My Atheist vs Theist Argument

cvrobison
cvrobison's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
My Atheist vs Theist Argument

 Hi guys, this is my first post here, please be kind...My names charles, im kind-of a non-practicing-catholic-agnostic? well here goes:

 

My Argument is this: The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created not destroyed, therefore logically theres a beginning, and an end to the universe (in the sense that nothing can no-longer be created, and can never be destroyed, only transformed or changed), therefore theres a predetermined mass of the universe.

 

So generically the universe was designed, (im not saying it was created, because to me creation implies that everything that we do, has been...mapped out if you like) Im not denying the existence of a god, but i am denying the existence of a god binded by laws, one that wants us to fear and obey, and take in everything that everyone says.

 

Because honestly, all theories work two ways, and in the end its the person who comes up with the more convincing argument that wins, some would say that denying the existence of god/a god denies purpose in life, as without an acknowledgement of a god, we have no purpose (in the sense that we were designed/created for something).

 

All I can really say is that believing in something blindly without looking at both sides (even to the extent of mocking the opposing side...like most people do...not implying anything...or am i?) only leaves a degree of anger and futility in peoples hearts, and leaves most people at the point in which they began. Believing or not believing.

 

In most cases I prefer to keep nuetral and see everything of either sides of the table, every once in a while I might be swayed more to the direction of the other side, because hey, sometimes people make a really good point like the first instance I watched that athiests nightmare video, and also watching alot of the darren brown videos on youtube (if you haven't heard of him, i suggest you watch the videos) which shows how easily people can be persuaded to athiesm/theism among many other types of persuasion.

 

But in conclusion, i've probably left you at the same point you were at the start, believing or not believing, although my argument was this: No one fuckin knows.... or to put it more less bluntly, the existance of god cannot be determined with the tools that we currently possess, and the perception of a god can only be theorized, argued, hypothesised, among other things but not implemented at the present time all that we currently possess are two things: science - a peer reviewed fountain of knowledge which attempts to give a logical standpoint on all relevent information, and religion - a compilation of concepts which we base our existance, faith, and beliefs upon, which are not neccessarily our own opinions of the inception of the universe, but which we believe to be the most accurate attempt at such...

 

Please dont be an asshole and dispute my spelling errors, just take what i've written and leave a questionably nuetral argument, that shows boths sides of the coin, with a relevant reasoning for such. (lol i sound like a fuckhead....but yeah...leave a reasonable response or dont leave one at all)

 

P.S. There are probably statements in there that might have to elaborate on, but yeah, i'll get to them as people comment on them...And im sure my arguments aren't full-proof, thats why i've put this up for discussion.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
My Argument is this: The

My Argument is this: The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created not destroyed, therefore logically theres a beginning, and an end to the universe (in the sense that nothing can no-longer be created, and can never be destroyed, only transformed or changed), therefore theres a predetermined mass of the universe.

This is why I prefer multiverse theory. Quantum tunnelling and hyperinflation will always be more parsimonous than God. Spontaneous breaking, and SU1xSU2xSU3 Grand Unifying theory (which have to do with something known as a false-vacuum fluctuation) are simply better explanations. They make sense.

God is quite simply an intangible plug. same as when Einstein found that his equations didn't work in a static universe, he plugged in a "fudge factor" to cancel gravitational attraction because he couldn't concieve that the universe was expanding. But he was wrong, now we know about Dark Energy and hyperinflation. When Newton's classical theory of celestial mechanics and gravity laws were confronted by a clergyman who argued that gravitational force should simply cause any large matter body to crush itself, Newton feebly argued that there was a "vital force of ether" that held everthing together (of course, now we know about the space-time continuum and the membranous fabric of the universe)

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15844
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cvrobison wrote: Hi guys,

cvrobison wrote:

Hi guys, this is my first post here, please be kind...My names charles, im kind-of a non-practicing-catholic-agnostic? well here goes:

 

My Argument is this: The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created not destroyed, therefore logically theres a beginning, and an end to the universe (in the sense that nothing can no-longer be created, and can never be destroyed, only transformed or changed), therefore theres a predetermined mass of the universe.

 

So generically the universe was designed, (im not saying it was created, because to me creation implies that everything that we do, has been...mapped out if you like) Im not denying the existence of a god, but i am denying the existence of a god binded by laws, one that wants us to fear and obey, and take in everything that everyone says.

 

Because honestly, all theories work two ways, and in the end its the person who comes up with the more convincing argument that wins, some would say that denying the existence of god/a god denies purpose in life, as without an acknowledgement of a god, we have no purpose (in the sense that we were designed/created for something).

 

All I can really say is that believing in something blindly without looking at both sides (even to the extent of mocking the opposing side...like most people do...not implying anything...or am i?) only leaves a degree of anger and futility in peoples hearts, and leaves most people at the point in which they began. Believing or not believing.

 

In most cases I prefer to keep nuetral and see everything of either sides of the table, every once in a while I might be swayed more to the direction of the other side, because hey, sometimes people make a really good point like the first instance I watched that athiests nightmare video, and also watching alot of the darren brown videos on youtube (if you haven't heard of him, i suggest you watch the videos) which shows how easily people can be persuaded to athiesm/theism among many other types of persuasion.

 

But in conclusion, i've probably left you at the same point you were at the start, believing or not believing, although my argument was this: No one fuckin knows.... or to put it more less bluntly, the existance of god cannot be determined with the tools that we currently possess, and the perception of a god can only be theorized, argued, hypothesised, among other things but not implemented at the present time all that we currently possess are two things: science - a peer reviewed fountain of knowledge which attempts to give a logical standpoint on all relevent information, and religion - a compilation of concepts which we base our existance, faith, and beliefs upon, which are not neccessarily our own opinions of the inception of the universe, but which we believe to be the most accurate attempt at such...

 

Please dont be an asshole and dispute my spelling errors, just take what i've written and leave a questionably nuetral argument, that shows boths sides of the coin, with a relevant reasoning for such. (lol i sound like a fuckhead....but yeah...leave a reasonable response or dont leave one at all)

 

P.S. There are probably statements in there that might have to elaborate on, but yeah, i'll get to them as people comment on them...And im sure my arguments aren't full-proof, thats why i've put this up for discussion.

I will be kind, but keep in mind I will at the same time be blunt. Your right to believe is not the issue here, also keep that in mind.

Now, having said that here goes.

If one is to claim that Second Law is an argument for the Christian god, it could also be used to claim Superman is possible as well. You are merely being selective about what Second Law would support.

Second Law does not support superstition of any kind. It does not support claims of 72 virgins or Vishnu. It does not support Yahwey or Isis. It does not support ouiji boards It is a scientific law that makes a simple statement and is completely seperate from ancient fictional claims of mythological fantacy that people want to believe is real. 

If it doesnt make sense to use "Second Law" to support claims of Allah, why would your deity be subject to any less scrutany?

If you use "Second Law" to prop up your particular claim, what would stop Tom Cruise from using "Second Law" to prop up his Scientology? 

"Second Law" does not justify me claiming that I could fart a Lamborginni out of my ass, any more than it would support human flesh surviving rigor mortis after 3 days.

The simple answer is that people like believing myth as fact. People of all religions do this. But that does not mean it is a good idea for humanity to bastardize the lagitimate tool of science to prop up what is clearly an agenda driven tactic that amounts to nothing more than a Cheerleading club.

I cant in good concious lie to myself or to you and say that it is ok to do this. It would be one thing to believe without using the tactic of basterdizing science, be it your faith or any other. But when it comes to the universale tool of science, humans need to face facts witout fear insted of letting their egos and emotions rule them.

If it makes no sense to argue that "Second Law" would not support Thot spitting in the Eye of Horus, why would "Second Law" magically support Jesus doing the same in the bible?

My point is not to anger you, but to challenge yourself to think for yourself insted of buying anything a priest, rabbi or cleric sell you. Wanting something to be real is not the same as proving it.

 

"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


cvrobison
cvrobison's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Enlighten me...whats second

Enlighten me...whats second law...? you kind of jumped into the argument without explaining anythiing...

P.S. Im a Ninja


cvrobison
cvrobison's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: This is

deludedgod wrote:

This is why I prefer multiverse theory. Quantum tunnelling and hyperinflation will always be more parsimonous than God. Spontaneous breaking, and SU1xSU2xSU3 Grand Unifying theory (which have to do with something known as a false-vacuum fluctuation) are simply better explanations. They make sense.

God is quite simply an intangible plug. same as when Einstein found that his equations didn't work in a static universe, he plugged in a "fudge factor" to cancel gravitational attraction because he couldn't concieve that the universe was expanding. But he was wrong, now we know about Dark Energy and hyperinflation. When Newton's classical theory of celestial mechanics and gravity laws were confronted by a clergyman who argued that gravitational force should simply cause any large matter body to crush itself, Newton feebly argued that there was a "vital force of ether" that held everthing together (of course, now we know about the space-time continuum and the membranous fabric of the universe)

 

You act like i have a relatively high understanding of theoretical physics, you'll probably need to put that in lamens terms...

 

Can I please make it clear...I kind of wrote this before: Explain your argument, and justify it (not that we can completely justify a persons beleif or disbeleif in god...)

P.S. Im a Ninja


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15844
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cvrobison wrote: Enlighten

cvrobison wrote:
Enlighten me...whats second law...? you kind of jumped into the argument without explaining anythiing...

Dont jump on me over semantics.

"energy cannot be created or distroyed" THAT IS scientific law, call it the billionth law it would still be a law of science.

Still in any case does not justify fiction as fact. Whatever we dont know about the universe or science does not justify absurdities of any kind. Otherwise I could claim that this law would justify belief that there is a giant teapot orbiting Jupiter. 

If we are to assume for argument's sake for example only and take your absurd claim as fact it would still beg the question of infinate regress. "Who created the creator".

What the theist(incert label here) never considers is that a "what" not a "who" is the answer. People anthropromorphize the universe as if it were a human itself. There is nothing magical about the universe. There is no bearded man in sandels threating to spank me or an evil guy in a red leotard re aranging my neurons making me do yucky things, anymore than little green men put Tom Cruize on this planet.

It never occures that human nature and human immagination is the reality, not a litteral magical being. If you expect me to mix lagitimate science with superstition you might as well stick pins in a voodoo doll in hopes that I will die of a heart attack right now.

"Energy cannot be created or distroyed" is lagit science.

"I will get 72 virgins in an afterlife" bunk, garbage fiction.

"A spirit knocking up a girl" bunk, garbage fiction.

"Little green men started life on this planet" bunk, garbage, fiction.

"Crop circles" bunk, garbage, fiction hoax.

"Human flesh can surive 3 days of death" bunk, garbage, fiction.

No ammount of arguing "Energy cannot be created or distroyed" will ever support any of the absurdities above any more than it would support Apollo litterally pulling the sun across the sky with a Chariot, or multiple armed deities named Ganish.

If the believer(incert label here) wants to believe those absurdities, I cant stop them. But I will not sit by and allow a universal lagit tool like science to be turned into a joke.

I'd suggest that you consider that what you believe is merely what you want to believe. At one time most of humanity believed that the heart, and not the brain, did the thinking. We now know differently.

It makes much more sense that people made up myths and believed in them(throughout human history) polytheist and modern monotheist because they didnt understand that they were merely projecting their own characteristics on what they wanted to be real.

I dont know who said this, "If horses had god(s) those gods would look like them. 

 

"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


cvrobison
cvrobison's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
I didn't argue anything

I didn't argue anything about mysticism in what I had stated, God is just a reasoning people give for the existence of the universe, its the "A in the A + B = C Theory".

My initial argument was that the universe had to be designed (whether in the smallest or largest way) in some specific way, shape, or form. Who said the thing that created the universe was even human?

I dont confess to know how the universe was created, but alot of people propose theories to how the universe was created, and i dont like adding words to the english vocabulary to make myself sound smart.

But to deny that the universe was created/designed, is to deny that we were created (to be very broad...) And the argument that "the simplest solution is usually the most logical" doesn't exactly stick either, that can be proven with the constant argument that people have over whether or not a god exists.

God is probably too much of a generic term for what im probably thinking...But I consider it highly unlikely that "10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, when the universe grew exponentially." and that the universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years... Because if they have difinitive proof of this...how come they cant find life on other planets...Because to me, these are all just theories, (more specifically theories I dont understand...and I dont claim to understand...if anyone wants to explain it, go ahead...)

The "Who created the creator" argument has been way overly used, to the extent that is really has no meaning, because (from what I believe) if the universe had no creator, technically it cant exist, something had to have created the universe, we could possibly be a 1 trillionth anomaly, which exists on a whim, because somehow the right amount of chemicals developed on a rock-based formation and created an ozone which could support life which is capable of thought? or the other alternative: the earth inception was predetermined.

But im seriously finding it hard not to make vulgar responses to your comments Brian...because they're all over the place, and don't make much sense to me...whose to say that there isn't an afterlife...and that you wont get 72 virgins if you want, I dont have the feintest clue of what happens beyond death, and neither do you, or anyone for that matter, because lets face it, none of us have technically died, and if someone truly is dead, its not like they can tell us about their experience...

Your going off in all these other directions that I didn't intend on sprouting up...like the existence of an afterlife and all this bullshit about mysticism, I didn't talk about anything like that in what I wrote, Everything was based on rational thought (Well, from what i thought...) but yeah...go on...

[MOD EDIT - changed text color to white for readability] 

P.S. Im a Ninja


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15844
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cvrobison wrote:

cvrobison wrote:

I didn't argue anything about mysticism in what I had stated, God is just a reasoning people give for the existence of the universe, its the "A in the A + B = C Theory".

My initial argument was that the universe had to be designed (whether in the smallest or largest way) in some specific way, shape, or form. Who said the thing that created the universe was even human?

I dont confess to know how the universe was created, but alot of people propose theories to how the universe was created, and i dont like adding words to the english vocabulary to make myself sound smart.

But to deny that the universe was created/designed, is to deny that we were created (to be very broad...) And the argument that "the simplest solution is usually the most logical" doesn't exactly stick either, that can be proven with the constant argument that people have over whether or not a god exists.

God is probably too much of a generic term for what im probably thinking...But I consider it highly unlikely that "10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, when the universe grew exponentially." and that the universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years... Because if they have difinitive proof of this...how come they cant find life on other planets...Because to me, these are all just theories, (more specifically theories I dont understand...and I dont claim to understand...if anyone wants to explain it, go ahead...)

The "Who created the creator" argument has been way overly used, to the extent that is really has no meaning, because (from what I believe) if the universe had no creator, technically it cant exist, something had to have created the universe, we could possibly be a 1 trillionth anomaly, which exists on a whim, because somehow the right amount of chemicals developed on a rock-based formation and created an ozone which could support life which is capable of thought? or the other alternative: the earth inception was predetermined.

But im seriously finding it hard not to make vulgar responses to your comments Brian...because they're all over the place, and don't make much sense to me...whose to say that there isn't an afterlife...and that you wont get 72 virgins if you want, I dont have the feintest clue of what happens beyond death, and neither do you, or anyone for that matter, because lets face it, none of us have technically died, and if someone truly is dead, its not like they can tell us about their experience...

Your going off in all these other directions that I didn't intend on sprouting up...like the existence of an afterlife and all this bullshit about mysticism, I didn't talk about anything like that in what I wrote, Everything was based on rational thought (Well, from what i thought...) but yeah...go on...

Quote:
But to deny that the universe was created/designed, is to deny that we were created (to be very broad...) And the argument that "the simplest solution is usually the most logical" doesn't exactly stick either, that can be proven with the constant argument that people have over whether or not a god exists.

God is probably too much of a generic term for what im probably thinking...But I consider it highly unlikely that "10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, when the universe grew exponentially." and that the universe has been expanding for 13.7 billion years... Because if they have difinitive proof of this...how come they cant find life on other planets...Because to me, these are all just theories, (more specifically theories I dont understand...and I dont claim to understand...if anyone wants to explain it, go ahead...)

"Whatever" it is you seem to want to articulate as "being" you havent difinitively defind. Why should I be obligated to buy ambigutity? You might as well believe in invisable pink unicorns.

Which is it? If it is a what, why call it god at all, just be honest and call it a what.

You have an idea you havent defind at all, you use the word god and then avoid defining it because you cant. That is no different than anyone else.

Quote:
I dont confess to know how the universe was created, but alot of people propose theories to how the universe was created, and i dont like adding words to the english vocabulary to make myself sound smart.

I agree, so why are you trying to assing an answer when it is clear from this statement that you dont have one.

What word did I use to "make myself sound smart"?

Anthropromorphism? It is a word. It means asigning human qualities to objects. The universe is an object, not a being.

Maybe you have a problem giving up completely on the idea of a who doing all this. Maybe you are in such awe of the universe you cant contimplate it as merely being an unthinking non-human caused event.

I doubt seriously that Jefferson's deism is any more credible than your ambiguity here. You in no way have defined what exactly you believe, and you have not provided any tesable falsifiable or repeatable demonstrations that would lead me to accept your claim as fact? Because you claim it is not the same as the claims of the bible, koran or torrah makes it more credible?

I dont buy "Nirvanna" because it is a vacuous wishfull thinking statement and is as meaningless and undifine and untestable.

Please do show me your peer reviewed studies demonstrating the cause of the universe. The point is you dont know and neither do I. But that does not mean it was created by an uncognative or cognative being.

Rocks, vocanos, super novas and giant balls of gass along with black holes and galaxies ARE NOT capable of thought or "creating". They merely move or effect the things around them as potential or kenetic energy. Anything beyond that such as a "god" claim be it a deism, or patheistic or theist claim is going to require one hell of a mountain of evidence.

I merely think you are letting your AWE factor make excuses as to dream up your version of what you think is, which you still have not defind or proven.

Just do the right thing and say, "I dont know" insted of accusing me of being close minded or arrogent.

 [MOD EDIT - changed quoted text color to white so it will display]

 

"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: 15844
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I dont know how the quotes

I dont know how the quotes didnt get printed. Maybe Luke Skywalker used the "force" to block it from being printed. Maybe the electrons and protons had a pow wow and decided to excape from the prior post.

Or maybe I just fucked up. 

"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


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
The quotes are there if you

The quotes are there if you highlight them.

I will attempt to fix them by changing the background.

(No promises, though.) 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: I dont know

Brian37 wrote:

I dont know how the quotes didnt get printed. Maybe Luke Skywalker used the "force" to block it from being printed.

That would be so very bad if he turned to the dark side of The Force.  Look what happened to his dad.  Sad 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!