Ask an atheist

[Not-Eor]

Why do you hate jesus?

 

[Falconv1.0]

Why do you hate jesus?

Moderatin' an' tryna catch me postin' dirty.

Seriously though, be ashamed.

 

[highfive]

Atheist O Atheist, what doth thy think of Sarah Palin? Atheist O Atheist?

 

[Not-Eor]

What! I'm not a moderator! I'm just a new guy to this forum whose never been here before. Please don't make that mistake I don't want people thinking I'm someone I'm not!

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Uh oh religion blog!

I prefer actually debating, but if we're supposed to ask questions then I'll ask you and then you can reply, I ask more, etc. Hopefully I can steer it to a conclusion.

So: what is the difference between an agnostic atheist and a pure agnostic? Which one of these requires no faith?

Keep in mind that they cannot BOTH lack faith, because then they would be the same position. By "faith" I mean any proposition that cannot be proven. There is only one set of proven propositions.

In all honesty, the difference really is negligible. (I guess you'll find a lot of sects of faith anywhere are kind of like that though)

Agnostic-atheist - holds the possibility that there could be some higher form or creator out there (it might even be one of those sufficiently advanced alien races that are just basically indistinguishable from Gods, -.-), but they have to deny it until they see evidence

Agnostics - basically a 'lite' version of the above, except they don't even care or really want to know

this link has a somewhat useful summary: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic-atheist-faq.htm

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I tried to john the Debate Hall but they haven't replied.

That's why you join the Proving Grounds first and work your way through there. That's how it works.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Atheist O Atheist, what doth thy think of Sarah Palin? Atheist O Atheist?

She's one of the only true republicans - she literaly is flipping her party for a profit. Straight out of VP nominee, quits her job as Governor, sells a book that draws ridiculously large crowds, crowds you would expect to find at a rockstar conference. No other politician can do that. She makes so much money from the book, she goes straight to Fox News as a commentator for god only knows what salary. She is pure business, and I admire that.

It terrifies me that she could one day conceivably have access to nuclear codes.

I would totally bang her.

That's why you join the Proving Grounds first and work your way through there. That's how it works.

I get this message every time I try to post:

SwastikaPyle, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

 

[highfive]

She's one of the only true republicans - she literaly is flipping her party for a profit. Straight out of VP nominee, quits her job as Governor, sells a book that draws ridiculously large crowds, crowds you would expect to find at a rockstar conference. No other politician can do that. She makes so much money from the book, she goes straight to Fox News as a commentator for god only knows what salary. She is pure business, and I admire that.

It terrifies me that she could one day conceivably have access to nuclear codes.

I would totally bang her.

Works for me.

 

[john!]

In all honesty, the difference really is negligible. (I guess you'll find a lot of sects of faith anywhere are kind of like that though)

Agnostic-atheist - holds the possibility that there could be some higher form or creator out there (it might even be one of those sufficiently advanced alien races that are just basically indistinguishable from Gods, -.-), but they have to deny it until they see evidence

Agnostics - basically a 'lite' version of the above, except they don't even care or really want to know

this link has a somewhat useful summary: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic-atheist-faq.htm

So let's try to agree on terms here.

Theist: holds the position that God does exist
Atheist: holds the position that God does not exist
^^^ These two are mutually exclusive

Agnostic: One who does not claim to know whether God exists or not.
^^^ Is compatible with both theism and atheism

These are good, right? So why does only one of the first two positions require evidence, and the other one doesn't? They have the exact same cognitive value.

Take for example the "black swan"... the English thought all swans were white for a long time, until they went to Australia and found black swans. What if God (or the proof of God) is a black swan waiting to be discovered?

So even if you find evidence for God not existing, others will find evidence for God existing (there are a bunch of arguments out there, search Google) and each person has to judge for themselves. It's dishonest to put atheism at a higher level than theism and say "we don't need evidence". It's a positive claim just like theism is... especially if you reword it like so:

Atheist: holds the position that either the Universe was created by a force that was not divine, or that the Universe was not created at all, and has always existed.

^^^ That statement requires evidence. Atheism is a belief.



...ah crap I forgot to ask a question. Umm... what's your favorite color?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I get this message every time I try to post:

SwastikaPyle, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Yeah. You have to apply to be a Temp Debater, then you can post. Then if you're good in there, you'll get accepted into the real Debate Hall.

 

[Эикельманн [РУС]]

I find it funny my question was never answered.

 

[kirbywizard]

Just To Make Sure No One Is Confused With Definitions ( Thanks To WIki)

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[clarification needed (complicated jargon)][2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

n Western culture, atheists are frequently assumed to be exclusively irreligious or unspiritual.[10] However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have also been described as atheistic.[11]

 

[§witch]

Agnostics don't believe in anything, isn't that right? Therefore, they fail worse than people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

I might be wrong.

I know for sure that nihilists believe in nothing.

Agnostics are not at all what you think they are. An agnostic is someone who does not not know for sure either way. They do not if there is a God or not, but they don't believe in one.

Nihilists believe that one or more meaningful aspect of life is meaningless. They can believe in nothing, yes, but it could be that they merely think that morals are subjective and therefore meaningless as a whole.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

but they don't believe in one.

Incorrect.

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Strangely enough, I believe in God, and to more the Christian ways, although I don't fully follow Christian ways. However, I still uphold my beliefs in ways such as not committing anything that would be considered bad.

Wonder what I'd be considered as in Religion?

 

[Ganonsburg]

Incorrect.



Strangely enough, I believe in God, and to more the Christian ways, although I don't fully follow Christian ways. However, I still uphold my beliefs in ways such as not committing anything that would be considered bad.

Wonder what I'd be considered as in Religion?

Monotheist?

 

[§witch]

Incorrect.



Strangely enough, I believe in God, and to more the Christian ways, although I don't fully follow Christian ways. However, I still uphold my beliefs in ways such as not committing anything that would be considered bad.

Wonder what I'd be considered as in Religion?

Probably a Deist. They believe that a God created the universe but just left us to our own devices afterwards.

 

[zaneebaslave]

I think that some of you might not understand Christianity or theism either. Most of us wouldnt believe in God if there wasnt some sort of evidence of the existence of him. It just isnt very evident in the areas of science. However, there have been many mathematical findings of which could very well be evidence that there is a God. Patterns have been found in nature that prove as evidence that something intelligent must have created them.

I am not trying to start a religious debate, I am just pointing out that atheism isnt the only people with evidence on their side. One might say that science= atheism, but mathematics= theism. Science cannot live without mathematics, as well as mathematics cannot live without science.

It's strange though, as if to almost cancel each other out with VERY conflicting ideas. Perhaps the truth was never supposed to be found out.

 

[§witch]

I think that some of you might not understand Christianity or theism either. Most of us wouldnt believe in God if there wasnt some sort of evidence of the existence of him. It just isnt very evident in the areas of science. However, there have been many mathematical findings of which could very well be evidence that there is a God. Patterns have been found in nature that prove as evidence that something intelligent must have created them.

I am not trying to start a religious debate, I am just pointing out that atheism isnt the only people with evidence on their side. One might say that science= atheism, but mathematics= theism. Science cannot live without mathematics, as well as mathematics cannot live without science.

It's strange though, as if to almost cancel each other out with VERY conflicting ideas. Perhaps the truth was never supposed to be found out.

Phi is not proof of a God in the slightest. I can only presume that by "mathematics" you mean the divine proportion only. If there's something else that could possibly back up your idea, I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I think that some of you might not understand Christianity or theism either. Most of us wouldnt believe in God if there wasnt some sort of evidence of the existence of him. It just isnt very evident in the areas of science. However, there have been many mathematical findings of which could very well be evidence that there is a God. Patterns have been found in nature that prove as evidence that something intelligent must have created them.

I am not trying to start a religious debate, I am just pointing out that atheism isnt the only people with evidence on their side. One might say that science= atheism, but mathematics= theism. Science cannot live without mathematics, as well as mathematics cannot live without science.

It's strange though, as if to almost cancel each other out with VERY conflicting ideas. Perhaps the truth was never supposed to be found out.

You're insane, if you're trying to not start a debate, you're doing a horrible job at it.

You can't prove or disprove God, you can however disprove religion.

 

[Ganonsburg]

lol, he didn't even mention phi. But merely the fact that we can describe the patterns we find in nature using mathematics in every situation says volumes. That these laws of nature apply to everything, great and small (until the infinitesimally small parts of atoms are considered, at which point we don't quite know what they do). How is it that these laws are the same throughout the known universe? Why aren't they changing, if everything else is changing as well?

Also, where did the universe come from? The Big Bang, according to many people. Where'd that come from. And explosion of matter and energy, which were the leftovers of the previous universe.. I can ask the same question and always get those for an answer. But they don't answer the question in the slightest. How and why does it exist in the first place? It HAD to start somewhere. There is a beginning and an end to everything in the universe (including the universe itself).

Which would come to reason that something outside of the universe made it, because the universe could not have simply always existed. According to entropy (if we can run out of usable energy, that means there's a limited amount, which means a definite amount, which means at some point all the energy was usable, or at least most of it) the universe must have a beginning and an end; it is not infinite nor has it been.

Unless the laws of physics change. In which case you can draw almost no conclusions about anything. And if they change, why is it that our formulas are so consistent? If you say that it's simply that we haven't had enough time to observe, then you're falling back on an assumption that has no evidence.

Which, yes, is what religions do. We all fall back on something and make assumptions about some things. Mine is God, yours is time.

 

[§witch]

lol, he didn't even mention phi. But merely the fact that we can describe the patterns we find in nature using mathematics in every situation says volumes.

He didn't mention phi but that's what he was referring to obviously. What else but "the golden ratio/divine proportion fits better what he was talking about?

How is it that these laws are the same throughout the known universe? Why aren't they changing, if everything else is changing as well?

Also, where did the universe come from? The Big Bang, according to many people. Where'd that come from. And explosion of matter and energy, which were the leftovers of the previous universe.. I can ask the same question and always get those for an answer. But they don't answer the question in the slightest. How and why does it exist in the first place? It HAD to start somewhere. There is a beginning and an end to everything in the universe (including the universe itself).

No it doesn't answer the question. Nothing does. You can't, i can't, no living perosn can, nor we will ever be able to.

Which would come to reason that something outside of the universe made it, because the universe could not have simply always existed.

Let's pretend for a second that your logic isn't horribly flawed: if you think that the universe must have been created by God because it couldn't have existed forever, then what created God? Either way there was a beginning of time, which is the most difficult and complex question out there.

According to entropy (if we can run out of usable energy, that means there's a limited amount, which means a definite amount, which means at some point all the energy was usable, or at least most of it) the universe must have a beginning and an end; it is not infinite nor has it been.

Law of Conservation of Energy: energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There is most definitely not a definite amount of energy in the universe.

Unless the laws of physics change. In which case you can draw almost no conclusions about anything. And if they change, why is it that our formulas are so consistent? If you say that it's simply that we haven't had enough time to observe, then you're falling back on an assumption that has no evidence.

Science most definitely does not want the laws of the universe to change. I really don't see your point.

Which, yes, is what religions do. We all fall back on something and make assumptions about some things. Mine is God, yours is time.

Religion is a rationalization of what we cannot yet explain.

 

[Ganonsburg]

If a being exists outside the universe and made the universe, that being does not follow the rules of the universe. The laws don't apply the the being because it is not inside the universe. Which means it's fully possible for something to create and start a universe. That's not a contradiction in any way in my thinking. You're simply assuming that God MUST follow the rules in the universe.

See, the Big Bang doesn't answer the question. Which means you need another answer, because your answer is flawed.

http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
Yes, conservations of mass and energy is one law of physics, but entropy is another. It says that energy loses its usefulness as it is used. It doesn't disappear or anything, it's still conserved. However, this is why we can't have time travel, or have perpetual motion. As we lose usable energy, the overall temperature of the universe approaches absolute zero. Near absolute zero is where there is virtually no motion, and thus virtually no usable energy. Many scientists hypothesize that this will be how the universe ends, just so you know that the people on your side of the table support this. Because it has an end, it has a definite amount of usable energy (also stated in the law of conservation of energy). With a definite amount, and rate of change that indicates that we are losing usable energy, we know that there must have been a beginning!

Think of the graph of y=2-x. If x is time, it can't be less than zero. It has a maximum of y=2 at x=0. If y (usable energy) can not be negative, and approaches zero, the end of time is approximately x=2. There is a beginning and an end.

If there is a beginning and an end, and the universe could not have made itself (conservation of mass, and the tendency to lose order and information overall due to entropy means it can not provide itself with order on the whole), then the universe must have come from another place. This other place is God. Determining which God (or gods) it is/was is another story that's even more complex.

 

[El Nino]

but I have never met the reverse of this - a person without faith who applied the scientific method to a religion and conceded that the religion was the correct choice.

For what it's worth, I know of one. A friend of mine who grew up in a non-religious household and studied the academic sciences at the master's level is a practicing Buddhist now.

It IS however, incompatible with just about any organized religion you can think of.

I'm going to ask you if you really think that every scientist in the world is an atheist or agnostic. There are those who are, but there are also others who are religious. Not everyone practices organized religion blindly, not any more than they would practice anything else blindly. It's possible to hold on to certain core principles while using reason to help you decide what is literal and what is figurative in any text. Ultimately, no matter what is written, interpretation is paramount to what an individual derives from it, and interpretation is something the individual can control.

In my opinion, I don't care either way. I think people are better off believing whatever works for them, be it atheism or deism or existentialism or something else, so long as they don't try building public policy off of it or forcing it onto others.

 

[Super_Sonic8677]

No it doesn't answer the question. Nothing does. You can't, i can't, no living perosn can, nor we will ever be able to.
No evidence = belief right, am I right?

Let's pretend for a second that your logic isn't horribly flawed: if you think that the universe must have been created by God because it couldn't have existed forever, then what created God? Either way there was a beginning of time, which is the most difficult and complex question out there.

Because yours is so totally perfect. He's not talking about God, he's talking about the universe, did you not read the rest of this? We don't know if God has limited or unlimited energy, we don't even know if he exists. And it's irrelevant to the argument that's he's providing...moron <.<

Law of Conservation of Energy: energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There is most definitely not a definite amount of energy in the universe.

Then what is the law of entropy and why the **** is it a law?


Science most definitely does not want the laws of the universe to change. I really don't see your point.

Then read it again because you were too busy bashing to really be paying attention

I normally don't really post in these because I don't know enough to explain my points properly more often than not but you and that one bashing Firus a few pages back are the exact kind of *******s I'm talking about and it's really starting to bug me.

 

[Ninja Pirate]

If a being exists outside the universe and made the universe, that being does not follow the rules of the universe.

If I decide to make a cardboard box, I still follow the same rules as that box. That box follows exactly the same physical laws as I do, even though I don't live inside it. So what you're doing here is applying the spectacle of life, the universe, and everything to your logic. Not even that, your using it as the basis.

"A being made an object, and it exists outside the object, so, OBVIOUSLY, it can't follow the same rules as that object." That's your reasoning, am I wrong?

I have to admit that there is still a possibility that your theory is correct; however, I disproved the logic of it.

 

[ChivalRuse]

Hey, guys. Sorry, I was out of line saying agnostics fail.

Firus, I said a lot of rude and uncalled-for things. Sometimes I'm an idiot and say what I'm thinking without taking into account that I might be offending other people. I hope I didn't ruin your day.

 

[Super_Sonic8677]

If I decide to make a cardboard box, I still follow the same rules as that box. That box follows exactly the same physical laws as I do, even though I don't live inside it. So what you're doing here is applying the spectacle of life, the universe, and everything to your logic. Not even that, your using it as the basis.

"A being made an object, and it exists outside the object, so, OBVIOUSLY, it can't follow the same rules as that object." That's your reasoning, am I wrong?

I have to admit that there is still a possibility that your theory is correct; however, I disproved the logic of it.

When he says the universe he can only mean the universe as in every single everything in it, of it, and about it. The laws of the universe are a part of the universe. They may or may not apply outside of the universe, depending on whether or not they're outside of the universe or not. And he and I are both saying that they do not. And why should they if the rules themselves were created by Whatever is outside this plane of existence?

Your box analogy is um..absurd...=/ It doesn't dissprove anything as it doesn't make sense in the context of what was said.

Actually here's a decent one sorta. You're a computer programmmer making a video game. In the game as long as you (the character in the game) have gold rings you can't die unless you're flattened by falling spikes. Now of course to you or I or of course the Programmer, having rings doesn't make a difference as far as our life span goes, but to the character in the game rings are well, pretty important. Now as a programmer he can do anything he wants with the game even without the game knowing it. He's outside of the game's rules because he made the game. He can alter, delete or make a whole different one all together or make a bunch of them and the games or characters in them will never be the wiser.

EDIT: Er rather it's not that it doesn't make sense, it's that your stating the rules are outside the universe and not a part of them and then telling him his logic is flawed where as he's actually saying the rules are a created part of the universe and are inside of it, as described above in my analogy.

EDIT EDIT: Ok done editing this and going to bed. lol Unless Im directly addressed or something, this is my last post in this one. There ar emuch better debaters and I don't like how these threads on this subject go.

 

[Frown]

QUESTIONS FOR OP:

1. The way I see it, some kind of higher being triggered the creation of the universe, but this higher being has no power whatsoever to change what happens in it. What do you think of this theory? There must have been a time when matter/energy didn't exist and suddenly, it did (which is, according to the laws of physics, impossible).

2. Are you a determinist?

 

[§witch]

If a being exists outside the universe and made the universe, that being does not follow the rules of the universe.

That wasn't my point at all. Either way there was a beginning, so it doesn't matter whether or not a God was involved. Merely beuase there was a beginning does not prove that a God must exist because something must have created God too.

The laws don't apply the the being because it is not inside the universe. Which means it's fully possible for something to create and start a universe. That's not a contradiction in any way in my thinking. You're simply assuming that God MUST follow the rules in the universe.

Obviously there had to have been a beginning, but that is in no way proof of a God.

See, the Big Bang doesn't answer the question. Which means you need another answer, because your answer is flawed.

What? You don't have an answer either. God is not the answer to everything. The big bang THEORY is just that; a theory. But so is God.

http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
Yes, conservations of mass and energy is one law of physics, but entropy is another. It says that energy loses its usefulness as it is used. It doesn't disappear or anything, it's still conserved.

That is not what entropy is. The law of entropy states that if energy is used up in one place than it is NOT used up, but it is transfered to another system. An isolated system cannot lose energy according to the law of entropy. Which means that the universe as a whole will not lose energy ever at any point because it always in transferred to somewhere else.

However, this is why we can't have time travel, or have perpetual motion. As we lose usable energy, the overall temperature of the universe approaches absolute zero. Near absolute zero is where there is virtually no motion, and thus virtually no usable energy. Many scientists hypothesize that this will be how the universe ends, just so you know that the people on your side of the table support this. Because it has an end, it has a definite amount of usable energy (also stated in the law of conservation of energy). With a definite amount, and rate of change that indicates that we are losing usable energy, we know that there must have been a beginning!

Why are you so hung up on this beginning thing? Obviously there was a beginning. We can't have perpetual motion because of the law of conservation of energy, not entropy. I really don't know where you get this losing useable energy thing, the universe can't lose energy.

Think of the graph of y=2-x. If x is time, it can't be less than zero. It has a maximum of y=2 at x=0. If y (usable energy) can not be negative, and approaches zero, the end of time is approximately x=2. There is a beginning and an end.

Okay, what? This graph only has 3 plot-able points, since neither time nor useable energy can be less than zero. (0,2) (1,1). This graph makes even less sense because there was clearly a time when neither mass nor energy existed, so useable energy could not have started at two. I really don't even know why you decided to try and graph this.

If there is a beginning and an end, and the universe could not have made itself (conservation of mass, and the tendency to lose order and information overall due to entropy means it can not provide itself with order on the whole)

You don't understand entropy; it isn't that energy dissipates, it's that energy relocates to somewhere else.

then the universe must have come from another place. This other place is God.

That is not an inescapable conclusion. Otherwise all scientists would be behind the idea of a God. I'm sure centuries of scientific research and method will crumble when you bring up your thesis at University. You are clearly eons ahead of the game.

Determining which God (or gods) it is/was is another story that's even more complex.

No it isn't. What God did it doesn't matter. And that's not only because it's very possibly that a God doesn't exist. The most difficult and complex question of all is this: How did the universe come to be?

 

[SwastikaPyle]

For what it's worth, I know of one. A friend of mine who grew up in a non-religious household and studied the academic sciences at the master's level is a practicing Buddhist now.

You know, I don't even really like counting Buddhism as a religion, since they tend actually put into practice so many traits I wish other religions would live by. I respect them more than any other organization/community on the planet for their incredible discipline. If I had to choose one 'religion' to be in charge of the world, it would undoubtedly be Buddhism. (of course, being buddhists, they wouldn't ever do it)

I'm going to ask you if you really think that every scientist in the world is an atheist or agnostic. There are those who are, but there are also others who are religious. Not everyone practices organized religion blindly, not any more than they would practice anything else blindly. It's possible to hold on to certain core principles while using reason to help you decide what is literal and what is figurative in any text. Ultimately, no matter what is written, interpretation is paramount to what an individual derives from it, and interpretation is something the individual can control.

I know every scientist isn't an atheist (my bangin' high school biology teacher tried to get me to open my heart to Jesus), but many scientists are casual believers in their religion because it tends to put them a little bit 'at odds' with the scriptures.

If you choose to accept that 'some' of your religion might be wrong, this puts you down in the 'casual' believer territory. And, due to the nature of religion, a casual believer isn't really much of a believer at all. There's no 'wiggle room' when it comes to divinity. You can't say, "God is infallible, except for this edited verse here and this little discrepancy there and that little biblical error there..."

A divine text that can be selectively believed is hardly divine at all.



A quote from C.S. Lewis sums it up quite well: "A man who was merely a man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman and something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about him being a great moral teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

So, yes, I know several casual believer scientists. To be brutally honest, though, a casual believer in organized religion is pretty much on par with a non-believer in an organized religion.

I always feel weird when I'm talking like this, like there's some giant cow in the room but I'm the only one who kind of speaks up and says, "HEY GUYS THERE'S A GIANT COW IN THIS ROOM, NOBODY ELSE NOTICES?" The idea that you can believe 'casually' in something that is repeatedly stated to be 'infallible' is a light-hearted illusion at best.

In my opinion, I don't care either way. I think people are better off believing whatever works for them, be it atheism or deism or existentialism or something else, so long as they don't try building public policy off of it or forcing it onto others.

I would never restrict anyone's freedom to believe whatever they want to believe. Public policy, however, is based entirely off of societal values, which is in turn usually based off of a society's religion.

For instance, in Saudi Arabian countries, it's not only illegal for a woman to testify in court or drive a car, but due to Sharia Law, has to be buried up to her neck and heavy rocks heaved at her face until she dies if she violates the religious law of the land. Even a particularly absurd one - death for being a victim of gangrape? To the Saudi authorities, it's the go**** religion; what place do they have to question it? It's God! They follow it to the letter so well over there, the law officially states that sorcery is illegal. Get that: The religious law declares that magic is real, and punishable by death. Got a problem with that? Take it up with God, sorcerer!

This is why I think America is full of casual believers, but very few true believers like their Saudi Arabian counterparts.

We can't stomach the same ideas they do.

Most of us know it's WRONG to kill our wives if they aren't virgins on their wedding night:
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)


Most of us know it's WRONG to kill all the unbelievers:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)


Most of us know it's WRONG to kill our neighbor for working on a sunday:
Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)



So we make exceptions, and drop down to the 'casual' territory.

PS - I personally think Jesus was a great moral teacher and had many incredible ideas, whether or not he was the son of God. So many of his teachings have been edited and warped by history that I'm pretty sure he would be horrified to see them today. To this end, you could say I'm kind of a 'christian atheist,' in that I would follow Christ but I would not believe he's the son of God.

QUESTIONS FOR OP:

1. The way I see it, some kind of higher being triggered the creation of the universe, but this higher being has no power whatsoever to change what happens in it. What do you think of this theory? There must have been a time when matter/energy didn't exist and suddenly, it did (which is, according to the laws of physics, impossible).

2. Are you a determinist?

1. The simple answer is: I don't know.
And I'm okay with saying that. Someday, we'll have it figured out, maybe we don't have all the answers right now, but science marches on, continuously learning and adjusting to the evidence. This question occurs to me often to, "Why do we exist, ****, did someone just press the existence button one day?!"
I don't give any credit to the idea of a supreme designer (because if he did, he's something of a ****ty craftsman), but I can't completely throw out the possibility (because I don't have the evidence to say otherwise, in all honesty.)

A theory I could subscribe to is the idea that the universe may have been started by a sufficiently advanced intelligence...but it would have to be so ridiculously advanced, whatever alien race it might be would basically be indistinguishable from God.

When it comes to discussing the actual 'creation' of the universe, I'm surprised everyone is suddenly so willing to throw weight behind a scientific theory all of a sudden (it violates thermodynamics!). Of course it doesn't make sense that the universe came from nowhere, but the flipside to this is that you have to accept that God came from nowhere as well, and because of the nature of infinite regression, I can't really accept that.

I can't say 'one came from nothing, but the other didn't.' That violates my scientific judgement. If God is outside the bounds of science to you, how many laws can he violate? If physical laws are nothing special to him, could he conceivably make 2 + 2 = 5?


edit: This video has a guy leagues ahead of us explaining a theory for how a universe could have came from nothing. It's long, but then, the theory of where the universe came from probably wouldn't fit into a 5 minute video now would it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

2. Pretty much, yes
I really had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this one though, since it stands against pretty much everything I want to believe (that we're the masters of our own fate). This one really makes life seem extra hopeless sometimes, so I struggle to reconcile this with a lot of my opinions. Just because the truth hurts doesn't make it less true though.

 

[Ganonsburg]

That wasn't my point at all. Either way there was a beginning, so it doesn't matter whether or not a God was involved. Merely beuase there was a beginning does not prove that a God must exist because something must have created God too.


Obviously there had to have been a beginning, but that is in no way proof of a God.

If you had read my first big post correctly, you would have seen my point. My point was that if there was a beginning, then there was something prior to the beginning where there was nothing. Because we can not go from nothing to something using current laws of physics, that means something outside of the universe must have influenced it! And this is why I brought up the changing laws of physics, because the only way to describe the universe making itself, without an outside influence, is for the laws of physics to have been different at another time. Don't make me circle around to this again; I have not time for your circular debates.

What? You don't have an answer either. God is not the answer to everything. The big bang THEORY is just that; a theory. But so is God.

Yes, my answer is God. If feel like you're not reading. I explained how my answer is God. And yes, it is just a theory. And seeing as how both lack evidence, they're about as good as each other. Mine at least makes psychological sense.

That is not what entropy is. The law of entropy states that if energy is used up in one place than it is NOT used up, but it is transfered to another system. An isolated system cannot lose energy according to the law of entropy. Which means that the universe as a whole will not lose energy ever at any point because it always in transferred to somewhere else.

Why are you so hung up on this beginning thing? Obviously there was a beginning. We can't have perpetual motion because of the law of conservation of energy, not entropy. I really don't know where you get this losing useable energy thing, the universe can't lose energy.

http://totalintelligence.com/index.php/fundamentals/entropy/
This is something covered in basic HS physics class. Seriously. Energy loses its usability! Perpetual motion machines do not work/exist because of entropy. In order to have one, you'd have to have 100% efficiency, which is impossible due to ENTROPY.

Okay, what? This graph only has 3 plot-able points, since neither time nor useable energy can be less than zero. (0,2) (1,1). This graph makes even less sense because there was clearly a time when neither mass nor energy existed, so useable energy could not have started at two. I really don't even know why you decided to try and graph this.

There are infinite plot-able points. Even though we can't see it, the universe did have a clear time when it didn't exist, and it does have a time when it won't. We just don't know what they are. Just because you aren't aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You don't understand entropy; it isn't that energy dissipates, it's that energy relocates to somewhere else.

It locates somewhere else in the form of heat (generally heat, but it's always less usable).

That is not an inescapable conclusion. Otherwise all scientists would be behind the idea of a God. I'm sure centuries of scientific research and method will crumble when you bring up your thesis at University. You are clearly eons ahead of the game.

Thank you for talking down to me. I'm sure it's justifiable, especially since I've done it to you so many times before that.

No it isn't. What God did it doesn't matter. And that's not only because it's very possibly that a God doesn't exist. The most difficult and complex question of all is this: How did the universe come to be?

That's why I brought up the beginning of the universe and made all my points and everything! *headdesk*

And if God made the universe, then it very much does matter. If you refuse to consider that possibility, fine. But don't tell me I'm wrong when you're the one ignoring other theories without making your own. Cue Ego's speech at the end of Ratatouille.

 

[Beren Zaiga]

Term, Big Bang, is a misnomer. Explosions of the kind you're thinking cannot happen without oxygen for the blast wave to move through, which is what creates a pressure wave form the explosion, causing the "Kaboom" we would hear.

The "Big Bang" Theory is actually just an extremely rapid expansion of the universe from a single point. The age of the universe as it is estimated today, is 15 billion years. The fact he see Red Shift (the Doppler Effect) indicates that the universe is expanding. Red Shift means that an object emitting light is moving away, and "Blue Shift" indicates an approach, supporting that galaxies within the universe, of course, are not stationary.

Now to get back on the topic. I have over the years, by my nature, become a deist, which, as it was mentioned earlier, means I believe God once existed, but has left us to our own devices. I have also tried applying science to religious happenings described in the bible. Not to say I believe in Scientology or anything (I have read the Wiki article, and I find it ridiculous). That doesn't mean however that I don't question religion at times, as I do so on an occasional basis.

There is one thing I can say for sure though. There are so many things in religion that can be scrutinized and that it would be a daunting task to go through them all logically. Separating truth from myth in this case would be just as difficult.

Another fact is that we of today, simply weren't there. Therefore, written or not, the stories that inhabit the Bible and other religious text comes under scrutiny due to the fact we have no true way of ascertaining the truth for either position. This is because of the fact the only evidence we have is what has been written down and what has been passed down by oral means.

You cannot believe everything you read, and you certainly can't believe what you hear. Both lead to doubt. The Mass Media at large is a good indication of this, as yellow journalism is used by alot of reporters and journalists, therefore making the truth of their stories scrutable.

For religious texts, we know that some were written in times of turmoil, so, as is human nature, we cannot put aside the possibility that the writers simply could've have been exaggerating the circumstances of real events to achieve some kind of fame, that does not however rule out the possibility of the truth in their words. Unless time travel becomes a possibility in absolute firmness, there is no way we can find the truth for certain.

There is another thing. The reason the internet flame wars on religion exist; more than simply because people cannot admit when their wrong or make themselves deaf to other points of view,etc. It is also because Human Beings by nature do not all like being told what they should and should not believe, no matter what is presented to them, or in what fashion it is presented. The manner in which its presented doesn't help either.

This would describe a lot of the majority of the internet. The non-believers attack the believer's beliefs and the ire of the inflamed believer adds fuel to the fire, thereby inflaming others and continuously feeding the process, and then the rest is...well, don't know if I could say it is history.

 

[PassWurD]

I'll believe in God when he stops being a little ***** with his chit chat, and shows me where his **** is at. ;D

_gogopowerke$ha

 

[Falconv1.0]

I'll believe in God when he stops being a little ***** with his chit chat, and shows me where his **** is at. ;D

_gogopowerke$ha

Really. You really had to post that.

 

[PassWurD]

Really. You really had to post that.

Probably not.

 

[El Nino]

A divine text that can be selectively believed is hardly divine at all.

America is a country built by lawyers, so it's no surprise that people try to interpret religious texts as if they were legal books.

But religious texts aren't legal books, and the individual is still responsible for making figurative vs. literal interpretations of text.

Well, I guess me saying that isn't going to change anything.

For instance, in Saudi Arabian countries

Saudi Arabia is a single country. There are many countries in that region, the Middle East, but they are not "Saudi Arabian" by name.

To the Saudi authorities, it's the go**** religion; what place do they have to question it?

If we're talking governments, I think the authorities in any nation and state have more power and control over the belief system than you give them credit for. I don't think the rulers of a theocracy are necessarily "true believers." But they maintain the belief system because it makes society easier to control for their own purposes.

There are parallels between societies that practice Sharia Law and societies that adopted communism after an overthrow. To establish authority, the new regime has to use a certain mechanism to control and unite people. The type of ideology is almost inconsequential, in my opinion. Communism is distinctly anti-religion, but similar effects were seen in newly established communist regimes as in newly established theocracies.

The current government of Iran was founded by a revolution in recent history. Religion is used to control people because newly established regimes are always unstable and easily toppled. But the consequences for that stability can be very severe.

My point is, if we're talking politics, religion itself is a tool. It has remarkable influence, but the power it has depends almost entirely on political circumstances. I would not be distracted by religion when it comes to governments.

 

[Eyada]

I am going to present a metaphysical thought experiment that shows why it is fallacious and unjustifiable to claim that God created the Universe. This is in response to the discussion in this thread about believing in God because the Universe needs a cause.

Imagine the Universe as a closed system; a single distinct object. (I recommend that you visualize it as a closed sphere as that will be helpful for this exercise, although the Universe is almost certainly not actually spherical based on our current evidence.) Inside the Universe, all of the scientific laws we are aware of hold sway. Inside this "Universe", all things exist in Space and Time. Since an infinite regress of Time is impossible given our current observable reality, this so-called "Universe" necessarily had a beginning.

So, we've established the existence of a closed system that had a beginning. This object, "the Universe", is distinct from whatever may surround it (if anything). Again, visualizing the Universe as a closed sphere may be helpful here. Inside the sphere, scientific laws hold true. Inside the sphere, Space and Time exist.

Now, the crucial point most people refuse to see:

We know nothing about what is outside this sphere.

It's easy to read over that sentence without really taking it in, so I'll repeat it:

We know nothing about what is outside this sphere.

We have never observed anything outside of it. We have no mathematical models that predict what it might be like outside the sphere. All we have ever known is what it is like inside the sphere; there is no logical basis for assuming, without evidence, that the rules that hold sway inside the sphere also apply outside of it.

It is tempting to imagine this "outside the sphere-ness" as being empty space, but that is fallacious. "Space" is something that exists inside the sphere. Saying that there is "empty space" surrounding the sphere is completely unjustifiable; we don't know that "space" exists out there.

What would the absence of Space be like? I have no idea, and neither do you. No human can even begin to imagine that.

Similarly, it is tempting to imagine the "outside the sphere-ness" as being eternal, but that is also fallacious. "Time" exists inside the sphere; we have no idea whether or not it exists outside as well --and we especially have no reason to believe that an infinite amount of Time (which is what "eternal" implies) exists out there. Perhaps it is "Timeless" then; perhaps Time doesn't even apply out there.

What would that be like? Again, I have absolutely no idea, and neither does anyone else.

It is also tempting to imagine that the rules of Cause and Effect hold sway outside the sphere, but that is fallacious. Cause-Effect is a law that holds true inside the sphere; we have no logical basis for assuming that it also holds outside of the sphere.

What would it be like if the Cause-Effect relationship did not hold? I have no idea, and cannot even begin to imagine what that would mean. No one can.

Continuing ad nauseum, it becomes clear that we cannot justifiably claim to know anything about what it might be like "outside" the sphere.

So:

We have firmly established that we do not actually know anything about what is outside the Universe.

We have established that we cannot even imagine what it is like out there.

Thus, I submit the following:

It is completely nonsensical and fallacious to discuss anything that supposedly lies outside of the Universe. In other words, it is completely nonsensical and fallacious to discuss any supposed "beginning" of the Universe that is external to the Universe, because we, as humans, lack the understanding necessary to have any sort of meaningful discussion about it. This includes the idea of "God" as some sort of external creator of the Universe.

An example to illustrate my point:

It is easy to type the following:

"The Universe had a beginning. However, anything that has a beginning has a cause. The Universe didn't cause itself, so there must be something outside of the Universe, not subject to any laws of the Universe, that created the Universe. God is this cause."

That was easy. But it is also completely meaningless gibberish. I don't mean that as an insult; I mean it as a simple statement of fact. Because that statement is completely meaningless if you actually explore its implications.

"Anything that has a beginning has a cause" is a law that holds true inside the Universe, but the next part of the claim goes on to invoke a mystical entity that exists outside the laws of the Universe. i.e., The mystical entity exists in a place where the statement "Anything that has a beginning has a cause" is not necessarily true. In fact, the mystical entity is specifically cited as violating the laws of the Universe; thus, the mystical entity invalidates the claim "Anything that has a beginning has a cause". With that statement invalidated, the Universe finds itself no longer in need of a cause, thus eliminating the need for the mystical entity in the first place.

Thus, by invoking this mysterious external entity, the statement invalidates itself and the entire thing devolves into meaninglessness.

This shouldn't really be surprising given that humans are completely devoid of any meaningful understanding of what it would be like for something to be "outside the laws of the Universe". Thus, any statement that invokes an entity that is "outside the laws of the Universe" will necessarily break down into meaninglessness, because our very understanding of "outside the laws of the Universe" consists entirely of meaningless gibberish.

Hopefully this makes it clear why arguments of the form:

1.) Establish that the Universe had a beginning.
2.) Establish that the Universe had a cause.
3.) Establish that the Universe didn't cause itself.
4.) ???????????
5.) God is the cause!

are fallacious. This includes things like the Cosmological argument and numerous other classical arguments for the existence of God.

 

[john!]

^ The fact that there is something rather than nothing still demands an explanation.

Also, your theory does not invalidate any belief that God does/does not exist, it just makes a specific reason less likely. Even in higher dimensions, conservation of energy or cause and effect might still hold.

But you're right about people trying to "prove" God, it probably can't be done, and if it was done then there would be no argument.

And is anyone gonna respond to what I wrote a few pages back?

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

^Probably not.

Lol Eyada and his "science". We all believe what we want, no one can convince anyone unless they were diagnosed w/ cancer but lived. Stuff like that is God's work, but this is jibberish to every1 else here.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Also, your theory does not invalidate any belief that God does/does not exist, it just makes a specific reason less likely.

While that is true, what his theory DOES prove is that the existance of God cannot possibly be proven correct through debate, as humans are incapable of conceiving such an argument about something that defies the laws of the universe, as our very thoughts are bound by it.

Perhaps I should further simplify his breaking down of the "cause and effect" argument.

The argument assumes that outside the universe the laws of the universe (such as cause and effect) don't apply. This is where god exists and where he created the universe. But if the universe exists in this area of no rules, and laws are only contained WITHIN the universe, then why does the universe itself have to follow the laws of cause and effect? (the universe is only the container for these laws after all). The answer is simply that it doesn't have to follow any laws in order to exist, and thus there is no NEED for a creator to exist.

So while I can't prove that God does NOT exist, neither can you prove that God DOES exist.

food for thought.