Did you know gravity is a theory, it cannot be proven. Science never proves anything, it's made up by theory.
While i normally stay out of religious arguments since i dont have a solid position on the subject, but merely keep an open mind. However I felt compelled to reply, because i very much believe in gravity.
It is true that science is composed of theories, but lets not forget that a scientific theory is not a simple guess. My knowledge of science is limited, but if i remember correctly a theory must be backed up by evidence to prove it possible, and all attempts to disprove it should have failed. If it is disproved, then said theory is examined and reworked or removed if necessary. So gravity is a theory, but it has been proven, and ALL attempts to disprove it have failed, excluding Quantum Physics, but that is something which i am not smart enough to discuss. Science is not perfect, and it evolves with time as we discover new things. With every answer comes 100 questions. I believe recently someone disproved Einstein's E=MC^2, but not sure if it became official, last i heard they were going to redo the experiments in multiple independent labs to make sure that the original was not due to human error. Anyways despite its flaws, in my personal opinion, science offers the most satisfying explanation, for now, but i remain open minded to all possibilities.
PS. When it comes to religion we should all simply mind our own business. Unless their faith is somehow hurting others, and i do not mean some radicals who happen to have the same belief are hurting others, but their individual faith, then we should let them be.
You make so many assumptions here all I can say is see signature below.
Name one of them for us to discuss?
I think that would be far too boring. Maybe it would be cool if you could pick out what you think I thought was a huge assumption about that post and try to defend why it isn't as such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
I'm not reading this whole thing so I'll just drop off my weird experience here. My mother passed when I was a little boy. There was a lit candle by her hospital bed when she passed. It was just some rinky dink candle in a small glass container that had a pleasant smell. Well once everything was over someone noticed some weird shit going on in the candle. My grandma blew it out because there were five freaky feminine looking wax fingers coming out the top. She still has the candle 15 years later. Every now and then when I'm visiting I'll go look at it, and it creeps me the fuck out. I can't explain it. I can take some pictures if ya'll want next time I go.
Hi. I can't say i'm religious, and i can't really conform to any of the above mentioned definitions. If i have to define myself as something i would say i'm a determinist and as such the existence of a First Cause is inevitable. You said:
Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause (flying in the face of quantum physics and the concept of space-time) do not provide proof either
First of all it is not "infinite regression", it is in fact quite finite and it goes back to the First Bang. That egg could not explode by itself, a nudge had to be made in order to start the processes inside it that caused it to go "boom". And if the the egg made itself explode, that would just mean that the Universe itself had that intent and that would make it "God". Before you say that the processes could have started by themselves as natural part of the "evolution" of that egg, that is not possible either, because time did not exist in that "singular" state that the egg was in, so the only logical conclusion is that those processes had to have been started by an external force (a will). Where there is intent, there is intelligence. A First Cause might not be proof enough for you, but when seen through the eyes of a determinist, it is the only logical conclusion. It is about perspectives, and when yours is different from mine, no amount of proof can sway you away.
As for the proof lying with the Theists, that is not true either. They are not the ones that want the proof, they rely on belief and faith and that is enough for them. It is the Atheists that are not ok with that and hence they demand the proof, but the thing is that they simply cannot prove that God does not exist. Those 50 proofs that someone posted in the begining are just funny, and they don't really prove anything. Don't try to disprove the christian or muslim God, try and disprove a Creator, a First Cause, something that had intent.
As a side note i am still to this day puzzled about the amount of energy the atheists spend trying to disprove this and this religion or trying to get in the way of this and this religion. Yes i know that ignorance bothers them and they want to show the world that hard facts and empirical evidence are the gods of our Universe, but then again, ignorance comes in many shapes and forms and religion is faaaaaar from the worse. Religion has given us a lot of things (not all of them good i admit), because of which civilization is what it is today.
Proletaria is one of those athiests that has already set up his position and will not budge. Something can only be considered evidence if someone is going to review and contemplate it. He will not even review certain inevitable responses as he throws false logic as a retort.
I repeatedly cited the laws of relativity in that energy cannot be created, and matter can only be create with energy, and his reply is quoting the athiest acitivist carl sagan (who by the way was in his prime before the voyager landers even hit mars) stating we should just believe the universe has always existed?
As I freaking told him... (and he excludes this due to his picking and choosing) it creates an intrinsic paradox in that the universe no longer adheres to its own laws. The laws of relativity determine that everything requires an origin, as you stated -> even time itself <-.
Even if we quote M-theory, the big bang... the initial singularity doesn't work. According to M-theory, the dimensional membranes of the multiverse collided and at that moment sparked creation. The thing is... M-Theory still uses quantum physics and relativistic physics within its math... and even if its proven true it all points back to the the paradox mentioned above.
I'm sorry proletaria but your quote of Carl Sagan doesn't cut it. God and the Universe are not on par. One requires an origin and the other doesn't. If you cannot explain the origin of the universe, and until you can ----- YOU LOSE.
Proletaria is one of those athiests that has already set up his position and will not budge. Something can only be considered evidence if someone is going to review and contemplate it. He will not even review certain inevitable responses as he throws false logic as a retort.
I repeatedly cited the laws of relativity in that energy cannot be created, and matter can only be create with energy, and his reply is quoting the athiest acitivist carl sagan (who by the way was in his prime before the voyager landers even hit mars) stating we should just believe the universe has always existed?
As I freaking told him... (and he excludes this due to his picking and choosing) it creates an intrinsic paradox in that the universe no longer adheres to its own laws. The laws of relativity determine that everything requires an origin, as you stated -> even time itself <-.
Even if we quote M-theory, the big bang... the initial singularity doesn't work. According to M-theory, the dimensional membranes of the multiverse collided and at that moment sparked creation. The thing is... M-Theory still uses quantum physics and relativistic physics within its math... and even if its proven true it all points back to the the paradox mentioned above.
I'm sorry proletaria but your quote of Carl Sagan doesn't cut it. God and the Universe are not on par. One requires an origin and the other doesn't. If you cannot explain the origin of the universe, and until you can ----- YOU LOSE.
So to summarise your argument. An atheist cannot prove the origin of the universe, therefore it must have been God. QED
I remember a similar argument that used to be popular, and still is in some circles. It basically said that since everything in nature is so perfectly adapted to its environment, it could only have been designed that way by an intelligent creator.
Its the classic, "nothing else fits, so lets use God" argument.
You seem like a smart guy, why do you fall for this?
If you want to understand the origin of the universe (how, not why), I suggest this quote from Hawking,
"there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe. "
So to summarise your argument. An atheist cannot prove the origin of the universe, therefore it must have been God. QED
I remember a similar argument that used to be popular, and still is in some circles. It basically said that since everything in nature is so perfectly adapted to its environment, it could only have been designed that way by an intelligent creator.
Its the classic, "nothing else fits, so lets use God" argument.
You seem like a smart guy, why do you fall for this?
Its the fact that most athiests imagine god as a single powerful diety. They cannot understand that god does not have to be a single entity.... but is something much more. As others have said in this forum, god could be the universe... could be the single combined conciousness of the universe... etc.
I don't argue that the universe is not a combination of random events. I won't argue and say that DNA was not the mutation of RNA, which was developed by the random chance due to the right ingredients, the perfect environment and a little luck.
Creationists don't always argue that god guided evolution. Many (such as I) argue that there was something ... be it an event, an entity, a series of events... something outside of our control... outside of the laws of the universe that forged the laws of the universe.
Its not that unreal to believe that a god being could exist CrussRuss. Have you ever studied string theory? If you understand the fundamentals of string theory... if humanity could achieve the scientific perfection required to manipulate these strings, we could literally turn conciousness into part of the universe... and have the ability to manipulate it through a form of "energy".
String theory in and of itself is a type of "god", or could at least explain god.
Holy shit.... you just really said M-Theory was rediculous?
This is by far the most valid (currently... it could be disproven with the hadron collider) and credible explanation for the universe as we know it. This is the only all inclusive theorum that can take the math from everything including electron phasing, to gravity, to time, etc.
Hi. I can't say i'm religious, and i can't really conform to any of the above mentioned definitions. If i have to define myself as something i would say i'm a determinist and as such the existence of a First Cause is inevitable. You said:
Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause (flying in the face of quantum physics and the concept of space-time) do not provide proof either
First of all it is not "infinite regression", it is in fact quite finite and it goes back to the First Bang. That egg could not explode by itself, a nudge had to be made in order to start the processes inside it that caused it to go "boom". And if the the egg made itself explode, that would just mean that the Universe itself had that intent and that would make it "God". Before you say that the processes could have started by themselves as natural part of the "evolution" of that egg, that is not possible either, because time did not exist in that "singular" state that the egg was in, so the only logical conclusion is that those processes had to have been started by an external force (a will). Where there is intent, there is intelligence. A First Cause might not be proof enough for you, but when seen through the eyes of a determinist, it is the only logical conclusion. It is about perspectives, and when yours is different from mine, no amount of proof can sway you away.
As for the proof lying with the Theists, that is not true either. They are not the ones that want the proof, they rely on belief and faith and that is enough for them. It is the Atheists that are not ok with that and hence they demand the proof, but the thing is that they simply cannot prove that God does not exist. Those 50 proofs that someone posted in the begining are just funny, and they don't really prove anything. Don't try to disprove the christian or muslim God, try and disprove a Creator, a First Cause, something that had intent.
As a side note i am still to this day puzzled about the amount of energy the atheists spend trying to disprove this and this religion or trying to get in the way of this and this religion. Yes i know that ignorance bothers them and they want to show the world that hard facts and empirical evidence are the gods of our Universe, but then again, ignorance comes in many shapes and forms and religion is faaaaaar from the worse. Religion has given us a lot of things (not all of them good i admit), because of which civilization is what it is today.
Proletaria is one of those athiests that has already set up his position and will not budge. Something can only be considered evidence if someone is going to review and contemplate it. He will not even review certain inevitable responses as he throws false logic as a retort.
I repeatedly cited the laws of relativity in that energy cannot be created, and matter can only be create with energy, and his reply is quoting the athiest acitivist carl sagan (who by the way was in his prime before the voyager landers even hit mars) stating we should just believe the universe has always existed?
As I freaking told him... (and he excludes this due to his picking and choosing) it creates an intrinsic paradox in that the universe no longer adheres to its own laws. The laws of relativity determine that everything requires an origin, as you stated -> even time itself <-.
Even if we quote M-theory, the big bang... the initial singularity doesn't work. According to M-theory, the dimensional membranes of the multiverse collided and at that moment sparked creation. The thing is... M-Theory still uses quantum physics and relativistic physics within its math... and even if its proven true it all points back to the the paradox mentioned above.
I'm sorry proletaria but your quote of Carl Sagan doesn't cut it. God and the Universe are not on par. One requires an origin and the other doesn't. If you cannot explain the origin of the universe, and until you can ----- YOU LOSE.
This may be more along the lines of a scientific post than anything, but I just want to state any mathematician, or physicist alike know and admit that the law of relativity is fundamentally flawed. The theories of quantum mechanics and quantum physics do not mingle well, which was their first sign that the theories have flaws. Next, neither can explain what happens inside a singularity, both laws break down completely, ending in infinity, meaning that a singularity is infinitely heavy, yet takes up no space at all. That puts it terrible simple, but you seem to know enough about this topic to understand. In essence, this means there are fundamental flaws with our basic laws of nature.
After admitting that, there still it no room in the ration mind to place God in the void of mystery. God throughout history has been a placeholder for mystery. The tribes of early man used God as a place holder for near everything, early civilizations used it for weather and astronomy, among other things. Now we use God as a place holder for metaphysical concepts, which sadly right now are above of knowledge. Looking back at my first statement, even if our fundamentals are incorrect, that doesn't mean everything is wrong, and we know nothing about the world around us.
Using placeholders does no good when those placeholders don't drive us to move forward. When God is used as a placeholder, one is saying that is the end of the equation, the answer is God. This doesn't do anyone any good, and if everyone thought like this we would have nothing, and I believe that is proof enough on this very particular point I'm making.
As I've said many times, I'd much rather place a question mark in the equation than write in God as the conclusion.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
So to summarise your argument. An atheist cannot prove the origin of the universe, therefore it must have been God. QED
I remember a similar argument that used to be popular, and still is in some circles. It basically said that since everything in nature is so perfectly adapted to its environment, it could only have been designed that way by an intelligent creator.
Its the classic, "nothing else fits, so lets use God" argument.
You seem like a smart guy, why do you fall for this?
Its the fact that most athiests imagine god as a single powerful diety. They cannot understand that god does not have to be a single entity.... but is something much more. As others have said in this forum, god could be the universe... could be the single combined conciousness of the universe... etc.
I don't argue that the universe is not a combination of random events. I won't argue and say that DNA was not the mutation of RNA, which was developed by the random chance due to the right ingredients, the perfect environment and a little luck.
Creationists don't always argue that god guided evolution. Many (such as I) argue that there was something ... be it an event, an entity, a series of events... something outside of our control... outside of the laws of the universe that forged the laws of the universe.
Its not that unreal to believe that a god being could exist CrussRuss. Have you ever studied string theory? If you understand the fundamentals of string theory... if humanity could achieve the scientific perfection required to manipulate these strings, we could literally turn conciousness into part of the universe... and have the ability to manipulate it through a form of "energy".
String theory in and of itself is a type of "god", or could at least explain god.
I am a little confused, which of the two alternatives are you trying to say,
1.) God is an intelligent creator, existing outside/before the universe, that was involved in "setting it up" or
2.) God is something (not an intelligent creator), like an event or trigger or something else we cant imagine that kicked off the universe.
By my interpretation you are saying number 2.
This is what I have thought you have been saying since page 6. To me, this simply means you are using the word "God" for something which I, as an atheist am calling "The thing that happened before the big bang that I dont fully understand yet". So, in essence, you are just using the "Label" of "God" whereas the generally accepted concept is a omniscient intelligent complex creator.
Hi. I can't say i'm religious, and i can't really conform to any of the above mentioned definitions. If i have to define myself as something i would say i'm a determinist and as such the existence of a First Cause is inevitable. You said:
Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause (flying in the face of quantum physics and the concept of space-time) do not provide proof either
First of all it is not "infinite regression", it is in fact quite finite and it goes back to the First Bang. That egg could not explode by itself, a nudge had to be made in order to start the processes inside it that caused it to go "boom". And if the the egg made itself explode, that would just mean that the Universe itself had that intent and that would make it "God". Before you say that the processes could have started by themselves as natural part of the "evolution" of that egg, that is not possible either, because time did not exist in that "singular" state that the egg was in, so the only logical conclusion is that those processes had to have been started by an external force (a will). Where there is intent, there is intelligence. A First Cause might not be proof enough for you, but when seen through the eyes of a determinist, it is the only logical conclusion. It is about perspectives, and when yours is different from mine, no amount of proof can sway you away.
As for the proof lying with the Theists, that is not true either. They are not the ones that want the proof, they rely on belief and faith and that is enough for them. It is the Atheists that are not ok with that and hence they demand the proof, but the thing is that they simply cannot prove that God does not exist. Those 50 proofs that someone posted in the begining are just funny, and they don't really prove anything. Don't try to disprove the christian or muslim God, try and disprove a Creator, a First Cause, something that had intent.
As a side note i am still to this day puzzled about the amount of energy the atheists spend trying to disprove this and this religion or trying to get in the way of this and this religion. Yes i know that ignorance bothers them and they want to show the world that hard facts and empirical evidence are the gods of our Universe, but then again, ignorance comes in many shapes and forms and religion is faaaaaar from the worse. Religion has given us a lot of things (not all of them good i admit), because of which civilization is what it is today.
Proletaria is one of those athiests that has already set up his position and will not budge. Something can only be considered evidence if someone is going to review and contemplate it. He will not even review certain inevitable responses as he throws false logic as a retort.
I repeatedly cited the laws of relativity in that energy cannot be created, and matter can only be create with energy, and his reply is quoting the athiest acitivist carl sagan (who by the way was in his prime before the voyager landers even hit mars) stating we should just believe the universe has always existed?
As I freaking told him... (and he excludes this due to his picking and choosing) it creates an intrinsic paradox in that the universe no longer adheres to its own laws. The laws of relativity determine that everything requires an origin, as you stated -> even time itself <-.
Even if we quote M-theory, the big bang... the initial singularity doesn't work. According to M-theory, the dimensional membranes of the multiverse collided and at that moment sparked creation. The thing is... M-Theory still uses quantum physics and relativistic physics within its math... and even if its proven true it all points back to the the paradox mentioned above.
I'm sorry proletaria but your quote of Carl Sagan doesn't cut it. God and the Universe are not on par. One requires an origin and the other doesn't. If you cannot explain the origin of the universe, and until you can ----- YOU LOSE.
This may be more along the lines of a scientific post than anything, but I just want to state any mathematician, or physicist alike know and admit that the law of relativity is fundamentally flawed. The theories of quantum mechanics and quantum physics do not mingle well, which was their first sign that the theories have flaws. Next, neither can explain what happens inside a singularity, both laws break down completely, ending in infinity, meaning that a singularity is infinitely heavy, yet takes up no space at all. That puts it terrible simple, but you seem to know enough about this topic to understand. In essence, this means there are fundamental flaws with our basic laws of nature.
After admitting that, there still it no room in the ration mind to place God in the void of mystery. God throughout history has been a placeholder for mystery. The tribes of early man used God as a place holder for near everything, early civilizations used it for weather and astronomy, among other things. Now we use God as a place holder for metaphysical concepts, which sadly right now are above of knowledge. Looking back at my first statement, even if our fundamentals are incorrect, that doesn't mean everything is wrong, and we know nothing about the world around us.
Using placeholders does no good when those placeholders don't drive us to move forward. When God is used as a placeholder, one is saying that is the end of the equation, the answer is God. This doesn't do anyone any good, and if everyone thought like this we would have nothing, and I believe that is proof enough on this very particular point I'm making.
As I've said many times, I'd much rather place a question mark in the equation than write in God as the conclusion.
This is personally why I like M-Theory :). I know its just a theory... and I know its a theory that even the creator does not know all the answers to... but its the closest thing to an understanding of the universe that we have (if its true).
I am a little confused, which of the two alternatives are you trying to say,
1.) God is an intelligent creator, existing outside/before the universe, that was involved in "setting it up" or
2.) God is something (not an intelligent creator), like an event or trigger or something else we cant imagine that kicked off the universe.
By my interpretation you are saying number 2.
This is what I have thought you have been saying since page 6. To me, this simply means you are using the word "God" for something which I, as an atheist am calling "The thing that happened before the big bang that I dont fully understand yet". So, in essence, you are just using the "Label" of "God" whereas the generally accepted concept is a omniscient intelligent complex creator.
You are not an aethiest in the true sense of the word... you are what I would refer to as an aegnostic.
God in my opinion is just something with a conciousness that intentionally or unintentionally sparked creation.
Yeah the whole concept of M-theroy is very.. well.. theoretical lol. The ripples of certain dimensions colliding and forming a new universe which has the characteristics of those involved dimensions. This also is starting to play into our study of gravity, and why it's so weak compared to the other forces of nature. One theory out there is that when our universe was created the dimension where gravity comes from was, be is comprehendible distance or not, further away than where the other force of nature come from, so thus is deluded in comparison.
Again though the math behind this is still in progress.. Not that I'm going to school to become a mathematician lol, but I can understand most of what is on the internet about it math wise.
Just to tie this into the thread topic.. I'd still rather think we're just wrong in our current knowledge, and that there is indeed correct answers to these problems (which may take us millions of year to find out), rather than just assume the answer is God.
“We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about.” - Albert Einstein
I don't think gravity is one of our weaker forces... if anything it is most likely our strongest. No matter where in the universe we are... we are being affected by every other molecule in the universe.
One of the leading theories on dark energy pertains to the fact that our universe is being affected by the gravitational pull of the multiverse...
My main point (and I know we will continue to disagree on this) is that athiests need to think more abstractly. Most athiests simply call themselves such as they do not believe in the metaphor of god that is a king sitting on a throne.
God does not have to be humanized as soooooo soooooo many people try to do. As I stated multiple times in this thread (and proleteria didn't even give me a legitimate response to), our human minds can only percieve things in terms of what we know. If our eyes can only see in 3 Dimensions... then how can we draw a 10 dimensional figure? (this is a metaphor fyi). We will not be able to think beyond what we know, or the limits our brains can handle. This is the point of this whole thread. Proleteria expects to live his life on imperical evidence, based on the fact that his brain cannot think beyond what he can physically witness. Simply put, there are things we will NEVER understand... and will NEVER know.
God
noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
While one could argue off this definition that it states the word "being", this simply implies conciousness. If the laws of the universe themself could acquire conciousness then they would fulfill this definition. Why do athiests ALWAYS have to humanize him and look at the concept of god in such a narrow focus?
i like that you said "Why do athiests ALWAYS have to humanize HIM..."
this thread cracks me up
If I can refer to a boat as her or she... then I can refer to a an unknown entity as him. Besides your point as moot... I'm not an athiest, read the whole context/syntax next time.
Ok... so this is the 4th time I'll say it, hopefully you'll comprehend it this time: I don't need evidence to prove (to myself) there is a God.
And by extension you don't need evidence for a belief in faries. I'm asking for the diffirence between the two, not if you need evidence for god. Clearly you do not. Just answer that question: Why believe in god instead of faries when neither one requires you to have evdience?
All I need is faith, and that's something you obviously will never understand. I can believe in something, simply by choosing to believe in it; so I fail to see how you can "disprove the validity" of my faith. Faith is not something that requires to be proven, or else "faith" would have a different definition.
I'm not asking you what you need. Again, you aren't adressing the issue at hand. I'm asking you why you have put that faith in god instead of any number of other things that you might believe in without evidence. At no point have I asked you to prove faith by any definition. I have simply asked you why you are so selective about your belief when there are a huge number of things to believe in. There is clearly a special reason that you believe in this god and not in faries or dragons. I would like to know what that reason is.
However, using your logic, because I believe in God, I must therefor believe is unicorns. To me this is a laughable stance; but for some reason you find it logical. Did you know gravity is a theory, it cannot be proven. Science never proves anything, it's made up by theory, and human created "units" of measurement [(E=mc2 was a "proven" theory that just fell apart a couple weeks ago, and just like that, gravity will be "proven" wrong one day with a new theory)]. So therefor, using your logic again, if you believe in gravity (which can't be proven) you have to believe in unicorns?? Of course not, this position is asinine; but it's the position you have taken.
I'm not making that statement, but I am forced to consider it when you can't provide me a reason to believe in one thing over the others. Why is that not logical? Did you know that a scientific theory has stood up to vast quantities of evidence, scrutiny, and testing. It best describes the world and universe around us. That is in no way similar to your belief, absent entirely of reason or evidence. If gravity were to be re-tuned one day, science would do the math and be overjoyed at having more accurate models. I fail to see the connection between this and your belief in god rather than faries.
If faries, were observable phenomena (like gravity), could be measured and tested (like gravity), then I wouldn't have to believe in them at all. I could know about the theory of faries. You, indeed, created an asinine posuition, but only because it is absurd. You haven't actually conscripted an example that makes sense.
I ask you once again: In light of the fact that you need not have evidence to believe in god, and you need not have evidence to believe in faries, what is the factor that causes you to believe in god rather than faries?
You make so many assumptions here all I can say is see signature below.
Name one of them for us to discuss?
I think that would be far too boring. Maybe it would be cool if you could pick out what you think I thought was a huge assumption about that post and try to defend why it isn't as such.
So you want me to prove a negative? Or is this just an elaborate troll?
well, without big bang, we wouldnt exist. isnt that proof of creation? ^^
i want to state again that creation isnt a god.
I like your style, but I have to disagree with terming the big-bang creation, which implies a creator. Unless you were trying to suppose one and neither of us are, right? We don't know enough to make a statement of certitude about that.
I'm not reading this whole thing so I'll just drop off my weird experience here. My mother passed when I was a little boy. There was a lit candle by her hospital bed when she passed. It was just some rinky dink candle in a small glass container that had a pleasant smell. Well once everything was over someone noticed some weird shit going on in the candle. My grandma blew it out because there were five freaky feminine looking wax fingers coming out the top. She still has the candle 15 years later. Every now and then when I'm visiting I'll go look at it, and it creeps me the fuck out. I can't explain it. I can take some pictures if ya'll want next time I go.
I really would like to know how you'd relate this to proving god exists. Please do.
Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause (flying in the face of quantum physics and the concept of space-time) do not provide proof either
First of all it is not "infinite regression", it is in fact quite finite and it goes back to the First Bang. That egg could not explode by itself
This is an assumption. In-fact i've read from modern physicists that the matter and energy could have both appeared and exploded all by natural forces that we understand. I cannot say that is how it happened for sure and I cannot rule out some god igniting the fire by hand, but to assert as you have that this condition of "first bang," is a proof of creation concept, that's just not correct. We know better than that.
As for the proof lying with the Theists, that is not true either. They are not the ones that want the proof, they rely on belief and faith and that is enough for them. It is the Atheists that are not ok with that and hence they demand the proof, but the thing is that they simply cannot prove that God does not exist. Those 50 proofs that someone posted in the begining are just funny, and they don't really prove anything. Don't try to disprove the christian or muslim God, try and disprove a Creator, a First Cause, something that had intent.
This, as i've been trying to point out with another poster, is a fallacy. Belief and faith are not discriminatory, they are credulous and should apply to a great many things. However, when one observes what a religious person puts their faith in, it turns out that only very specific things make that list. Almost everything else in the unvierse falls under the same rules that rationalists would use to judge what is and is not proved to be true to real. I don't think i've wasted any time disproving a particular sect rather than simply point out (as with you) that arguments we are certain of a god are false. Nothing demands that god exist. That isn't to say a god doesn't, but there is no reason to assume one does either. The universe works without god.
As a side note i am still to this day puzzled about the amount of energy the atheists spend trying to disprove this and this religion or trying to get in the way of this and this religion. Yes i know that ignorance bothers them and they want to show the world that hard facts and empirical evidence are the gods of our Universe, but then again, ignorance comes in many shapes and forms and religion is faaaaaar from the worse. Religion has given us a lot of things (not all of them good i admit), because of which civilization is what it is today.
I explained why I am effected by religion a few pages back. But curiosity is a big part of it too. Learning about the universe includes learning why other people (part of our universe) act as they do and choose the beliefs that they have. I haven't taken the time to say that religion gives us more good or evil because in terms of the OP, I don't feel the need to make that assertion.
I don't think gravity is one of our weaker forces... if anything it is most likely our strongest. No matter where in the universe we are... we are being affected by every other molecule in the universe.
That was really scientific if you, but as far as we know gravity is a very weak force.
My main point (and I know we will continue to disagree on this) is that athiests need to think more abstractly. Most athiests simply call themselves such as they do not believe in the metaphor of god that is a king sitting on a throne.
Why must we be abstract when all we have to do is show you what we know and let you see that god isn't necessary for the universe to work. Being abstract or obtuse doesn't help us get that message across. I don't think you are asking me to be more cryptic out of a genuine sense that you want the ideas i'm conveying. In-fact I haven't been hard-to-read these last few days, so i'm quite sure you have recieves the points that have been sent out. You know that i'm on no such throne and have made no claims of my own.
God does not have to be humanized as soooooo soooooo many people try to do. As I stated multiple times in this thread (and proleteria didn't even give me a legitimate response to), our human minds can only percieve things in terms of what we know. If our eyes can only see in 3 Dimensions... then how can we draw a 10 dimensional figure? (this is a metaphor fyi). We will not be able to think beyond what we know, or the limits our brains can handle. This is the point of this whole thread. Proleteria expects to live his life on imperical evidence, based on the fact that his brain cannot think beyond what he can physically witness. Simply put, there are things we will NEVER understand... and will NEVER know.
I agree, god doesn't need to exist. The fact we can humanize "him," (or it or she) means absolutely nothing if we aren't even going to conclude that such an entity is evident. I know you are going to plea to the ignorance of the human mind and (like Umpa) simply insist that we cannot know the very special kind of stuff that god is made of or that god produced that produced the stuff that we can sense, etc. But ask yourself: Since you-too are living your life based on empirical (yes, it starts with an E) evidence every single day, why are you suspending this for a concept of god? Why add these levels of god-complexity to the arrangement? They aren't necessary.
You cannot claim that I will not understand something you are describing if you can't explain it. You cannot claim that you KNOW anything I don't if you cannot provide evidence for it. This approach you are taking is heading down the sorry hill of ad hominem to character attacks. I encourage you not to go there. It is a waste of our time and doesn't help your argument at all.
I'd still rather think we're just wrong in our current knowledge, and that there is indeed correct answers to these problems (which may take us millions of year to find out), rather than just assume the answer is God.
I ask you once again: In light of the fact that you need not have evidence to believe in god, and you need not have evidence to believe in faries, what is the factor that causes you to believe in god rather than faries?
http://dictionary.reference.com/
believe (verb): to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so
freedom (noun): the power to determine action without restraint
choose (verb): to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference
====
Because I have the freedom to choose whatever I want to believe. There is history, witnesses, unexplained miracles that all point to a God (that I choose to believe is true), where faries and unicorns do not. Now don't try to say that I must now believe in Bigfoot because there's eyewitnesses that have seen Bigfoot; I choose not to believe Bigfoot exists. The history, books, witnesses that account for God is much more than a blurry photo of "Bigfoot."
Something I think you are missing is that just because I believe God is real, doesn't mean you have to believe it. God can be real to me, and fake for you, at the same exact time and place. I see God in the wind that blows through trees, the sounds of nature, the taste of peanut M&M's (yummm), the peace I get when I pray... I do not have a personal connection with unicorns and faires, I don't believe they hear my prayers or created the universe. Why? Because I the freedom to choose my beliefs.
I consider myself a very logical person, but at the same time i am human as well. The need to believe in something is one of the strongest psychological needs.
I don't thik belief has anything to do with it. But I would assert that the social community provided by many religions are something that makes up a foundation of many societies.
Now as for the proof that you want so badly. As i said it is about perspectives. From the example with the egg that you said that:
I think you're confused. I don't need to proof the absence of god. I'm not pursuant to that end. All I need to do is insist we have no evidence for god.
This is an assumption. In-fact i've read from modern physicists that the matter and energy could have both appeared and exploded all by natural forces that we understand.
No. That is the assumption. Natural forces do not happen by themselves, even scientists still adhere to causality on macro level and when it happens on quantum level they just start working with probabilities, because as even Hawking has said, they might be missing a factor which would explain the way certain elements behave (ok side tracking here). So all in all, at the end even they can't really explain why the Universe would have exploded and they can just "assume". Well i as a determinist don't assume, i give that unknown factor a property: Intent.
All I need ask you here is: where does that evidence god or first cause? I'm well aware that quantum mechanics is based on probabilities and that Hawking, like any other scientist or mathematician, cannot speak about absolute certitude. They aren't attempting to explain the universe in absolute terms because they do not have to. They can assume and infer because they are not making absolute claims. Regardless of how we label factors in the probabilities of the universe we are not coming any closer to the truth of things which we do not have evidence for.
You see the thing is that we can keep going back and forth with every type of theory and belief. The annoying part is that (and i'm sorry if it's offensive) atheists are too scared to believe in anything so instead they choose to believe in nothing EXCEPT the facts, which as i stated in my previous post, tend to change with the times. I have gone through all the possible stages of belief, i have been baptized as a christian, then i had my doubts and went through a stage where god did not exist and finally i am where i am, and it is a good place. I have no big questions, i have no doubts, i have no fears. At the same time i also accept that in the case where i might be wrong, i wouldn't care once i'm dead, because well... i wouldn't even know i existed.
You see, this is the most dangerous kind of pseudo-argument. You are offering a juxtaposition of theory and belief as though the two things represented similar levels of understanding. They do not. A theory has to withstand scruitiny by the scientific community. A theory must stand up to evidence, testing, observation, etc. A belief has no such standard. A belief can be changed or it can be absolute and dogmatic. A belief has no rhyme or reason except that one person holds it. Once you take this dangerous position, you are immidiately tellng these great physicists that their work is no more valuable than the ramblings of a preacher at an evangelical church. This could not be further from the truth.
If you actually had no fear, no big questions, no doubts, then you would have absolutely no reason to believe in any such god that might or might no exist. The very concept of god that is being prescribed here is one that fills in our scientific gaps and uncertainties. All I am insisting here, is that no such concept is required. We have not established, at any point, that there is a need for such a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While i normally stay out of religious arguments since i dont have a solid position on the subject, but merely keep an open mind. However I felt compelled to reply, because i very much believe in gravity.
It is true that science is composed of theories, but lets not forget that a scientific theory is not a simple guess. My knowledge of science is limited, but if i remember correctly a theory must be backed up by evidence to prove it possible, and all attempts to disprove it should have failed. If it is disproved, then said theory is examined and reworked or removed if necessary. So gravity is a theory, but it has been proven, and ALL attempts to disprove it have failed, excluding Quantum Physics, but that is something which i am not smart enough to discuss. Science is not perfect, and it evolves with time as we discover new things. With every answer comes 100 questions. I believe recently someone disproved Einstein's E=MC^2, but not sure if it became official, last i heard they were going to redo the experiments in multiple independent labs to make sure that the original was not due to human error. Anyways despite its flaws, in my personal opinion, science offers the most satisfying explanation, for now, but i remain open minded to all possibilities.
PS. When it comes to religion we should all simply mind our own business. Unless their faith is somehow hurting others, and i do not mean some radicals who happen to have the same belief are hurting others, but their individual faith, then we should let them be.
I think that would be far too boring. Maybe it would be cool if you could pick out what you think I thought was a huge assumption about that post and try to defend why it isn't as such.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Proletaria is one of those athiests that has already set up his position and will not budge. Something can only be considered evidence if someone is going to review and contemplate it. He will not even review certain inevitable responses as he throws false logic as a retort.
I repeatedly cited the laws of relativity in that energy cannot be created, and matter can only be create with energy, and his reply is quoting the athiest acitivist carl sagan (who by the way was in his prime before the voyager landers even hit mars) stating we should just believe the universe has always existed?
As I freaking told him... (and he excludes this due to his picking and choosing) it creates an intrinsic paradox in that the universe no longer adheres to its own laws. The laws of relativity determine that everything requires an origin, as you stated -> even time itself <-.
Even if we quote M-theory, the big bang... the initial singularity doesn't work. According to M-theory, the dimensional membranes of the multiverse collided and at that moment sparked creation. The thing is... M-Theory still uses quantum physics and relativistic physics within its math... and even if its proven true it all points back to the the paradox mentioned above.
I'm sorry proletaria but your quote of Carl Sagan doesn't cut it. God and the Universe are not on par. One requires an origin and the other doesn't. If you cannot explain the origin of the universe, and until you can ----- YOU LOSE.
So to summarise your argument. An atheist cannot prove the origin of the universe, therefore it must have been God. QED
I remember a similar argument that used to be popular, and still is in some circles. It basically said that since everything in nature is so perfectly adapted to its environment, it could only have been designed that way by an intelligent creator.
Its the classic, "nothing else fits, so lets use God" argument.
You seem like a smart guy, why do you fall for this?
If you want to understand the origin of the universe (how, not why), I suggest this quote from Hawking,
"there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period, the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy, to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Reagan economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy, will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe. "
Its the fact that most athiests imagine god as a single powerful diety. They cannot understand that god does not have to be a single entity.... but is something much more. As others have said in this forum, god could be the universe... could be the single combined conciousness of the universe... etc.
I don't argue that the universe is not a combination of random events. I won't argue and say that DNA was not the mutation of RNA, which was developed by the random chance due to the right ingredients, the perfect environment and a little luck.
Creationists don't always argue that god guided evolution. Many (such as I) argue that there was something ... be it an event, an entity, a series of events... something outside of our control... outside of the laws of the universe that forged the laws of the universe.
Its not that unreal to believe that a god being could exist CrussRuss. Have you ever studied string theory? If you understand the fundamentals of string theory... if humanity could achieve the scientific perfection required to manipulate these strings, we could literally turn conciousness into part of the universe... and have the ability to manipulate it through a form of "energy".
String theory in and of itself is a type of "god", or could at least explain god.
Holy shit.... you just really said M-Theory was rediculous?
This is by far the most valid (currently... it could be disproven with the hadron collider) and credible explanation for the universe as we know it. This is the only all inclusive theorum that can take the math from everything including electron phasing, to gravity, to time, etc.
This may be more along the lines of a scientific post than anything, but I just want to state any mathematician, or physicist alike know and admit that the law of relativity is fundamentally flawed. The theories of quantum mechanics and quantum physics do not mingle well, which was their first sign that the theories have flaws. Next, neither can explain what happens inside a singularity, both laws break down completely, ending in infinity, meaning that a singularity is infinitely heavy, yet takes up no space at all. That puts it terrible simple, but you seem to know enough about this topic to understand. In essence, this means there are fundamental flaws with our basic laws of nature.
After admitting that, there still it no room in the ration mind to place God in the void of mystery. God throughout history has been a placeholder for mystery. The tribes of early man used God as a place holder for near everything, early civilizations used it for weather and astronomy, among other things. Now we use God as a place holder for metaphysical concepts, which sadly right now are above of knowledge. Looking back at my first statement, even if our fundamentals are incorrect, that doesn't mean everything is wrong, and we know nothing about the world around us.
Using placeholders does no good when those placeholders don't drive us to move forward. When God is used as a placeholder, one is saying that is the end of the equation, the answer is God. This doesn't do anyone any good, and if everyone thought like this we would have nothing, and I believe that is proof enough on this very particular point I'm making.
As I've said many times, I'd much rather place a question mark in the equation than write in God as the conclusion.
I am a little confused, which of the two alternatives are you trying to say,
1.) God is an intelligent creator, existing outside/before the universe, that was involved in "setting it up" or
2.) God is something (not an intelligent creator), like an event or trigger or something else we cant imagine that kicked off the universe.
By my interpretation you are saying number 2.
This is what I have thought you have been saying since page 6. To me, this simply means you are using the word "God" for something which I, as an atheist am calling "The thing that happened before the big bang that I dont fully understand yet". So, in essence, you are just using the "Label" of "God" whereas the generally accepted concept is a omniscient intelligent complex creator.
This is personally why I like M-Theory :). I know its just a theory... and I know its a theory that even the creator does not know all the answers to... but its the closest thing to an understanding of the universe that we have (if its true).
You are not an aethiest in the true sense of the word... you are what I would refer to as an aegnostic.
God in my opinion is just something with a conciousness that intentionally or unintentionally sparked creation.
Yeah the whole concept of M-theroy is very.. well.. theoretical lol. The ripples of certain dimensions colliding and forming a new universe which has the characteristics of those involved dimensions. This also is starting to play into our study of gravity, and why it's so weak compared to the other forces of nature. One theory out there is that when our universe was created the dimension where gravity comes from was, be is comprehendible distance or not, further away than where the other force of nature come from, so thus is deluded in comparison.
Again though the math behind this is still in progress.. Not that I'm going to school to become a mathematician lol, but I can understand most of what is on the internet about it math wise.
Just to tie this into the thread topic.. I'd still rather think we're just wrong in our current knowledge, and that there is indeed correct answers to these problems (which may take us millions of year to find out), rather than just assume the answer is God.
One of the leading theories on dark energy pertains to the fact that our universe is being affected by the gravitational pull of the multiverse...
My main point (and I know we will continue to disagree on this) is that athiests need to think more abstractly. Most athiests simply call themselves such as they do not believe in the metaphor of god that is a king sitting on a throne.
God does not have to be humanized as soooooo soooooo many people try to do. As I stated multiple times in this thread (and proleteria didn't even give me a legitimate response to), our human minds can only percieve things in terms of what we know. If our eyes can only see in 3 Dimensions... then how can we draw a 10 dimensional figure? (this is a metaphor fyi). We will not be able to think beyond what we know, or the limits our brains can handle. This is the point of this whole thread. Proleteria expects to live his life on imperical evidence, based on the fact that his brain cannot think beyond what he can physically witness. Simply put, there are things we will NEVER understand... and will NEVER know.
While one could argue off this definition that it states the word "being", this simply implies conciousness. If the laws of the universe themself could acquire conciousness then they would fulfill this definition. Why do athiests ALWAYS have to humanize him and look at the concept of god in such a narrow focus?
this thread cracks me up
If I can refer to a boat as her or she... then I can refer to a an unknown entity as him. Besides your point as moot... I'm not an athiest, read the whole context/syntax next time.
And by extension you don't need evidence for a belief in faries. I'm asking for the diffirence between the two, not if you need evidence for god. Clearly you do not. Just answer that question: Why believe in god instead of faries when neither one requires you to have evdience?
I'm not asking you what you need. Again, you aren't adressing the issue at hand. I'm asking you why you have put that faith in god instead of any number of other things that you might believe in without evidence. At no point have I asked you to prove faith by any definition. I have simply asked you why you are so selective about your belief when there are a huge number of things to believe in. There is clearly a special reason that you believe in this god and not in faries or dragons. I would like to know what that reason is.
I'm not making that statement, but I am forced to consider it when you can't provide me a reason to believe in one thing over the others. Why is that not logical? Did you know that a scientific theory has stood up to vast quantities of evidence, scrutiny, and testing. It best describes the world and universe around us. That is in no way similar to your belief, absent entirely of reason or evidence. If gravity were to be re-tuned one day, science would do the math and be overjoyed at having more accurate models. I fail to see the connection between this and your belief in god rather than faries.
If faries, were observable phenomena (like gravity), could be measured and tested (like gravity), then I wouldn't have to believe in them at all. I could know about the theory of faries. You, indeed, created an asinine posuition, but only because it is absurd. You haven't actually conscripted an example that makes sense.
I ask you once again: In light of the fact that you need not have evidence to believe in god, and you need not have evidence to believe in faries, what is the factor that causes you to believe in god rather than faries?
So you want me to prove a negative? Or is this just an elaborate troll?
I like your style, but I have to disagree with terming the big-bang creation, which implies a creator. Unless you were trying to suppose one and neither of us are, right? We don't know enough to make a statement of certitude about that.
I really would like to know how you'd relate this to proving god exists. Please do.
This is an assumption. In-fact i've read from modern physicists that the matter and energy could have both appeared and exploded all by natural forces that we understand. I cannot say that is how it happened for sure and I cannot rule out some god igniting the fire by hand, but to assert as you have that this condition of "first bang," is a proof of creation concept, that's just not correct. We know better than that.
This, as i've been trying to point out with another poster, is a fallacy. Belief and faith are not discriminatory, they are credulous and should apply to a great many things. However, when one observes what a religious person puts their faith in, it turns out that only very specific things make that list. Almost everything else in the unvierse falls under the same rules that rationalists would use to judge what is and is not proved to be true to real. I don't think i've wasted any time disproving a particular sect rather than simply point out (as with you) that arguments we are certain of a god are false. Nothing demands that god exist. That isn't to say a god doesn't, but there is no reason to assume one does either. The universe works without god.
I explained why I am effected by religion a few pages back. But curiosity is a big part of it too. Learning about the universe includes learning why other people (part of our universe) act as they do and choose the beliefs that they have. I haven't taken the time to say that religion gives us more good or evil because in terms of the OP, I don't feel the need to make that assertion.
That was really scientific if you, but as far as we know gravity is a very weak force.
Why must we be abstract when all we have to do is show you what we know and let you see that god isn't necessary for the universe to work. Being abstract or obtuse doesn't help us get that message across. I don't think you are asking me to be more cryptic out of a genuine sense that you want the ideas i'm conveying. In-fact I haven't been hard-to-read these last few days, so i'm quite sure you have recieves the points that have been sent out. You know that i'm on no such throne and have made no claims of my own.
I agree, god doesn't need to exist. The fact we can humanize "him," (or it or she) means absolutely nothing if we aren't even going to conclude that such an entity is evident. I know you are going to plea to the ignorance of the human mind and (like Umpa) simply insist that we cannot know the very special kind of stuff that god is made of or that god produced that produced the stuff that we can sense, etc. But ask yourself: Since you-too are living your life based on empirical (yes, it starts with an E) evidence every single day, why are you suspending this for a concept of god? Why add these levels of god-complexity to the arrangement? They aren't necessary.
You cannot claim that I will not understand something you are describing if you can't explain it. You cannot claim that you KNOW anything I don't if you cannot provide evidence for it. This approach you are taking is heading down the sorry hill of ad hominem to character attacks. I encourage you not to go there. It is a waste of our time and doesn't help your argument at all.
That is the rational approach.
http://dictionary.reference.com/
believe (verb): to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so
freedom (noun): the power to determine action without restraint
choose (verb): to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference
====
Because I have the freedom to choose whatever I want to believe. There is history, witnesses, unexplained miracles that all point to a God (that I choose to believe is true), where faries and unicorns do not. Now don't try to say that I must now believe in Bigfoot because there's eyewitnesses that have seen Bigfoot; I choose not to believe Bigfoot exists. The history, books, witnesses that account for God is much more than a blurry photo of "Bigfoot."
Something I think you are missing is that just because I believe God is real, doesn't mean you have to believe it. God can be real to me, and fake for you, at the same exact time and place. I see God in the wind that blows through trees, the sounds of nature, the taste of peanut M&M's (yummm), the peace I get when I pray... I do not have a personal connection with unicorns and faires, I don't believe they hear my prayers or created the universe. Why? Because I the freedom to choose my beliefs.
I don't thik belief has anything to do with it. But I would assert that the social community provided by many religions are something that makes up a foundation of many societies.
I think you're confused. I don't need to proof the absence of god. I'm not pursuant to that end. All I need to do is insist we have no evidence for god.
All I need ask you here is: where does that evidence god or first cause? I'm well aware that quantum mechanics is based on probabilities and that Hawking, like any other scientist or mathematician, cannot speak about absolute certitude. They aren't attempting to explain the universe in absolute terms because they do not have to. They can assume and infer because they are not making absolute claims. Regardless of how we label factors in the probabilities of the universe we are not coming any closer to the truth of things which we do not have evidence for.
You see, this is the most dangerous kind of pseudo-argument. You are offering a juxtaposition of theory and belief as though the two things represented similar levels of understanding. They do not. A theory has to withstand scruitiny by the scientific community. A theory must stand up to evidence, testing, observation, etc. A belief has no such standard. A belief can be changed or it can be absolute and dogmatic. A belief has no rhyme or reason except that one person holds it. Once you take this dangerous position, you are immidiately tellng these great physicists that their work is no more valuable than the ramblings of a preacher at an evangelical church. This could not be further from the truth.
If you actually had no fear, no big questions, no doubts, then you would have absolutely no reason to believe in any such god that might or might no exist. The very concept of god that is being prescribed here is one that fills in our scientific gaps and uncertainties. All I am insisting here, is that no such concept is required. We have not established, at any point, that there is a need for such a thing.