[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.[/quote]
No, the concept of a god is something that is outside of the universe. You cannot apply constraints of the universe to something outside it. It is flawed logic.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter where god is. If I take your argument, I could say by the same token that our universe came to be as a result of random energy outside of our universe.
If you say that our universe was created by god, but cannot answer where god came from, then you have not answered where the universe came from. If you say that god has always existed, then why is it impossible that our universe has always existed?[/quote]
Because if there is no God we will all be compelled to rape and murder, after all, no one has any decency but for the grace of Allah.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anything but agnosticism is hubristic. [/quote]
I used to feel this way, but now I don’t. I place myself clearly in the atheist camp. I disagree it is hubris to say that there is no evidence of intelligent intervention in our evolution and therefore I don’t believe in a creative intelligence. It is not that I “don’t know” (the definition of agnostic) whether there is a god. I don’t believe in a god or gods because there is no evidence that there is. I guess I’m stupid, because I’m definitely not lying.
Are you agnostic about whether the earth is round (not flat)? If, as I suspect, you know it is round, why is that any different?[/quote]
So you reject the possibility of a god that created our universe simply because we do not have any evidence that there is a god?
Read that a few times and you’ll see it starts to sound pretty silly.
It’s like saying “I reject that there can be intelligent life outside of our planet because we haven’t found it yet!”
It’s like saying “I reject that there can be intelligent life outside of our planet because we haven’t found it yet!”[/quote]
Not at all. There’s evidence out there to believe it’s very possible life exists on other planets. God on the other hand, there is no evidence or anything that would lead us to believe there is a higher power.
[quote]pat wrote:
No, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God. What you are referring to as atheism is agnosticism, which treats the position as an unknown.
If you are atheist, you know God doesn’t exist…You just can’t prove it. Nor can you disprove arguments for the existence of God. So it is a faith, a belief with out proof.[/quote]
And so it begins.[/quote]
Your never required to prove a negative why is “God” the exception?
It’s like saying “I reject that there can be intelligent life outside of our planet because we haven’t found it yet!”[/quote]
It’s more like saying “I reject that Santa Claus delivers gifts to everyone on Christmas because I haven’t seen any evidence that he does.”[/quote]
If we take the “father in the sky” view, then yes, I would agree with you.
If we take a wider view of god as just the creator of the universe, your statement doesn’t hold anymore. We can observe that santa doesn’t bring gifts. We cannot observe that there is no god. In order to prove there is no god, you would essentially have to know how the universe came to be.
[quote]pat wrote:
No, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God. What you are referring to as atheism is agnosticism, which treats the position as an unknown.
If you are atheist, you know God doesn’t exist…You just can’t prove it. Nor can you disprove arguments for the existence of God. So it is a faith, a belief with out proof.[/quote]
And so it begins.[/quote]
Your never required to prove a negative why is “God” the exception?[/quote]
The problem I have with his statement is that he has had the differences in types of atheism explained, yet conveniently forgets with every new thread.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anything but agnosticism is hubristic. [/quote]
I used to feel this way, but now I don’t. I place myself clearly in the atheist camp. I disagree it is hubris to say that there is no evidence of intelligent intervention in our evolution and therefore I don’t believe in a creative intelligence. It is not that I “don’t know” (the definition of agnostic) whether there is a god. I don’t believe in a god or gods because there is no evidence that there is. I guess I’m stupid, because I’m definitely not lying.
Are you agnostic about whether the earth is round (not flat)? If, as I suspect, you know it is round, why is that any different?[/quote]
I disagree. There are logical arguments for God’s existence that are strong (the cosmological proof and the proof from contingency come to mind).
I’m not saying that they should be taken as unequivocal fact…because they shouldn’t. But I honestly do believe that the deeper the dig, the less you actually understand.
It’s like saying “I reject that there can be intelligent life outside of our planet because we haven’t found it yet!”[/quote]
It’s more like saying “I reject that Santa Claus delivers gifts to everyone on Christmas because I haven’t seen any evidence that he does.”[/quote]
If we take the “father in the sky” view, then yes, I would agree with you.
If we take a wider view of god as just the creator of the universe, your statement doesn’t hold anymore. We can observe that santa doesn’t bring gifts. We cannot observe that there is no god. In order to prove there is no god, you would essentially have to know how the universe came to be.[/quote]
I cannot prove a negative (i.e.,that there is no god, or that Santa does not bring gifts). No one can prove a negative. It is a logical fallacy to require anyone to do so. If there is a god, however, there should be some proof. Just like if Santa brings gifts, there should be proof.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Your souls will be eternally damned!!! Infidels!! lol
Atheist and have been since a VERY young age.
Good to see some peole of reason on the board.[/quote]
What are ‘people of reason’, exactly? Atheism is incompatible with reason since in it’s most basic form posits that nothingness must necessarily beget something.[/quote]
Theism is equally offensive to our logical understanding of the universe and its laws. An uncaused entity? A being outside of time?
[/quote]
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
Not really, even if the universe has always existed, whether in or out of time, or if there is a multiverse, or and infinite cycle of universes, it all has the property of contingency and there is nothing that can be done about that fact.
I can say nothing here. I am speechless. What ever twists and turns you face, I hope they turn out well. Peace be upon you SMH, in what ever form it comes.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think this is a good explanation of the definition @ 2:25
[/quote]
Nah, he screws it up. You’re as is he, is confusing faith with ‘religious faith’. Faith is simply believing something without absolute proof. Which accounts for most of what we consider knowledge. I too have sufficient reason for believing that God does exist. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. That’s not the same as my religious faith which really delves in to the nature of this God. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. They’re not my arguments mind you, I didn’t make it up, but I use them and I am hopelessly predictable on the matter.
I use cosmology. If you ask I’ll post a link, complete with counter arguments and then I defend it from there. I have engaged in this conversation so many times I can’t even count. Now Kant’s view of ontology is an interesting one I have been paying more attention to lately. It is sort of an ontological argument but he hybrids cosmology into it, sort of like a proof that his ontology is right. But it is an interesting take…but still at it’s core basically cosmology.
[/quote]
What is your religious affiliation? [/quote]
Catholic. My arguments for the existence of of God are based on logic and reason. My understanding on who He is, is rooted in my faith. Understand though, that that is not the only way. We don’t consider ourselves any better than anybody else. We feel blessed in many ways, but that’s it. Those blessings are not to provide pride or arrogance, it’s personal.
[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.[/quote]
No, definitionalaly that is impossible. That which is uncaused must necessarily sit outside the causal chain. What makes the rules cannot be defined by them.
[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.[/quote]
No, definitionalaly that is impossible. That which is uncaused must necessarily sit outside the causal chain. What makes the rules cannot be defined by them. [/quote]
And yet the universe couldn’t possibly be uncaused.
It’s like saying “I reject that there can be intelligent life outside of our planet because we haven’t found it yet!”[/quote]
It’s more like saying “I reject that Santa Claus delivers gifts to everyone on Christmas because I haven’t seen any evidence that he does.”[/quote]
If we take the “father in the sky” view, then yes, I would agree with you.
If we take a wider view of god as just the creator of the universe, your statement doesn’t hold anymore. We can observe that santa doesn’t bring gifts. We cannot observe that there is no god. In order to prove there is no god, you would essentially have to know how the universe came to be.[/quote]
Exactly.
You guys are spot on about there being no evidence of a SPECIFIC God: Yahweh, Allah, etc. All of those scriptural stories are obviously complete bullshit. I don’t need to tell you that.
But God as simply a creator, or an uncaused cause, or an uncontingent entity upon which we are contingent? Plausible, in my view.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anything but agnosticism is hubristic. [/quote]
I used to feel this way, but now I don’t. I place myself clearly in the atheist camp. I disagree it is hubris to say that there is no evidence of intelligent intervention in our evolution and therefore I don’t believe in a creative intelligence. It is not that I “don’t know” (the definition of agnostic) whether there is a god. I don’t believe in a god or gods because there is no evidence that there is. I guess I’m stupid, because I’m definitely not lying.
Are you agnostic about whether the earth is round (not flat)? If, as I suspect, you know it is round, why is that any different?[/quote]
I disagree. There are logical arguments for God’s existence that are strong (the cosmological proof and the proof from contingency come to mind).
I’m not saying that they should be taken as unequivocal fact…because they shouldn’t. But I honestly do believe that the deeper the dig, the less you actually understand.[/quote]
I would say it this way: The more you know, the more you realize what you don’t know. That much is true. That still does not take me from atheist to agnostic. To be fair to your point however, to the extent you either know or don’t know there is a god, I definitely don’t know there is a god. I’m saying that is a different question than the question whether you believe in god. The reason I don’t believe in god is because there is no evidence of god’s existence. Just like I don’t believe in the tooth fairy because there is no evidence of her existence. It would mean nothing for me to call myself a tooth fairy agnostic. It is more fair for me to say I don’t believe in the tooth fairy. For the same reason, I don’t think it helps to describe myself as an agnostic. It is more fair for me to say I don’t believe in god (that is, I’m an atheist).
[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.[/quote]
No, the concept of a god is something that is outside of the universe. You cannot apply constraints of the universe to something outside it. It is flawed logic.[/quote]
Correct. If something makes the rules it is not bound by them. The NFL can make the rule, but only the players are required to follow them.
And no, the existence of God does not required that he popped into existence at some point. The would mean that an all powerful God is subject to the rules of the universe he created. It does not work that way.
[quote]pat wrote:
No, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God. What you are referring to as atheism is agnosticism, which treats the position as an unknown.
If you are atheist, you know God doesn’t exist…You just can’t prove it. Nor can you disprove arguments for the existence of God. So it is a faith, a belief with out proof.[/quote]
But God as simply a creator, or an uncaused cause, or an uncontingent entity upon which we are contingent? Plausible, in my view.[/quote]
So if it is plausible, you must have some reference to something else that is an effect without a cause. But what? I know of no such examples in our human experience.
[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.[/quote]
No, definitionalaly that is impossible. That which is uncaused must necessarily sit outside the causal chain. What makes the rules cannot be defined by them. [/quote]
And yet the universe couldn’t possibly be uncaused.[/quote]
If you have an argument or evidence to the contrary, bring it.
