those circumstances. This includes the possibility of death. However, the choice to not fight is to choose to lose the circumstances of your life, and change your quality of life, and the quality of life of those you love. So that choice to fight and potentially die is both logical and moral.

Have you studied physics in a formal setting? I mean, at all? Say, in college or something?

I'm no expert, but I'd wager I have a bit more knowledge on this subject. So, no, we're not evenly matched, as you've more than adequately demonstrated through your false dichotomies and lack of understanding that there are some things for which it's OK to admit ignorance.

And I'd go one further: I suspect Bobspence1 has significantly more knowledge than either of us.

So, let's get to the meat of the issue you present here:

If a naturalistic universe is indistinguishable from a God-created universe, and we have naturalistic models that potentially account for the origin of our current universe, the you have basically given a very complex explanation when a much, much simpler explanation will do. By Occam's Hammer (yes, I know it's supposed to be a razor, but in this case, a razor will not do justice), there is no reason to assume God. In fact, there are reasons to not assume God, in that then you have to account for the origins of God.

Not sidestepping. You seem to be twisting to try to avoid the central meaning: the assumption of God is illogical. By claiming a "sidestepping" is to avoid the heat of the argument.

Our only knowledge of reality is gained through observation. The scientific method is a formalized method of synthesizing observation into a logical physical framework for those observations. This is done by using further observation to bolster or disprove proposed hypotheses.

So, the fact that the belief in God is unscientific implies that the belief in God is a belief in something outside reality.

What do we call people who believe in things that are unreal? Delusional.

You suggest that you have read A Brief History of Time. It presents a model for the origin of the universe, and outlines some of the ramifications ("predictions" ) of that model. I considered that enough, but there are others:

There's the "evolutionary multiverse" proposed by Lee Smolin, which makes specific predictions about physical constants that line up perfectly with observed reality. There's the "bouncing universe" model that is  suggested by current research into quantum gravity, which, if true, makes specific, testable predictions about quantum mechanics.

Neither of these require God.

Did you understand A Brief History of Time?

I don't know why you are hung up on "the universe creating itself." You seem to have a specific idea of how the universe came into being without the slightest concept that there are proposed models that account for the beginning of the universe, and not one of them suggests a "universe creating itself." This has been pointed out by several people here.

It's a nonsensical statement. Of course, it makes sense, considering your nonsensical conclusion of God.

Again, you are showing your ignorance of physics.

The Copenhagen Interpretation concerns quantum events, not events on the scale of you typing or not typing a sentence. It's a simple interpretation of the seeming-randomness in quantum events, which says simply this: "Quantum events appear random because they are random." That's it, and that's all.

Of course, it's been altered slightly due to the mathematical study of chaos. Replace "random" with "chaotic," and you've got the right idea.

Now you're just twisting words.

My logic states simply: if you are ignorant of something, then you are ignorant of something. It's a simple axiom.

You asked why theism is irrational. I (and several others) have demonstrated that theism is irrational. You, on the other hand, have simply said, "Is not!" You have not presented a single case in which God is rational.

This is completely different than a belief in God, and you know it.

We have evidence of life in the universe (us). That's a pretty good indication that life can exist in the universe. Therefore, it is logical to assume there may very well be other life in the universe.

See how that works? You have evidence of something (that life exists in the universe), and you can draw rational conclusions (that there may be other life in the universe).

See also how I worded that? I made no claim of knowledge, other than obliquely referring to probabilities.

You've so far managed to avoid presenting a cogent argument against anything I've said. So far, you've presented strawmen and non sequiturs, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scientific method, logic, and physics.

However, that's all beside the point.

You asked why theism is irrational. We've presented a case. Your attack on the naturalistic origins of the universe has amounted to, "Well, sure, but God could've done it too, and you wouldn't know the difference!"

And that's entirely true. Hell, God could've created the universe just now, with me typing mid-sentence. But what does that proposition gain us? Nothing. It gives us neither knowledge, nor wisdom. In fact, if you go off on these flights of fancy, we could all just be a figment of God's imagination, and not real at all.

Do you see this problem? If you begin to assume God, then suddenly there's no such thing as reality. My proposition that we're just God's dream is just as valid as God creating our universe. This isn't knowledge. It's psuedo-intellectual masturbation. Sure, it might feel good, but the results are messy, and you should be slightly embarrassed to talk about it in polite society.

Finally, there's the issue of the added complexity of your God proposal, which I brought up in my first post, and which you still have to address.

We have one mystery: how did the universe come into being? The universe is a naturalistic thing. Everything we have observed about the universe has a naturalistic explanation. We have used a formalized method of observation and logic to glean a few facts about the universe. These facts are used to further our knowledge of the universe. There is no reason to assume that our naturalistic framework will not be able to account for the origins of our naturalistic universe.

Now, you start by making the assumption that our naturalistic knowledge will not be able to account for the origins of the universe. Then you state that there existed before the universe a being of near-infinite power, with the intelligence to create a universe driven by simple rules that will result in other intelligence. This God exists outside the universe which he created.

So, here's the problem. You are proposing another "universe" (for lack of a better word) that is more complex than our current universe, that was able to give rise to a being that is infinitely more complex than us, all to explain how our universe came into being and gave rise to us.

You see how you've substituted one mystery (the origins of a naturalistic universe) with another, far greater mystery (the origins of a supernatural God)?

This is irrational.

QED.

once said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." for those of you citing physics issues, read up on your history.  For OP, read up on the history of religion. I feel you are all wrong, actually. you are all utilizing your own perceptions of the same argument to "disarm" the other, which is both illogical and irrational, since neither can provide anything but theory to prove your statements. "science is but theory in practice" is another wonderful quote, though I doubt many of you know whom said it.

 

Don't get me wrong, as there are many, many solid scientific theories as to how the universe in which we live began. more than even religious theories, I would guess, but how many in this room were there. and how many scientists have actually seen a universe born unto existence with their own eyes? can OP provide evidence he has knowledge of god, talked to god, did you get a picture? what's he look like? does he still use the mach 3 to shave?

 

Point is, science has never proof positive provided evidence god does or does not exist, nor has religion ever proven that science is or is not an equally valid argument for "reality".

 

"logically and rationally" both sides of this argument have been very illogical and irrational, as neither can stick to the original topic of "how? belief in "subject A" is any more illogical or irrational than belief of "subject B", other than to provide circles of theory upon and against circles of theory.

 

I will repose the question now.

 

If there are no accidents, nor coincidences, (butterfly effect theory) is belief in a being we have no way of confirming or denying exists irrational or illogical?

 

That's a non sequitur of ginormous proportions.

Transpose that:

Science without the meme of a lucky rabbit's foot is lame, the meme of a lucky rabbit's foot without science is blind.

Or:

Science without horoscopes meme is lame, the horoscopes meme without science is blind.

 

Some of the more intelligent people will know that both horoscopes (astrology) and lucky rabbit's feet are patently stupid memes.

 

Where's the punch line?

You're a shitty comedian...

Thanks for throwing me a bone, but there's no meat on it...

Your feelings have nothing to do with the topic, so STFU about them, already.

Patently absurd.

I can speak very precisely, about the effects of gravity, and make 100% reliable predictions, without having ANY fucking clue about what it is, where it comes from, and what it's origins are.

It just IS.

Even a fucking retarded child can do that.

Yet you people can't. You just have to fucking mentally jerk off in every conceivable direction, and hope that 'even a blind squirrel gets a nut every once in a while' plays out in your favor.

Instead of just admitting , it IS what it IS, and I don't know much more than that.

No.

It's ignorant.

Falling down, is fucking scientific, you dufus...

I've never been to church, so, no I don't know which one of you fucking people said it...

There's not 1 that I know of.

They only ones I know are theories of the mechanics of what happened at 10^−40. . But I've never heard or read of anyone speculating much before that.

Religious theories is an oxymoron.  

What would 'being there' have to do with how I know monkeys can't fly out your butt?

Ummm....they can 'see' the wake left behind by the particles, on their journey. 

Kinda like footprints in the snow.

It doesn't have to.

It just follows the footprints, if there are any.

Theists just navel gaze, in between jerking off to their bibles. 

Science is reality being 'actualized', you dufus...

Incorrect.

It's over your pea sized intellect.

It's not a mystery why you don't even know it.

That's your euphemism for "I will publically demonstrate how far up my ass my head is".

Is the Pope Catholic?

Can a dog lick his balls?

Is it still possible for you to breath, even with your head that far up your own ass?