Why God makes sense to me

relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Why God makes sense to me

 

Why God makes sense to me.

 

I start with a pre-bang perspective. What is before the big bang??? The end of another universe?? Multiple Universes bubbling up??? Well...still no matter how far back you go you're still left with something created the conditions necessary for the first big bang. Or the first bang of the first universe. It makes sense to me that a mind or perhaps a spirit is the only entity that could exist in that state. Therefore a mind/spirit created the big bang. Add an anthropic principle perspective to that and a rational perspective emerges.

 

Not only did the right conditions exist for life, the right resources for prosperity were available. Wood, oil, water, minerals, etc.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
And your left trying to

And your left trying to answer what created god then? What created the conditions for god....unless of course your going to use special pleading of course.


relrick
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:And your

latincanuck wrote:

And your left trying to answer what created god then? What created the conditions for god....unless of course your going to use special pleading of course.

 

No doubt true. But it simply makes sense by a factor of one that mind/spirit  preceed material. No proof, just my thoughts. But I find it even more concievable than material coming out of nothingness. Ultimately, the only rational, yet inexplicable solution is that the mind/spirit always existed.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Exactly. If everything needs

Exactly. If everything needs a cause, then EVERYTHING needs a cause. Why is it that you find a being of infinite power who created everything a more likely answer than anything else? You're adding incomprehensible questions to an already incomprehensible puzzle, you aren't adding anything of value. And you aren't going to convince anyone here with such an empty argument.

And you're committing a fallacy in your final paragraph. Life and resources came about because of conditions. You're assuming life couldn't come about because of OTHER conditions when you say this.
AND this god didn't leave a fraction of the resources an infinite being could have. We're running out of a few resources. Why?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: Why God

relrick wrote:

 

Why God makes sense to me.

 

I start with a pre-bang perspective. What is before the big bang??? The end of another universe?? Multiple Universes bubbling up??? Well...still no matter how far back you go you're still left with something created the conditions necessary for the first big bang. Or the first bang of the first universe. It makes sense to me that a mind or perhaps a spirit is the only entity that could exist in that state. Therefore a mind/spirit created the big bang. Add an anthropic principle perspective to that and a rational perspective emerges.

 

Not only did the right conditions exist for life, the right resources for prosperity were available. Wood, oil, water, minerals, etc.

The first problem is that that all you need from the understanding of science is some form of basic energy field, as close as possible to 'nothing', to account for the Big Bang.

Whereas a 'God' is far more significant than such an absolutely minimal state of existence, therefore much harder to account for.

There may have indeed been, and may continue to be, an indefinite series of 'Big-Bang' events. Given the known random element of such fundamental events, each BB universe would likely have slightly different physics from the others. So there could well have been an all-but-infinite number of chances for a Universe with the minimal conditions for some form of life to emerge, a form which was capable of evolving intelligence. 

We only need a 'universe' where the chance of finding suitable conditions on at least one planet are of the order of one in a trillion or so for it to be pretty much a sure thing, for universes anything like ours, where we now know there are probably 100's of trillions of planets.

Note - wood and oil originate from life forms. Minerals are inherent in any material universe.

Life is only going to arise and flourish where there are basic resources - adequate abundance of the basic chemicals it needs to form more life, and a supply of energy to drive it.

Evolution takes care of the rest. IOW, as more complex forms emerge, they will adapt to use whatever is available. If there were no resources of a kind suitable for life to exploit, it would not have emerged on such a planet in the first place.

Everything we observe points to 'minds' being dependent on, arising from, some complex process, which can only happen if complex physical structures can form and be relatively stable. This in turn requires 'stuff' with the properties of 'matter', rather than just pure energy.

'Mind' seems to be an emergent attribute of life, just as life is an emergent attribute of certain forms of chemistry.

Therefore 'mind' makes no sense as an origin of matter. And according to people like Stephen Hawking, who has spent his life studying the nature and origin of matter and energy and the universe itself, any additional 'cause', such as a super-being, is totally unnecessary to explain the origin of our Universe.

Add to that the fact that we inhabit a vast universe which is mostly very hostile to life, and live on one tiny speck in this vastness, where galaxies and their contents display endless variations, to a large degree random, the idea that some all-knowing creator being set this up just for us, a Universe where the vast bulk of it lies forever beyond our perception, and beyond any chance of affecting us here on on Earth, makes no sense to me.

Proper analysis of the sort of fundamental attributes of physical law needed to allow for life to form suggest it is far more likely than what early simple analysis suggests. Originally they just calculated what would happen if you changed the value of any one fundamental 'constant' even slightly. Realistically, you have to explore the implications of changing them all by varying amounts at once, so the argument from 'fine tuning' is not well thought through.

Your ideas are understandable, from a naive point of view. And getting your mind around the ideas I have just outlined is not easy, it requires time and study.

Reality is vastly more complex and subtle than our finite minds can fully comprehend, without the idea of a 'God' with the power to change everything at any instant hanging around to confuse things.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
If your "answer" is every

If your "answer" is every bit as mysterious as the question it purports to address, you're doing it wrong.

 

Solving a mystery leaves no mystery. If you try to solve the mystery of the origin of the universe, and find that you still have a mystery just as big (or bigger), then you aren't headed in the right direction.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:Why God makes

relrick wrote:

Why God makes sense to me.

I start with a pre-bang perspective. What is before the big bang??? The end of another universe?? Multiple Universes bubbling up??? Well...still no matter how far back you go you're still left with something created the conditions necessary for the first big bang. Or the first bang of the first universe. It makes sense to me that a mind or perhaps a spirit is the only entity that could exist in that state. Therefore a mind/spirit created the big bang. Add an anthropic principle perspective to that and a rational perspective emerges.

Not only did the right conditions exist for life, the right resources for prosperity were available. Wood, oil, water, minerals, etc.

 

WOW!  This is me!  Everyone take a look, this is almost verbatim the argument I made over ten years ago when I came on to atheist forums.  What a flashback...

 

Relrick, welcome aboard.  I'll ask you the same sorts of things that helped me, I was asked questions by Jake...

 

Do you agree that it's science that gave us an understanding of the big bang?

Do you agree that over time through scientific understand we continue to learn more about our origins?

Do you agree that in 20 years it is possible that science can explain what happened before the big bang?  

Do you agree that it's possible that explanation will not include a god?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 By the way... from the

 By the way... from the time I viewed those questions to the time I allowed myself to shred my brainwashing and conditioning of God was 24 hours.  Good luck.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
relrick wrote: Why God

relrick wrote:

 

Why God makes sense to me.

 

I start with a pre-bang perspective. What is before the big bang??? The end of another universe?? Multiple Universes bubbling up??? Well...still no matter how far back you go you're still left with something created the conditions necessary for the first big bang. Or the first bang of the first universe. It makes sense to me that a mind or perhaps a spirit is the only entity that could exist in that state. Therefore a mind/spirit created the big bang. Add an anthropic principle perspective to that and a rational perspective emerges.

 

Not only did the right conditions exist for life, the right resources for prosperity were available. Wood, oil, water, minerals, etc.

Thats mere gap filling. 'We don't know so it has to be a god".

Why do you, NOT WHAT YOU BELIEVE, BUT WHY do you feel the need to insert a who into the cause? You don't believe Thor causes lightening. You know that lightening is not cognitive or caused by a cognition. You don't pray to Posiden to avoid a hurricane. You know that hurricanes are caused by non cognitive processes.

While we don't know if question of finite vs infinite, pre bang, there is no need to insert a who in as the cause.

What you are doing without realizing is merely reflecting your own "sense of awe" and projecting human like qualities on the universe. That is the same anthropomorphism the Egyptians had when they falsely believed the sun to be a god. "Isn't this grand" and "Isn't this pretty" misses all the nasty stuff in the universe.

We know what the human brain looks like. Thoughts require a material process to manifest. Since the universe is not structured like a human brain, it cannot function like a human brain, thus it is incapable of thought.

We do have plenty of evidence however, that humans throughout our species history are notorious for making up myths and falsely selling them as fact.

The universe does not need any sort of entity or god to exist. Billions of years from now it is highly likely we as a species will go extinct, maybe even sooner. When we go extinct all our fantasies about non material beings will die with us because there wont be a future generation to sell the myths to.

Science is pointing to a "what" not a "who". Just like it doesn't take a storm god to make rain, the universe didn't need a god to come about either. The universe is a thing, so whatever came before would be just as much a thing.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote: It makes

relrick wrote:
It makes sense to me that a mind or perhaps a spirit is the only entity that could exist in that state.

That's why you won't be advancing scientific understanding or winning any Nobel Prizes.

It seems you are imagining a 'Magic Mind' created everything by way of incantation.

That's how children solve dilemmas when playing with action figures. They give their action figures 'Super Powers'.

relrick wrote:
 Therefore a mind/spirit created the big bang.

That's not how it works.

You're entitled to whatever naive opinion you can imagine, you're not entitled to your own facts...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
relrick wrote:latincanuck

relrick wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

And your left trying to answer what created god then? What created the conditions for god....unless of course your going to use special pleading of course.

 

No doubt true. But it simply makes sense by a factor of one that mind/spirit  preceed material. No proof, just my thoughts. But I find it even more concievable than material coming out of nothingness. Ultimately, the only rational, yet inexplicable solution is that the mind/spirit always existed.

The problem is a you have to prove a spirit exists, and b you have to prove the mind can exist without the material.


rpcarnell
atheist
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Who created God?How did God

Who created God?

How did God create the Big Bang? A magic wand? Was the magic wand always around?

Where is God right now? Everywhere? Nowhere?

What God are we talking about here? Poseidon, Kronos, Vishnu? Marduk? Zeus? Jehovah? Allah?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Man created the range of

Man created the range of concepts that are referred to by the label 'God'.

God cannot be the origin of existence, since he would have to act before he existed.

And he cannot exist in a 'timeless' realm, as often argued, since then he could do nothing.

So 'God' doesn't work as an answer or explanation for anything, except to the ignorant or naive.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Hello and welcome,Here is

Hello and welcome,

Here is William Lane Craig's take on what you wrote.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3 Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

It's also known as the Kalam cosmological argument.

This sums up nicely the seed of your argument I believe.  From here you use the mind/soul thing... blah blah, whatever.  It doesn't matter because there are a few things wrong with the actual seed of the argument.  I chose this form of the argument because it specifically leaves the word GOD out.  It is supposed to make you arrive at the GOD answer yourself.  

Now, you may choose to refute this using quantum mechanics, or by pointing out the circularity of the whole GOD concept.  You can use Occam's razor to point out that all things being equal, when considering a cosmological cause, god is actually the least economically sound hypothesis that you can go with.  

Personally, I find the most eloquently stated refutation to be that of Dan Barker.  You see, when saying that EVERY-thing began to exist, you refer to everything contained in the set that is the universe.  The second premise becomes a non sequiter and the argument fails.  See Russel's paradox  to explain the fallacy of including a set as part of itself.  EVERY one THING and the UNIVERSE are not of the same category.  

The argument becomes such.  

1. Apples are fruit and are red

2. Oranges are fruit

3. Therefore Oranges are red.

Smiling

The argument fails for many, many reasons, but this is my favorite Smiling

 

Edit: Here is a very good essay on this, well worth the read by theists and atheists alike.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't see how it could

 

relrick wrote:

It makes sense to me that a mind or perhaps a spirit is the only entity that could exist in that state. Therefore a mind/spirit created the big bang. 

 

possibly 'make sense' that a mind existed in a proposed void pre-bang. Minds live inside craniums and require constant nourishment and protection. As for a spirit, I'm sorry, but you'll have to prove any such thing exists before you get to insist your unsupported opinion is true. It seems obvious from empirical evidence that ideas and feelings of spirit not only come from minds but are minds.

You are appealing to complexity here. The fact we say we don't know what happened prior to the bang doesn't mean there's a 50 per cent chance it was causeless or an anthropomorphic supernatural man-god done it. It simply means no one can certainly say. The correct position is to await evidence not to indulge in wishful thinking. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Hardlyjoking67
Posts: 1
Joined: 2011-12-08
User is offlineOffline
I also believe in God.

 I know that Christianity can seem irrational and doesn't really have a lot of science to back up its beliefs. Tell you the truth, I don't really think that there is any science that can back it up. However, I know that there has to be a God. I can't accept that we were born just to live and to die, accepting the world at face value and believing that here is not an order beneath it all. If there really is nothing, then a Christian will die and pass into void just like the next guy. But if there is such a thing as God, and as heaven, then a Christian stands to gain everything. If one were to follow this reasoning, then wouldn't it be worth being a Christian?

I also know that a lot of people view Christians as hypocrites. I have seen my fellows and it angers me to no end when I hear about "so and so molesting so and so" or "blank person stole money claiming that they were donations" because these people devalue what true Christians, who live the faith all seven days of the week, stand for. My denomination does not believe in proselytizing people, but I think that it is important that people have an accurate view of what Christianity is about.

We aren't all white hickers trying to impose our beliefs on others. In fact, some of us are reasonably educated with a good sense of morals and a strong belief in God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Hardlyjoking67 wrote: I

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:

 I know that Christianity can seem irrational and doesn't really have a lot of science to back up its beliefs. Tell you the truth, I don't really think that there is any science that can back it up. However, I know that there has to be a God. I can't accept that we were born just to live and to die, accepting the world at face value and believing that here is not an order beneath it all. If there really is nothing, then a Christian will die and pass into void just like the next guy. But if there is such a thing as God, and as heaven, then a Christian stands to gain everything. If one were to follow this reasoning, then wouldn't it be worth being a Christian?

I also know that a lot of people view Christians as hypocrites. I have seen my fellows and it angers me to no end when I hear about "so and so molesting so and so" or "blank person stole money claiming that they were donations" because these people devalue what true Christians, who live the faith all seven days of the week, stand for. My denomination does not believe in proselytizing people, but I think that it is important that people have an accurate view of what Christianity is about.

We aren't all white hickers trying to impose our beliefs on others. In fact, some of us are reasonably educated with a good sense of morals and a strong belief in God.

I am going to treat you with kid gloves, at least for now. YOU just did what very few believers do when they come here. At least you admitted you have no evidence. THAT is a start.  And FYI, also the first step to the road to recovery.

I'd advise the other theists here to take note to the rare honesty we seldom see here.

Your argument is "If I bet right, I win, but if you bet wrong, you'll lose" You are trying to argue that the atheist has more to lose even if there is no god(no harm done if there isn't a god).

Now, let me explain where you went wrong.

This is the fallacy of Pascal's wager. It is basically bet in favor for a god "just in case" or "cover your ass".

There are a couple of  problems with this. 1. What if you picked the wrong god?(I am talking strictly about logic here) It would be the same as going to a horse track and trying to bet on one horse. What if you pick the wrong horse? But in the case of claims of deities, you are not talking about 6 gods, you are talking about the thousands and thousands claimed in human history.

The other problem with the attitude of "do it just to be safe", is that to be safe you would have to bet on every god being real(or horse since we are making arguments about use of good logic vs bad logic) No one believes in every god claim "just to be safe". But that is literally what you would have to do to be logically consistent.

You also made another fallacy called the "True Scotsman" fallacy.

It is the idea that you can pin down an "ideal" "insert label here"

The word "Christian" is a label, only addressing the claimant's position that the god of Jesus is the one true god. It does not dictate that the person claiming it will automatically be good or bad. People claiming to believe in Jesus are capable of doing both good and bad.

The same is true for "Muslim". Holding the position that Allah is the one true god, will not prevent you from slamming planes into buildings. People claiming to believe in Allah are capable of doing both good and bad.

And the same is true for "atheist". It is a position, not a moral code or a world view. It only states  off position on the claim of a deity.  Just like any other label atheists can be and are capable of the same range of human behavior both good and bad.

"True" this or that is a fallacy because labels are not actions that people use to describe or judge morals. Labels merely are words we use to describe a person's position on one particular subject.

Hope this helps, and thanks for the honesty.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:

 

I know that Christianity...doesn't really have a lot of science to back up its beliefs. Tell you the truth, I don't really think that there is any science that can back it up.

However, I know that there has to be a God.

I can't accept that we were born just to live and to die, accepting the world at face value and believing that here is not an order beneath it all.

If there really is nothing, then a Christian will die and pass into void just like the next guy. But if there is such a thing as God, and as heaven, then a Christian stands to gain everything. If one were to follow this reasoning, then wouldn't it be worth being a Christian?

 

 

Hi there Hardly.

We agree there's no empirical proof of god. However, in the absence of this proof you say you 'know' there has to be a god. You then resort to an appeal to negative consequences as 'proof'. Clearly you want to believe and you want to live forever in the bosom of the lamb with jesus brushing your golden hair. But wishful thinking will not bring this fantasy to pass. 

 

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:

 

"I can't accept that we were born just to live and to die, accepting the world at face value and believing that there is not an order beneath it all."

 

 

Accepting this is the bravest thing a human being can do, in my opinion. Perhaps it's the negative visualisation associated with accepting your mortality that makes the atheist life so immediate, so incandescent, for the former believer. Personally, I was never completely alive until I entirely accepted that I would die. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hardlyjoking67 wrote: I

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:

 I know that Christianity can seem irrational and doesn't really have a lot of science to back up its beliefs. Tell you the truth, I don't really think that there is any science that can back it up. However, I know that there has to be a God. I can't accept that we were born just to live and to die, accepting the world at face value and believing that here is not an order beneath it all.

You do NOT 'know' there 'has to be a God. You believe it very strongly, of course. To claim you can 'know' such a thing is very prideful and arrogant of you. You are claiming infallibility.

We weren't born for any particular purpose beyond ourselves, it is up to us to give our life some meaning, such as doing what we can to improve our society, and hopefully leave some positive legacy for those who come after us. None of this requires the existence of any external entity, or a particular set of religious beliefs.

Neither does the non-existence of a God imply any of the rest of what you say.

We know there is a degree of order underlying everything, otherwise we would not have any orderly structures in the Universe, no Life, etc. 

We also know there has to be a degree of disorder, randomness, to allow raw matter to be continually shuffled around until higher order structures that the underlying order makes possible are found. The most significant example of this type of process is evolution.

Quote:

If there really is nothing, then a Christian will die and pass into void just like the next guy. But if there is such a thing as God, and as heaven, then a Christian stands to gain everything. If one were to follow this reasoning, then wouldn't it be worth being a Christian?

I also know that a lot of people view Christians as hypocrites. I have seen my fellows and it angers me to no end when I hear about "so and so molesting so and so" or "blank person stole money claiming that they were donations" because these people devalue what true Christians, who live the faith all seven days of the week, stand for. My denomination does not believe in proselytizing people, but I think that it is important that people have an accurate view of what Christianity is about.

We aren't all white hickers trying to impose our beliefs on others. In fact, some of us are reasonably educated with a good sense of morals and a strong belief in God.

Everyone will die and their consciousness, their spirit will cease to exist. Their is no evidence for anything else that doesn't arise from wishful thinking and a fear of death.

True morals come not from the imagined edicts of an imagined being, but from our natural empathy for our fellows, and the desire to live in a peaceful society, as far as possible.

There is no logic or rationality to justify a belief in God. There is zero evidence that if there is a God, he is what we would think of as 'good'. The evidence of history and the Old Testament in particular, and the nature of life on Earth, and the many imperfections in the 'design' of our bodies, is that if there is a God, he is either incompetent or malicious. What kind of God would create parasites whose life-cycle involves burrowing into the eyes of children and rendering them blind?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hardlyjoking67 wrote:

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:
However, I know that there has to be a God.

You know there must be one the same way I know there can't be one. Which is to say, we know no such thing.

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:
I can't accept that we were born just to live and to die, accepting the world at face value and believing that here is not an order beneath it all.

Why?

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:
If there really is nothing, then a Christian will die and pass into void just like the next guy. But if there is such a thing as God, and as heaven, then a Christian stands to gain everything. If one were to follow this reasoning, then wouldn't it be worth being a Christian?

And what if god is actually an ancient Egyptian or Roman god, and is displeased with your faith in a false idol? Being a christian suddenly looks like the worst idea one could come up with.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I can't accept that we

Quote:
I can't accept that we were born just to live and to die, accepting the world at face value and believing that here is not an order beneath it all.

This is the flaw in evolution that causes this type of thinking. Humans don't like to face their mortality. If we evolved not to care about death, we would not evolve, but that does not make a god real, it just means we dont want to die. God belief is merely a psychological place card for our parents protecting us. It is our emotional placebo.

But think of it this way, you've gone to a movie knowing it will end. You've gone to a sporting event knowing it will end. Does that mean there is no meaning to the movie or sporting event just because they end? Does that mean you cant enjoy them because you know they end?

There is no meaning to life other than that the individual gives themselves. I wouldn't myself have gotten another cat after the death of my last one thinking that way.  My last cat didn't go to a cat heaven and the one I have now wont either. I still enjoyed the last one as I enjoy the one I have now.

The fact that nothing lasts forever does not make all of life gloomy or bad. It just means it ends. You can live a good life and give yourself your own meaning without a god. There will always be ups and downs in life and we will all die eventually. But that does not mean you have to dwell on it or pity life or yourself because this is it.

Life is a crap shoot. Here is the evolutionary reality.  Most attempts at biological life fail. For every acorn that becomes a fully grown adult tree there are thousands more that simply rot or get eaten by animals.

For every male sperm that makes it to the egg in that same load there are millions more that die. Multiply that by the 7 billion humans you are talking about trillions of sperm that do nothing. And that is just one load, not all the releases in a male's lifetime.  Most female eggs as well, do nothing. The humans that do manage to be born are a FRACTION of the attempts.

Another fact of evolution's history......99% of biological life in evolutionary history has gone extinct. What we see now seems abundant but it is only 1 percent of the entire history of evolution, not including all the attempts that have failed for each individual form of life.

This planet as well will die, the sun will die and eventually the entire universe will suffer heat death. There is no meaning to this other than our ability to measure this reality here and now. But 1 million years from now both you and I will be nothing. The most famous people in human history from our heros to our enemies, from the richest to the most obscure, will not be remembered. Our species will go extinct eventually, possibly even from a meteor strike,

None of that scares me. Pain does, suffering does, and not being around my loved ones and friends scares me. But life after I die will be just like it was before I was born. I dont live in fear of things that are simply part of nature which I cannot do anything about anyway, other than to try to avoid death to extend my life as long as possilbe. But that is all any human can do.

Myth making has always gone on throughout our species history. It does not explain the meaning of life. It is merely our own evolutionary flaw in wanting a parent to protect us and wanting immortality which does not exist.

Again, that is not pessimistic or fatalistic, anymore than saying the earth rotates around the sun is. It just means that the reality is that this is it. That does not mean you have to dwell on that or make yourself sad over a nature you ultimately have no control over. Just be yourself, do the best you can and make yourself happy by giving life the meaning for yourself you want.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
And another thing. This sell

And another thing. This sale of fear of death is one of the most insidious aspects of our evolution in the form of myth. While we should have some rational fear, like fear of getting too close to the edge of the cliff. Fear of getting lost in a crime infested neighborhood. Myths cripple us by that fear. It teaches us to value life, not on some real evolutionary survival trait. It teaches us to fear merely out of fear. It allows a myth to rule one's mind to the point that that evolutionary ignorance(lack of information) in the form of gap filling, can and often causes the species to refrain from finding out REAL answers that can help avoid real threats.

It is why the early humans who worshiped god/s who lived around volcanos, thought of it as a human like god which caused them, not to study it and figure out what was really going on, like we know today, it caused them to falsely base their lives on a placebo, which often as a result got them killed. Where as now we know what they do humans can and do have better and more opportunity when the volcano blows, to get out of the way. Volcanos are still hard to impossible to right now, but our safety standards while living around them have improved because of science.

Hurricanes just 100 years ago were impossible to track. It was a last minute reaction back then. But now we have eyes in space tracking them and planes flying into the eye to gauge their power. Now when a cat 4 or 5 head our way we have much more warning and opportunity to get out of the way. It was because scientists did not settle for "god did it", that we know what causes hurricanes.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and The New Atheism by Victor Stinger are very good books to explain the NATURAL reasons why belief in god/s exist as flaws in our thinking and perceptions as placebos we invent.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 852
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
But-

relrick wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

And your left trying to answer what created god then? What created the conditions for god....unless of course your going to use special pleading of course.

 

No doubt true. But it simply makes sense by a factor of one that mind/spirit  preceed material. No proof, just my thoughts. But I find it even more concievable than material coming out of nothingness. Ultimately, the only rational, yet inexplicable solution is that the mind/spirit always existed.

An apostle says- first there was the physical and then the spiritual. That means the material came first, because the physical is material.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:relrick

Old Seer wrote:

relrick wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

And your left trying to answer what created god then? What created the conditions for god....unless of course your going to use special pleading of course.

 

No doubt true. But it simply makes sense by a factor of one that mind/spirit  preceed material. No proof, just my thoughts. But I find it even more concievable than material coming out of nothingness. Ultimately, the only rational, yet inexplicable solution is that the mind/spirit always existed.

An apostle says- first there was the physical and then the spiritual. That means the material came first, because the physical is material.

Which makes sense as the physical (humans) created the spiritual (gods). Thank you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Old Seer wrote:relrick

Old Seer wrote:

relrick wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

And your left trying to answer what created god then? What created the conditions for god....unless of course your going to use special pleading of course.

 

No doubt true. But it simply makes sense by a factor of one that mind/spirit  preceed material. No proof, just my thoughts. But I find it even more concievable than material coming out of nothingness. Ultimately, the only rational, yet inexplicable solution is that the mind/spirit always existed.

An apostle says- first there was the physical and then the spiritual. That means the material came first, because the physical is material.

You call me an apostate like that is a bad thing. Living in reality is not a bad thing. Making up fictional beings and falsely believing them to be fact IS  a  bad thing because it teaches you to be satisfied with ignorance.

So yea, I am an apostate and proud of it because I don't live in Candy Land like you.

If our species never question social norms our species never would have left the caves. The sun is not a god. The moon is not made of cheese and invisible friends are merely the childish fantasies adults use to placate their insecurities.

You want to live in the year 329 mentally, we cant stop you. I think today is much more filling knowing what black holes are. Having modern computers and cell phones. I think the internet is going to be a boon to humans freeing them more and more from your ancient myth.

You can believe in your magic man all you want, I'm not going to dwell in fantasy. If you want to be left in the past, so be it. But you cant sell me your superstition any more. I do not need your god or any for that matter to live life or be good. Sorry you cant handle that, that is your baggage, not mine.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
IF anything existed before

IF anything existed before the Big Bang, it is far more likely that it was some most form of energy, as close to nothing as Quantum Theory suggests is possible.

Sometimes referred to as a 'Quantum Foam', which could persist indefinitely.

And it is not 'matter', as we normally think of it.

Much more likely than some sort of abstract 'spirit'. Every manifestation of 'mind' we have encountered is deeply entwined with a complex physical process, which in turn requires a complex structure, which requires matter. They are fundamentally connected, in that damage to any part of the physical structure damages or changes the mind.

This fantasy of a disembodied mind, with nothing else in existence, is fundamentally in conflict with all our growing scientific understanding of mind and brain, although other science makes it understandable as to how such beliefs arise.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Cause and Effect...

I've always had a problem with the cause and effect argument and perhaps one of my comrades here can help me.
Cause and effect involves a temporal (time based) relationship, that is it is agreed that cause always precedes effect.
If then, the absolute beginning of the rapid expansion of the universe that brought about both space AND time is considered the effect, WHEN could there have been a 'cause'? Keeping in mind that there could have been no 'before' as the temporal simply didn't exist until something less than the Planck instant. The universe therefore MUST be a causeless effect.

I'm familiar with Craig's 'virtual' time notion, I don't buy it as anything more than a pretty lame apologetic...

So... am I wrong?

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think it far more likely

I think it far more likely that time always persisted, and there was never a "before time". Evidence of anything that was before the big bang was wiped out by the big bang and the expansion of the universe over billions of years. We'd have to be able to travel at least 14b (+/- <1b) ly instantaneously to even see if seeing anything that exists and/or existed outside or before the observable universe at any given moment is possible, let alone actually seeing it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quantum Theory does seem to

Quantum Theory does seem to point to 'uncaused' events. Radioactive decay seems to be a common example of a purely random event, IOW there is no indication of any specific prior event triggering the decay event.

Another interpretation of such random behaviour is that space is pervaded by some low-level energy field which is randomly varying in strength and direction. If it twitches in just the right way in the nucleus of an unstable atom so as to trigger decay, that might explain the random nature of the decay event.

It also could be due to the apparent fact that no physical force or particle position or energy can be precisely defined at any instant -  Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - so there is a non-zero probability that almost anything could happen. With things like unstable atoms, the changes from normal needed to allow decay to happen are so small that it is likely to occur at a detectable rate.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
All observations of quantum

All observations of quantum science come from within a universe with time, and there is no way to observe something without time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is logical to assume that quantum events require time to occur at all, as they have been and can only be observed within a temporal frame of reference in the first place.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The other fundamental

The other fundamental misunderstanding Theists usually have is the a 'cause' must be 'greater', in some sense, than the effect. Which is totally not necessary, as can be seen all the time in everyday life.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Hardlyjoking67 wrote: I

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:

 I can't accept that we were born just to live and to die,

 

It doesn't matter whether you accept that you are limited to a single, finite existence or not..  Truth doesn't always entail making us feel comfortable.  For example, if I were in a hospital and suffering from terminal cancer then the grim reality is that I'm going to die very soon.  It doesn't matter whether I accept it.

 

Hardlyjoking67 wrote:
  My denomination does not believe in proselytizing people, but I think that it is important that people have an accurate view of what Christianity is about.
 

 

Why do you assume that an atheist doesn't already know "what Christianity is about" ?   I was a Bible-believing,  Protestant fundamentalist Christian from the age of 15 until I became an apostate at around age 40. That's 25 years of my life that I was immersed in my Christian belief system.

 

Hardlyjoking wrote:
In fact, some of us are reasonably educated with a good sense of morals and a strong belief in God.

 

  I am the first to acknowledge that many intelligent, educated people are theists of one stripe or another.  The irony is that very smart people can still believe foolish things.

 

BTW, welcome to the forum. 


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
tic tic tic tac

Vastet wrote:
All observations of quantum science come from within a universe with time, and there is no way to observe something without time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is logical to assume that quantum events require time to occur at all, as they have been and can only be observed within a temporal frame of reference in the first place.
I think that talking about 'time' may be less correct than talking about 'mutation', in the sense that if really time is the fourth dimension tied to the other spacial three, then because at that level things could get messy the word 'time' could not have the usual meaning (of causality, for example). Other than that, I heard of some physicists who aim to remove 'time' from the equations, in the sense that the precious 't' should be derived from something else. I don't remember the names, now, but there are even videos about that.

Quote:
wouldn't it be worth being a Christian?
Wouldn't it be worth being a hinduist?


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Why do

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Why do you assume that an atheist doesn't already know "what Christianity is about" ?   I was a Bible-believing,  Protestant fundamentalist Christian from the age of 15 until I became an apostate at around age 40. That's 25 years of my life that I was immersed in my Christian belief system.

Yeah, but you were a FUNDAMENTALIST.

You should have spent some time immersed in Pentacostalism.  Now =that= is what Christianity is =really= all about.

NOT!

FWIW, I was about 40 when I dumped Jesus for Moses.  It would seem there is something to being 40 ...

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Trinity123
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Fellow Christian...

 Which denomination are you  a part of? What is your clear definition of proselytization? 

Also, there is a lot of evidence through archaeology of the historicity of the Bible. I won't go on about the science and such, however.

Christianity is not just a pietist order that works at perfecting themselves "Morally and ethically" but it is the worship of the one and only God that has extended to us love by showing himself and giving us the gift of being with Him in heaven. Yes, it angers us that Christians are hypocrites; however, we are all sinful and that nature does not leave us until Christ comes again and those God has saved will enter in heaven to be with God. 

My definition of proselytization is sharing the good news of God's love in the form of a sacrifice worthy enough to close the chasm between God and man and our sin, and then continuing to teach and preach God's word as the church (a rough definition). 
 

 

Thanks for reading.

-jn


Trinity123
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Sacrificing Comfort.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
 

It doesn't matter whether you accept that you are limited to a single, finite existence or not..  Truth doesn't always entail making us feel comfortable.  For example, if I were in a hospital and suffering from terminal cancer then the grim reality is that I'm going to die very soon.  It doesn't matter whether I accept it.

 



I agree with you that Truth doesn't always entail making us feel comfortable. You understand this concept yet, atheists don't have too much difficulty or struggle in dealing with their lusts and sins since many dismiss the idea of sin/fallenness and give in to lusts without guilt or shame of the consequences of sins. Christians are very much aware  that death comes to all of us (we also have explanation of death, but you do not believe in it so I won't say why unless you want to know), so your example of terminal cancer does not apply well in the Christian context. This does not mean Christians are not afraid when they die, but I've heard the peace of many who die as Christians (God is the Just Judge, so of course from our knowledge and the revelation of God, the BIble, can we say people are saved or not). 


To continue this argument of God's existence I want to give a simple, but complex ontological argument from Plantinga.

"1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (By this he means what we have described as a Perfect Being or greatest conceivable being.)

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. That is, God's existence is not impossible (logically contradictory), so we can conceive of a world in which God does exist. 

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. (Otherwise, it would not be maximally great.)

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world." 
(William Lane Craig's formulation of Plantinga's original version in "The Ontological Argument," p. 128)

So if you consider a maximally great being in a possible world, then the only conclusion for a being such as this to exist in an actual world. 

(Of course, this argument lacks empirical argumentation. However, please consider this and give your reaction.)
 

Thanks for reading.

-jn


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Trinity123 wrote: (Of

Trinity123 wrote:

 





(Of course, this argument lacks empirical argumentation. However, please consider this and give your reaction.)
 

  It doesn't matter what my reaction is does it ?  You have the ultimate TRUTH™ and I'm just a deluded atheist too busy giving in "to lusts without guilt or shame".

 

 


Trinity123
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-12-02
User is offlineOffline
L

 The universe is finite. Or else the universe would have reached heat death by now...Entropy right? 

Also, the concept of "something from nothing" (Ex nihilo) is much less likely than a Perfect Being creating from its power (since it is perfect and maximally great in every way). The Christian God is transcendent from the universe, but also immanent. Seemingly a contradiction, but if a Perfect Being is "perfect" then it will have that power. The Perfect Being is not pantheistic, which means it is not in everything and is everything. Nothing is no thing, and it is linguistically bound to the fact that it has nothing in power or energy or whatever to bring about anything into existence, let alone start a chain of macroevolution.
 

 

Thanks for reading.

-jn


Trinity123
Posts: 15
Joined: 2011-12-02
User is offlineOffline
So you won't give any effort

So you won't give any effort to respond to the argument? 

It does matter what your reaction is, because without dialogue, then what is the point of this atheist forum? 

 

Thanks for reading.

-jn


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Trinity123 wrote:So you

Trinity123 wrote:

So you won't give any effort to respond to the argument? 

It does matter what your reaction is, because without dialogue, then what is the point of this atheist forum? 

I'm not sure your arguments have reached the level of "interesting" to be rebutted.

However, I'll give it a whack -- the Universe was created from nothing, and the original language is clear on that point.

Hebrew has two "make" or "create" verbs.  One means to make from nothing, the other to make from something.  According to the Hebrew text, the entire Universe was created from nothing.

Conveniently (at least for Jews ...) scientists don't have a problem with "created from nothing" since Quantum Physics doesn't have a problem with "stuff" spontaneously appearing so long as certain restrictions are met -- the sum of charge, spin, etc. must be zero.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Trinity123 wrote: The

Trinity123 wrote:

 The universe is finite. Or else the universe would have reached heat death by now...Entropy right? 

Also, the concept of "something from nothing" (Ex nihilo) is much less likely than a Perfect Being creating from its power (since it is perfect and maximally great in every way). The Christian God is transcendent from the universe, but also immanent. Seemingly a contradiction, but if a Perfect Being is "perfect" then it will have that power. The Perfect Being is not pantheistic, which means it is not in everything and is everything. Nothing is no thing, and it is linguistically bound to the fact that it has nothing in power or energy or whatever to bring about anything into existence, let alone start a chain of macroevolution.
 

 

Another attempt to retro fit science to prop up a fictional super hero.

You know this is bullshit because if a Muslim used this same argument you would not become a Muslim.

There is nothing outside biological evolution that manifests into a consciousness. There never was or ever will be a non material "entity" that thinks. Volcanos were never human. The polytheistic gods of Rome and Greece were not real, and neither are the monotheistic myths still falsely believed today.

The simple fact is it is all in your head. You are NOT doing anything differently than the ancient Egyptians did in projecting human qualities on the sun thinking it was a thinking being. You are not doing anything differently than Muslims or Hindus.

Deity belief of all stripes past and present, merely exist because humans attempt, in mythological form, to replace their parents and attempt to avoid facing their finite existence. It is merely gap filling in the form of a mental placebo.

Understand why you reject the gods of others and you'll understand why I reject your pet god claim as well.

You have a superstition, a comic book hero you falsely and desperately want to be real. Your "feelings" may feel real, much like an amputee still feels his foot even though it is not there. The brain is very capable of fooling itself and our history of dead gods is plenty of evidence to me that all gods are merely made up shit.

This is merely verbal cold water on your face in the hopes you snap out of it. Reality is much more awe inspiring with all the good and bad that happen. There is no man in a white rob pontificating from the clouds about his favorite minions. There is no man with a pitchfork re arranging the neurons in your head to get you to do bad things. There is only you falling for a placebo.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Trinity123 wrote: The

Trinity123 wrote:

 The universe is finite. Or else the universe would have reached heat death by now...Entropy right? 

Also, the concept of "something from nothing" (Ex nihilo) is much less likely than a Perfect Being creating from its power (since it is perfect and maximally great in every way). The Christian God is transcendent from the universe, but also immanent. Seemingly a contradiction, but if a Perfect Being is "perfect" then it will have that power. The Perfect Being is not pantheistic, which means it is not in everything and is everything. Nothing is no thing, and it is linguistically bound to the fact that it has nothing in power or energy or whatever to bring about anything into existence, let alone start a chain of macroevolution.
 

 

As you don't have any evidence that the "perfect being" exists the statement that such a being created something is the same as saying something came from nothing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Trinity123

jcgadfly wrote:

Trinity123 wrote:

 The universe is finite. Or else the universe would have reached heat death by now...Entropy right? 

Also, the concept of "something from nothing" (Ex nihilo) is much less likely than a Perfect Being creating from its power (since it is perfect and maximally great in every way). The Christian God is transcendent from the universe, but also immanent. Seemingly a contradiction, but if a Perfect Being is "perfect" then it will have that power. The Perfect Being is not pantheistic, which means it is not in everything and is everything. Nothing is no thing, and it is linguistically bound to the fact that it has nothing in power or energy or whatever to bring about anything into existence, let alone start a chain of macroevolution.

As you don't have any evidence that the "perfect being" exists the statement that such a being created something is the same as saying something came from nothing.

At least the best cosmologies we've got right now agree the Universe came from something pretty close to nothing Eye-wink

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Trinity123 wrote:

 The universe is finite. Or else the universe would have reached heat death by now...Entropy right? 

Also, the concept of "something from nothing" (Ex nihilo) is much less likely than a Perfect Being creating from its power (since it is perfect and maximally great in every way). The Christian God is transcendent from the universe, but also immanent. Seemingly a contradiction, but if a Perfect Being is "perfect" then it will have that power. The Perfect Being is not pantheistic, which means it is not in everything and is everything. Nothing is no thing, and it is linguistically bound to the fact that it has nothing in power or energy or whatever to bring about anything into existence, let alone start a chain of macroevolution.

As you don't have any evidence that the "perfect being" exists the statement that such a being created something is the same as saying something came from nothing.

At least the best cosmologies we've got right now agree the Universe came from something pretty close to nothing Eye-wink

This is why there's no real need to make up a God to do it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Trinity123 wrote:

So you won't give any effort to respond to the argument? 

It does matter what your reaction is, because without dialogue, then what is the point of this atheist forum? 

I'm not sure your arguments have reached the level of "interesting" to be rebutted.

However, I'll give it a whack -- the Universe was created from nothing, and the original language is clear on that point.

Hebrew has two "make" or "create" verbs.  One means to make from nothing, the other to make from something.  According to the Hebrew text, the entire Universe was created from nothing.

Conveniently (at least for Jews ...) scientists don't have a problem with "created from nothing" since Quantum Physics doesn't have a problem with "stuff" spontaneously appearing so long as certain restrictions are met -- the sum of charge, spin, etc. must be zero.

Wow, I love watching two different religions battle. It would be like being at a si fi convention with one person arguing the existence of Klingons while the other argues for the existence of "the force'.

 

Furry, when your book says "nothing" in claims to our origins that was an utterance of ignorance. That "nothingness" if you are going to claim a god still requires a god. What you are doing is retrofitting after the fact. All the word means is "poof". "god did it". It is mere gap filling written by people who had no clue what they were saying.

It would make just as much sense to claim that a snarfwidget "poof" created everything out of nothing.

Our universe is the result of a "what" not a "who".  The universe does not need us to continue nor does it need a god as a cause. Our current knowledge of that "singularity" does not need a god to explain. Background radiation and quantum physics explain quite aptly our world without making up an invisible brain with magic super powers.

What you are doing is no different than a 3 year old pointing to the sky and saying "the sky is blue". That does not demonstrate by any stretch that the 3 year old knows the reason why it is blue.

The word "nothing" in reference of those holy text is merely their pondering of what life was before they were born.

Those texts have far too much absurdity in them to consider them relevant to modern science. Muslims and Christians try to pull this too and it is not a new tactic nor is it a credible tactic.

I am not saying you are a dumb person. I am saying that you are human and you merely like the idea of the Jewish tradition so much that you are willing to try to retrofit science to it to falsely make it work.

I've had Muslims point to a red nebula and quote a Koran verse as evidence that their book is a science textbook. I've had another Muslim quote the Koran "mountains moving" as evidence that it explained plate tectonics.

A few years back, just to challenge myself, I spent three days with almost no sleep picking through a Christian's argument about how his book explained science. Everything from the creation of the earth, to knowing about galaxies and so on. Not one of those quotes DEMONSTRATED empirical knowledge.

The bottom line is NO HOLY BOOK IS A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK nor can it substitute as one.

All everyone is doing here, including you, is taking words out of context from ambiguous quotes that do not contain empirical demonstrations of knowledge.

I even had a Christian try to claim that Aquinus knew about quantum mechanics. None of you are right. You cannot take a book of myth and pretend it is a textbook that can be used in a science class or a science lab. They cant and you cant.

Scientific method and science is not dependent on belief in God/Yahweh/Allah/Jesus or Thor.

All those beliefs and books were not written through testing, falsification or independent review, because that was not the intent of the writers. The writers merely had a deity they wanted to sell and made very bad guesses about the nature of reality.

I like you Furry, but you really are not doing anything differently that we have not debunked before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Trinity123 wrote:So you

Trinity123 wrote:

So you won't give any effort to respond to the argument? 

It does matter what your reaction is, because without dialogue, then what is the point of this atheist forum? 

 

 

       I could make a point by point effort to respond to your argument but as a Christian theist your religious world view ( formerly my world view ) maintains that you not only have truth but,  that you have    ......THE ULTIMATE TRUTH™.    In light of that mindset how open are you to even considering that you are not only partially in error, but perhaps totally in error ?  Unlikely in the extreme ?

 

  Myself, I've run the gamut from teenage hellion, to teenage convert which led to 25 years of Christian beliefs, and back to the default position which is where I'm at now.  I am quite capable of considering counter arguments and the possibility that I am in error, but concerning the issues that you raise, I've already been down that road and found the answers to be anything but sufficient.

 

As far as engaging in "dialog" there are many here who are much more versed in successfully rebutting your theistic claims so I shall leave you in their tender care.

Enjoy yourself if nothing else.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Trinity123,Quote:The

Trinity123,

Quote:

The universe is finite. Or else the universe would have reached heat death by now...Entropy right? 

Wrong.

An 'infinite' universe does not mean one that has lasted an infinite time, so 'heat death' does not arise as an issue. It just refers to the size, not the age.

That is a very basic error on your part. It betrays very poor comprehension.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

Trinity123,

Quote:

The universe is finite. Or else the universe would have reached heat death by now...Entropy right? 

Wrong.

An 'infinite' universe does not mean one that has lasted an infinite time, so 'heat death' does not arise as an issue. It just refers to the size, not the age.

That is a very basic error on your part. It betrays very poor comprehension.

On average, the Universe is only 2 or 3 degrees K above frozen solid.

Be that as it may, I think we're due for "heat death" in another 10^100 years.

 

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:


Be that as it may, I think we're due for "heat death" in another 10^100 years.

 

 

                                                                        Geez,   .....even God will be dead by then.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Be that as it may, I think we're due for "heat death" in another 10^100 years.

 Geez,   .....even God will be dead by then.

That assumes G-d exists in space-time.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Be that as it may, I think we're due for "heat death" in another 10^100 years.

 Geez,   .....even God will be dead by then.

That assumes G-d exists in space-time.

Which assumes God exists... Eye-wink

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin