Bah! I almost don't even care anymore.

It's just semantics. Regardless of what word we use, the position is the same. I think God doesn't exist, but I could be wrong. Heck, we can be wrong about anything. People can call that whatever they want to call it.

  Well, at  the moment I actually consider myself to be a weak atheist but I've joined a local gym so I'm hoping that with some serious weight training and good nutrition I'll become a strong atheist.

I call Poe on this.  Look at that link...

Well, there's always the problem of claiming God exists but being unable to define him except by what he isn't...

I just think people should be clear about what they believe. It's annoying to ask atheists why they don't believe in God (since, you know, an atheist has always been defined that way), and they reply with something like "I'm under no obligation to explain my stance".

Let's face it - the reason atheism has become popular is because the word provides the greatest "shock value" for theists, not because atheists picked it out as the best word that describes them. As a result, we have a legion of people who are trying to redefine the word to go against common usage & correct etymological usage because they're aware that an affirmative "God doesn't exist" argument is a crock.

God is a logical concept - you just have to accept some difficult ideas to hold that concept. But once you do, it at least provides a coherent explanation, unlike the alternative explanations, which can't hold up against even basic rational scrutiny. Furthermore, not only do I fail to see what any of this has to do with the thread, but I don't believe we will ever find any evidence for God, so your point is moot as far as I'm concerned. I also think, however, that we will find even less evidence for atheism, which has even more logical complications - unless you go with the "I don't know" cop-out.

If you wish to believe that then it's your prerogative, as long as we're clear that atheism is riddled with even more fallacies & non-explanations, which I've basically proven in my other thread.

Well, atheists have already redefined their position to include every single person on the planet except the opposition, so redefining the word like you did above seems like the next logical step for atheists.

Yes, a universe is "everything that exists anywhere". Unfortunately, the bounds on which a God would operate (say, extra dimensions) are not considered a "where". Furthermore, I'm using the cosmological definition of universe, not some sort of common slang usage.

Then if you're an atheist perhaps you shouldn't have taken up an irrelevant position?

Your claim is that there is something you call god. I've dismissed your claim based on the incoherence of the word 'god' as I demonstrated and I've dismissed the claim of "god's" existence based on all other arguments as a result of intangible evidence.

You obviously do not understand what a universe is. The universe is the totality of matter and energy in existence - matter, energy, time, and space. All dimensions are derivatives of matter, energy, time, and space, thus either 'god' is bound by the universe or it doesnt exist. There is no 'where' "outside the universe"; there is no "outside the universe", just as there is no 'squarecircle' or 'married bachelor'.

There's no juxtaposition here. It seems your comment to my quote is non sequitur. At any rate, atheism is hardly irrelevant because you did, after all, make a post or 2, therefore it is relevant enough for you to post right?

Actually, I made no such claim in this thread.

Sigh. What if the universe is in a multiverse? Something initiated the expansion of our universe. It was not inside of our universe because an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed to get to the point in time when inflation started, hence it would not have happened. This puts a dampener on your little hypothesis here doesn't it?

Atheism is the claim that God does not exist. You just said that proving the nonexistence of God is irrelevant. Therefore, according to you, atheism is irrelevant. Not sure how much clearer I can make this. Simply claiming that I committed a non sequitur does not make it so.

But it's not logically impossible for the universe itself to be the first-cause/eternal? Seems like a double standard to me. There's an example of how far atheists' "logic" will get them - they can't even justify their own stance.

Omnipotence itself is limited by onthology. Trick questions such as "can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift?" violate the nature of being, and therefore we can ignore them. Peoples' ability to ask trick questions in no way invalidates the possibility of God's existence.

I don't see what your problem is with infinite attributes either - you're perfectly willing to accept the universe as being infinite are you not? What about black holes? Depending on which theory you subscribe to, their density is said to be infinite.

That's partially true. Like I said, I personally believe that no evidence of God can be found no matter how far back anyone looks. This debate has largely receded to the last area of human ignorance - ultimate origins. Humans once thought that God sat beyond the heavens, and yet he was not there. Clearly, a creator, if he exists, did not leave behind any evidence for us. I'm a deist, and I believe that God is like a watchmaker - he created the universe and let it run on its own. And so I can conclude that, since it will likely be the same deal of no evidence for him in the ultimate origins issue, we shouldn't stop investigating, etc.

I don't treat our Universe as either eternal or its own first cause.

It logically requires only a modest extrapolation of quantum uncertainty to have an occasional fluctuation large enough to trigger a Big Bang event.

From a purely logical, mathematical point of view, the first-cause would be of infinitesimal size, leading in a finite time to a macro scale event from which our Universe could emerge. The God scenario, which assumes that a God is required to initiate the 'first-cause' is the viewpoint with serious logical problems with either infinite divergent regression or self-creation, or eternal existence of something infinitely great in nature. The scientific assumption needs to posit nothing more than an energy state as close to nothing as allowed by Quantum Uncertainty.

FWIW, I don't hold that the Universe must be infinite. I don't see that our Big Bang universe can be infinite, since that would require that the Big Bang 'singularity' was already infinite, since it has been expanding at a finite rate for a finite time.

I don't take seriously that particular objection either, although I don't see the response that it "violates the nature of being" as a meaningful explanation - the proposition is simply logically undecidable, a bit like the category of propositions such as "this sentence is false" .

There are better ways to express the problems. Can God create an unbreakable object? Can God break any object? Neither proposition is logically impossible separately, but one entity cannot possess both abilities simultaneously.

As I said before, I am not "perfectly willing to accept the universe as being infinite". Any infinite extents or durations or other physical attributes , forces, etc are considered extremely problematic in Science.

The actual nature of the hypothetical singularity at the core of a Black Hole is indeed a subject of ongoing debate. An infinitely dense singularity is the implication of the basic mathematics of Black Holes, but that doesn't mean there is a real infinitely dense 'object' there. The progressive distortion of space-time as one approaches such a point suggests that the state of infinite density is something that is only approached, but never quite reached, since time also slows down toward zero as one approaches infinite gravitational intensity.

'God' is a totally unnecessary, non-solution to the problem of origins.

I can bench 325. What's the minimum for "strong"?

It's amazing how bizarre these interactions can get. Bob gives you the obvious: everything must have a first cause ... except God, thus breaking "everything" (a pure, simple contradiction) and you don't think that's justification for calling something logically impossible? It's a contradiction. That's how things become logically impossible.

Then, the icing is that you present what you assume to be Bob's position, and it's that the universe is eternal, and its own cause. Wonderful.

"Oh yeah? What's your explanation? Don't have one? Then I'm right!" isn't winning. It's an argument from silence.

Except that I was right. Bob believes that the quantum vacuum has existed for eternity. What you guys don't seem to be grasping here is that "uncaused cause" is not the same thing as "own first cause". Nobody here ever said that the universe or God was its own first cause. "Uncaused cause" is another way of saying "eternal," which either God or the universe can be, hence making your claims that God is an illogical concept worthless.

Yes, the comprehensive definition of atheist is someone who rejects God for a variety of reasons. There is no BS "lack of belief" definition in that article.

HERE

And HERE

But you do believe in a "creator". So then what is this "creator"?

But you haven't established why you believe the universe to be eternal. I definitely missed the part where Bob asserted that the quantum vacuum was eternal. Especially when he keeps saying that the universe isn't infinite.

Are you just baiting us? It doesn't seem like you're actually reading what any of us write. Or, indeed, what you write.

Atheos + ism (which was added later) =  godless belief.

So like I said, I made no such claim in this thread.

No. But I'd love to hear your explanation for how a newborn can "reject belief in god". This should be interesting.

It's the obvious conclusion. In an atheistic universe something has to be eternal, unless you're an advocate of the fireball randomly appeared in the sky for no reason & created the universe theory.I'm using "universe" in the sense of everything that exists, like the multiverse.  I'm actually surprised that you disagree to be honest - atheists have been faulted for creating these theories in order to remove the need for a God. There is plenty of scientific precedence for multiverse theories, but I don't want to get into this.

That's because multiple universes can be created through quantum fluctuations, therefore each universe would NOT be infinite.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the terms we are using here before jumping into the conversation?

Please - even atheists make all sorts of assumptions in their daily lives. There's no reason to act like your shit doesn't stink too. It would be ridiculous to live under this kind of system and you know it. Extraterrestrial life for example - we have no direct evidence that it exists, so therefore it's superstitious & illogical, correct?

Reason to believe in God? There are many, foremost of which is, I believe, the poor & illogical explanation of the origins of the universe for the alternatives.

That's ridiculous. This is exactly the type of attitude which atheists think gives them the right to claim "I'm under no obligation to explain my beliefs". Atheists are cognitivists on the issue of God, so they are compelled to defend their stance, especially when they get into these discussions. Here's why:

1) Burden of proof belongs to the affirmative statement, not just the positively worded statement...

What if a creationist states that the Theory of Evolution is unscientific nonsense? Is the burden of proof still on biologists no matter what?

2) Burden of proof is not static. You don't just get to claim someone has burden of proof and, when he gives you a good reason, ignore him and insist that the burden of proof is still on him. That's not how it works.

I'd be happy to refute any of your claims that belief in God is a "a leap out of logic, reason and sense." Of course that would depend on how you define God, which nobody can.

Actually, no. This is a rather simple concept, and since you seem kind of slow I'll spell it out very explicitly. The suffix shows that atheism is an affirmative belief, not a lack of belief. It is a rejection of Gods. There is no etymology which shows atheism as a lack of belief - it makes no sense for an "-ism" to be a lack of belief. Will you be able to grasp this concept without my help now? If you're still confused about what is apparently your own position, send me a private message.

"No god belief" is not the same as rejection of gods. It is a need for evidence.

I've rejected no possibility - indeed I can't reject a possibility unless I have enough evidence.

I think you still need some help with the concept. You're dealing in black and white (rather like a Christian) in an gray arey.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it that my original post was a parody of this article: http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

It claims that everyone is born atheist - a ridiculous claim.

I do accept that idea actually - but it's possible to extrapolate some things.

Because if the first cause starts from a definite point in time, it points to a God. Einstein added a cosmological constant to his theory of relativity because he adhered strongly to the idea that the universe is static, not beginning from a single point in time, because this would point to a God. He claimed "the priests haven't gotten to me yet". Yet the cosmological constant ended up being his biggest mistake.

The uni/multiverse is one of three things: eternal, accidental, or created. It does not matter that you're agnostic, the universe is still only one of those three things. The last option atheists refuse, and the second option is nonsensical. Note that the second option does not include quantum fluctuations or anything of the kind - it indicates the spontaneous creation of the universe from literal nothingness. This is an illogical/retarded idea. We're talking about ultimate origins here.

Not believing anything without 100% irrefutable proof. Does the continent of Australia exist? For all you know it's all a giant conspiracy and planes that claim to fly there actually take you somewhere else! Going by atheist logic, belief in the continent of Australia is illogical & superstitious.

Right, you've got no proof for those things at all. I can also say God is possible - whoop dee doo. Extra-terrestrial beings? What, am I supposed to believe that they exist just because there are hundreds of comics and movies on the subject?

I believe in a God because a created universe makes more sense and far fewer assumptions than the alternatives.

Uhm, no, you haven't. Simply repeating it does not count as demonstrating it.

How is this even relevant anyway? I can give you 3-4 basic assumptions. Just because I don't know everything about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Do you have to know every single detail about the theory to believe in it? No?

I'm not looking to give you a reason - I don't care whether you believe in God. Your bias would prevent you from evaluating my reasons objectively anyway, so it's hardly a good use of my time.

According to pretty much every single dictionary/encyclopedia, yes it is. Whatever you want to call it, it is still not a "lack of belief". A newborn baby has no need for evidence. I seriously think you guys should try out agnosticism, which actually IS a need for evidence.

Ah. As I've said, I disagree with that article.

That doesn't follow at all. You've given me no reason to think that because something (in this case, the universe) starts at a particular point in time, then God.

I understand that you've decided to never consider an alternative to this strange false trichotomy. I've already presented several alternatives, including the combination of "accidental" and "created", or "eternal" and "accidental", which breaks the trichotomy instantly. Adding "ultimate" to the word "origin" doesn't add any information anyway.

But that doesn't describe the empirical method at all. It's no wonder I didn't know what you were talking about. Having some evidence of something and believing it isn't the same as having no evidence of something and believing it. Using your example of Australia, I've been there, and so I have some evidence to suggest it exists.

No, you're supposed to believe they're possible because we're discussing the physical world. God is certainly possible if God is entirely physical (which would make God indistinguishable from an extra-terrestrial, I suppose) but if God is not physical, then our question becomes more difficult, because we wouldn't actually be able to tell the difference between God and something we just made up.

And you have exhaustive knowledge of the alternatives, presumably. That's still an argument from silence.

You may not be convinced, but that doesn't mean I haven't demonstrated it. You certainly have yet to give up any information about God that is coherent, so a counter-argument is still forthcoming.

Again, a massive dodge. It's relevant because God is what you're presenting in opposition to what you consider an insufficient explanation. This is your solution, given that you consider all other explanations (that you know of) are poor. The natural question is why your explanation is so good. It's extremely relevant, and three or four basic assumptions isn't much of an argument.

The theory of evolution has quite a lot going for it. For one thing, it matches tons and tons of evidence.

How could I understand what you consider the best possible explanation for the origin of the universe without at least believing in the existence of your explanation? How do you expect me to take your explanation seriously if you don't give me a reason to do so?

I seriously think there's no need to consider evidence where it couldn't be applied to a hypothesis anyway. Not only is there no need, it's impossible.

Haha! That's good! I'll give you that -- very entertaining. The problem you've identified is mathematical, not philosophical. In modelling things at that scale, it's necessary to have things like "virtual particles" and other constructs to make the math consistent with observation.

If you're going to keep pointing to gaps in knowledge as if they're a serious issue, I'm going to keep laughing your objections off. If we were at the point in science where we had absolutely everything nailed down, then we'd stop! "There!" we'd say, "Nothing left to learn!"

I don't think I can answer that question. You should probably take that up with a specialist in the field. Even then, it might be a confusing question.

In a way, yes; that's correct. Mathematical constructs are "made up" all the time. The ones that help to model reality consistently are kept. Those models don't pretend to be perfect truth, they're just part of the process towards truth.

No, because nobody is saying that the model of sub-atomic physics is anything other than a model.

You're an agnostic deist who claims to know god exists because you've seen him?

Ooookay...

Thomathy - thank you for the insightful comment that serves no purpose. Clearly, the fact that you won't deign to join in the discussion but point out the flaws of it anyway is proof of your intellectual superiority.

Are you daft? Or can you just not read? I never claimed anything of the like. Your problem is that you assume I care about your opinion, and that I'm trying to prove God to you.

The problem is you don't read what you post (or you lie about it when someone calls you on it).

You've made all manner of "knowledge of God" claims iin your posts and fall back on "agnostic deism" when you're busted.

I also find it interesting that you claim agnostic deism while disallowing people to be agnostic atheists.

Necessary? No. Likely? Yes. It's called a rational belief - and everybody has them.

No. We cannot detect life on other worlds that are farther away than Mars/Venus with our current technology, just like we cannot detect extradimensional beings with our current technology. Your assumptions are baseless - you just assume that we'll be able to create this technology for detecting life on farther away planets.

Then it should also strike you highly imaginative that ET life can exist on other worlds besides Earth. It's not something established.

This does not follow at all. Just because we can detect physical things does not mean we can detect life on farther-away worlds. That's like saying that just because I can lift 30 pounds I can also lift a car. Your assumptions are just bald assertions

But there is no such evidence. Should you then, not dwell on string theory a moment longer because it has no evidence? What if scientists tried this with everything? Where would we be now?

Some of these models on ultimate origins are contradicting with other models derived through math, and none are backed up by evidence. For all intents & purposes they are as testable right now as God's own existence is. To deny this fact is to commit to double standards.

As I've said before, I doubt there will ever be any evidence found for God. But it does not matter how many models are made or how satisfactory they are - the issue of ultimate origins will inevitably yield something that is eternal, whether it is God or the quantum vacuum or the multiverse. You have this hangup that God needs to work in the natural world or leave behind evidence that he made it.

Testable hypothesis: go back in time to before universe was created and look for indirect evidence of a creator on extra dimensions or whatever other plane of existence the creator works on. There you go. This is just as plausible right now as testing hypotheses for multiverse theories. So what does your "constant need for evidence no matter what" philosophy bring you exactly? If I did things your way I would give up and go home because multiverse theories are not testable. Why advocate intellectual laziness?

Are you even remotely following this thread? How was I busted? Will just asked me if I had exhaustive knowledge of the universe and was 100% confident in my claim, to which I replied no. I could ask you the same thing about any other scientific theory. What does that even prove?

Fine, people can be agnostic atheists, I misunderstood some aspects of the definition at first - but this lack of belief definition is still bullshit.

It's bad enough that half you guys don't understand the real definition of atheism, but agnosticism as well? Agnosticism is just disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge. There are many agnostic theists. It's really a simple concept: "I have no claim of ultimate knowledge, but here is what I think it is".