You mean except in quantum physics right? No, I mean including quantum physics. Maybe if you put in a bit of an explanation detailing wtf you're implying, it would be better.[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)BumFluff122
So Atheists, What's Your Rationale In Your Belief Of No God?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)F1_2004
So what created the "divine being"?
I've yet to see anyone answer that as well.
[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)deadevil666
So what created the "divine being"?
I've yet to see anyone answer that as well.
Belief in a divine being implies that this being is beyond simple physical explanation. If you don't believe that, then surely you have a more believable explanation for how the universe came to be?[QUOTE="deadevil666"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)F1_2004
So what created the "divine being"?
I've yet to see anyone answer that as well.
Belief in a divine being implies that this being is beyond simple physical explanation. If you don't believe that, then surely you have a more believable explanation for how the universe came to be?No, we do not have that explanation. We are still searching for the explanations. We'll let you, God and Zeus know of them once we get there.
[QUOTE="deadevil666"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)F1_2004
So what created the "divine being"?
I've yet to see anyone answer that as well.
Belief in a divine being implies that this being is beyond simple physical explanation. If you don't believe that, then surely you have a more believable explanation for how the universe came to be?So....The Universe can't of come from nothing, but God can. Wahuh?
Belief in a divine being implies that this being is beyond simple physical explanation. If you don't believe that, then surely you have a more believable explanation for how the universe came to be?[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="deadevil666"]
So what created the "divine being"?
I've yet to see anyone answer that as well.
deadevil666
No, we do not have that explanation. We are still searching for the explanations. We'll let you, God and Zeus know of them once we get there.
So you have no idea what the true answer is, but you're so certain in your ridiculing of religious people and their beliefs? Good one :| Why don't I call up Stephen Hawking and laugh at his cosmology theories even though I have no basis on which to do so, that'll make about as much sense.I know I should stay away from this thing but I do respect both sides.
"The greatest lie the devil ever told was making people believe he didn't exist"
I remember this from somewhere and it was quite an interesting way of looking at religion from another side.
OK, lately it has come to be believed that we are only one universe(many more), I am not referring to our solar system, but the universe. This kind of make you relize that we are really lacking in brain power to understand the concept of everything that is going on around us. But it like most other things cant be made fact because of proof. Even in nothing their is something, dark matter, but yet again no proof. My point is simple. We can not ignore something that does not exist because we can not explain it. Da Vinci was called a mad man for wanting to fly. He could not prove it but it is very possible today. Maybe in our future we could be more advanced and understand what is going on, but at the moment we are still very young compared to the earth and solar system, so how can we possibly believe that we have answers for things that have been around for billions of years when we have only existed for such a short period of time? Inside of us all we have a little voice that tells us when we are doing something wrong and when we are being honorable respectful. This little voice, that we all have cant be denied and I am sure will show us its true nature when we can one day open our eyes and see the whole picture. IMO this is very far from now. We can only speculate but we cant deny the fact that we are a young race that have to still learn alot.
[QUOTE="deadevil666"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] Belief in a divine being implies that this being is beyond simple physical explanation. If you don't believe that, then surely you have a more believable explanation for how the universe came to be?F1_2004
No, we do not have that explanation. We are still searching for the explanations. We'll let you, God and Zeus know of them once we get there.
So you have no idea what the true answer is, but you're so certain in your ridiculing of religious people and their beliefs? Good one :| Why don't I call up Stephen Hawking and laugh at his cosmology theories even though I have no basis on which to do so, that'll make about as much sense.Sure. Do that while I ask Santa to bring me a new bike for Christmas.
I'm saying you are leaving out about 100 different aspects. We don't even know how organic matter forms for one thing. And you are merely taking all the matter in the universe and deviding it by the amoutn of biological matter that we know of in the universe. You don't even see the problems with what you're doing. You're playing with numbers and I'm pretty sure you know it. That's the thing, we don't have the exact number. You are using guestimations. I can;t give you an estimate because I don't knwo the exact number either and I don't use guestimations based on our very very finite knowledge of the universe, one planet to be exact. And yet we don't even knwo of all the life on this one planet. Since when was I attacking you? I'm making a point. The fallacy in the argument is that you are using unfound data and deviding it by unfound data while not plugging in the unknown data and then comign to a conclusion that is basically a number pulled off one of those "We don't knwo so God did it." sites. I know this because I've seen those exact numbers before. Like I said I was giving you an option to put a number that you are confortable with. Assume since we do not know for fure an exact figure. And I don't see why it matters that we do not know how organic matter formed. And example is if we have a jar of candy with 10 blue candies and 10 red candies we do not need to know how the candies were made to figure out that we have a 50% chance of getting a blue candy. So your argument is invalid. And just because you only like to use exact numbers does not make your argument valid. No real scientist uses "exact" numbers. If we waited for exact numbers we would never figure out anything in the universe. And again you are trying to insult the person by generalizing his argument to make it look like he is a religious zealot. My point was never that God existed in my argument. I do believe in God but my point was that there is life after death. Since if we are living right now the chances of us living in this point of time to be just of pure luck are zero. By you bringing the whole God thing its obvious that your demeaning of religion will not accept any argument that is counter to your own beliefs. In that sense you are no different from the religious fanatic that you are trying to generalize. For my argument to be flawed you need to find a fallacy in my logic. I gave an example of your fallacy in the previous paragraph. Do the same to mine. Since exactness is not an issue in science it cannot be used to justify a fallacy. But even if it was I was telling you to give me numbers that you like. But you say since we can never know exactly its invalid. And let me just end up with you say that the number that is used to divide total mass of the universe is unfound. Look for total mass of the universe and you will see that I got that number from there. If you want to get the other number you might want to use the drake equation. So I will just leave it at this. go here to get a reasonable number for life in universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation and here to total mass in universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe If that is not good enough for you then that is your problem.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] The only number I have its exact look it up on the internet the total mass of the observable universe. And I'm inviting you to put a number that you think is correct on the simple probability fraction. All you are doing is saying that I'm just like these groups or those so I have no credibility. And that if you don't have the exact number you are wrong. Then if that is the case everything we know is wrong. We don't have the exact mass of the Sun, Earth or anything for that matter. You can never reach anything to the exact because there is always smaller and more accurate units of measurements than we can use. Again, you put a number that you are happy with. It will still reach the same result. And don't attack the person because you don't like the argument. That's just bad debate and shows that you cannot find fallacies in the argument.BumFluff122
Belief in a divine being implies that this being is beyond simple physical explanation. If you don't believe that, then surely you have a more believable explanation for how the universe came to be?[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="deadevil666"]
So what created the "divine being"?
I've yet to see anyone answer that as well.
Pixel-Pirate
So....The Universe can't of come from nothing, but God can. Wahuh?
And by saying that you can argue that either argument is subjective from ones own bias. Since both having a God and not having a God makes sense or make no sense you really cannot rationally argue for either. So each person's own oppinion is just as valid as the other one.You mean except in quantum physics right? Wait you are the one saying that you cannot use data that is not known for sure. Then you use quantum physics a science that is mostly theory and is based on nothing exact for a counter argument. There is a word for that "Hypocrisy". You just use any argument whether you believe it or not to justify your belief.[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)BumFluff122
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"][QUOTE="F1_2004"] Belief in a divine being implies that this being is beyond simple physical explanation. If you don't believe that, then surely you have a more believable explanation for how the universe came to be?SpartanNapoleon
So....The Universe can't of come from nothing, but God can. Wahuh?
And by saying that you can argue that either argument is subjective from ones own bias. Since both having a God and not having a God makes sense or make no sense you really cannot rationally argue for either. So each person's own oppinion is just as valid as the other one. I doubt humanity will ever prove if the Big Bang Theory is true or we were created by a divine being, but there is more evidence towards the BBT.[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]You mean except in quantum physics right? No, I mean including quantum physics. Maybe if you put in a bit of an explanation detailing wtf you're implying, it would be better.Quantum physics often has particles seemingly appearing out of nothing through quantum fluctuations[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)F1_2004
Like I said I was giving you an option to put a number that you are confortable with. Assume since we do not know for fure an exact figure. And I don't see why it matters that we do not know how organic matter formed. And example is if we have a jar of candy with 10 blue candies and 10 red candies we do not need to know how the candies were made to figure out that we have a 50% chance of getting a blue candy. So your argument is invalid. And just because you only like to use exact numbers does not make your argument valid. No real scientist uses "exact" numbers. If we waited for exact numbers we would never figure out anything in the universe. And again you are trying to insult the person by generalizing his argument to make it look like he is a religious zealot. My point was never that God existed in my argument. I do believe in God but my point was that there is life after death. Since if we are living right now the chances of us living in this point of time to be just of pure luck are zero. By you bringing the whole God thing its obvious that your demeaning of religion will not accept any argument that is counter to your own beliefs. In that sense you are no different from the religious fanatic that you are trying to generalize. For my argument to be flawed you need to find a fallacy in my logic. I gave an example of your fallacy in the previous paragraph. Do the same to mine. Since exactness is not an issue in science it cannot be used to justify a fallacy. But even if it was I was telling you to give me numbers that you like. But you say since we can never know exactly its invalid. And let me just end up with you say that the number that is used to divide total mass of the universe is unfound. Look for total mass of the universe and you will see that I got that number from there. If you want to get the other number you might want to use the drake equation. So I will just leave it at this. go here to get a reasonable number for life in universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation and here to total mass in universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe If that is not good enough for you then that is your problem.SpartanNapoleonAnd I stated that any number I can come up with or 'that I am comnfortable with' would be picking and choosing the number out of thin air. You can't do that. There are forces at work in the universe. I'm fairly sure that we can both agree with that. Some of these forces enable different particle types to act differently from other particle types, such as one particle being positively attracted to another particle. To take the likelihood of of life, which is mainly based off of 3 of the most abundant checmicals in the universe, you have to include ALL the variables. Not just take "the total = Y, .01% of the total = X, therefor the likelyhood tha X will happen in Y is almost 0. Therefor life does not exist without a helping hand." The argument is that you are missing vast VAST portions of the equation. I don't understand how you think I'm insulting you. I have not stated my beliefs once in this convo. What I have stated is that your mathematics is faulty, nothing more. You are playing with numbers as has that site you got these numbers from. You never gave any fallacy to my argument. I have told you of your fallacy. It doesn't even matter if you do know the total amount of material in the universe. You can't take the percentage of X in the universe and then come to a conclusion that the probability of X appearing in the universe based on that percentage.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]You mean except in quantum physics right? Wait you are the one saying that you cannot use data that is not known for sure. Then you use quantum physics a science that is mostly theory and is based on nothing exact for a counter argument. There is a word for that "Hypocrisy". You just use any argument whether you believe it or not to justify your belief....quantum mechanics has been tested and verified. It is the reason why scientists are currently searching for a Theory of Everything. If quantum mechanics was just guesswork it wouldn't have made it as far as it has.[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)SpartanNapoleon
Quantum Physics actually has several theories that support the exsitence of a creator.
Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)F1_2004First of all there is a thing called "lack of belief". Just because someone doesnt believe in God doesnt mean that they believe to the contrary. I dont believe in God but it's as much a "belief" as not playing video games is a hobby.
Now onto your question,
This is one of the most downright silliest argument which seems to come up everytime in these discussions.
If one believes in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that God was created out of nothing, or that he has always existed.
See what I did there? Why is God given such exemplary status? Why should his existence not demand an explanation? If god exists then he must have come out of nothing or would always been there, what difference does it make if we apply that to the universe?
Secondly the God of the bible and other religions have many attributes associated with him. He apparamtly has power over all things and cares for human beings, there is plenty of evidence that no one cares for human beings except human beings themselves. Why do you assume that the only God which can exist is someone who cares for human beings? What if a god exists who indeed created the universe but could care less about humans and doesnt even know whether they exist? Given the sheer size that humans occupy of our tiny universe, it is very much possible that god doesnt even know about humans as long as he is not omniscient.
I used to be a Catholic from birth but recentlyI lost my faith completely after stopping going to church for many years. The reason : the world has so much sufferrings but where is God ? St. John wrote in one of his letters that : God IS LOVE but why doesnt he care about his creatures who suffer so much ? (wars, sickness, natural disasters...)Why the God of love created animals that kill and eat one another ? The enormous amount of sufferrings and evils are clearly incompatible with the doctrine ofa loving God so I became an atheist. But myfamily are still catholics, and I dont want to 'convert" them to become atheists like me. since I dont want to get into arguments with them, and I think that the belief in Christian God is a kind ofpsychological crutch to them so I dont want to destroy their "crutch".
the better question is: why do atheists feel that people are really interested in their argument about god? whenever they get the chance they will start talking **** about how science did this, and research did that, and homosexuality has been observed in 10000000 species.GazaAliI agree! and tbh I believe in God. I don't need to see something to believe in it =/ I believe in air...even tho I can't see it lol
Wait you are the one saying that you cannot use data that is not known for sure. Then you use quantum physics a science that is mostly theory and is based on nothing exact for a counter argument. There is a word for that "Hypocrisy". You just use any argument whether you believe it or not to justify your belief....quantum mechanics has been tested and verified. It is the reason why scientists are currently searching for a Theory of Everything. If quantum mechanics was just guesswork it wouldn't have made it as far as it has. I think you should actually take a class in physics before you talk about quantum mechanics.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]You mean except in quantum physics right?
BumFluff122
And I stated that any number I can come up with or 'that I am comnfortable with' would be picking and choosing the number out of thin air. You can't do that. There are forces at work in the universe. I'm fairly sure that we can both agree with that. Some of these forces enable different particle types to act differently from other particle types, such as one particle being positively attracted to another particle. To take the likelihood of of life, which is mainly based off of 3 of the most abundant checmicals in the universe, you have to include ALL the variables. Not just take "the total = Y, .01% of the total = X, therefor the likelyhood tha X will happen in Y is almost 0. Therefor life does not exist without a helping hand." The argument is that you are missing vast VAST portions of the equation. I don't understand how you think I'm insulting you. I have not stated my beliefs once in this convo. What I have stated is that your mathematics is faulty, nothing more. You are playing with numbers as has that site you got these numbers from. You never gave any fallacy to my argument. I have told you of your fallacy. It doesn't even matter if you do know the total amount of material in the universe. You can't take the percentage of X in the universe and then come to a conclusion that the probability of X appearing in the universe based on that percentage. I did not get my ideas from a "site". I thought about them. And I gave you all the information you needed to get the numbers you wanted. Drakes equation calculates the probability of life in the universe given from many observable factors, so it not "Out of Thin Air". And you should also take a class in logic. I pointed your flawed logic and gave an example. Your argument is you just can't do that because you can't. You don't think many things affect light traveling through space like neutrinos, and what not. Just because we do not know the effects of neutrinos on light does not mean we cannot study light. Even though neutrinos are everywhere and interact with everything does not mean that we can't therefore study anything since we do not know the interactions of neutrinos with matter. So you really can't cling to that in order to ignore my argument.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] Like I said I was giving you an option to put a number that you are confortable with. Assume since we do not know for fure an exact figure. And I don't see why it matters that we do not know how organic matter formed. And example is if we have a jar of candy with 10 blue candies and 10 red candies we do not need to know how the candies were made to figure out that we have a 50% chance of getting a blue candy. So your argument is invalid. And just because you only like to use exact numbers does not make your argument valid. No real scientist uses "exact" numbers. If we waited for exact numbers we would never figure out anything in the universe. And again you are trying to insult the person by generalizing his argument to make it look like he is a religious zealot. My point was never that God existed in my argument. I do believe in God but my point was that there is life after death. Since if we are living right now the chances of us living in this point of time to be just of pure luck are zero. By you bringing the whole God thing its obvious that your demeaning of religion will not accept any argument that is counter to your own beliefs. In that sense you are no different from the religious fanatic that you are trying to generalize. For my argument to be flawed you need to find a fallacy in my logic. I gave an example of your fallacy in the previous paragraph. Do the same to mine. Since exactness is not an issue in science it cannot be used to justify a fallacy. But even if it was I was telling you to give me numbers that you like. But you say since we can never know exactly its invalid. And let me just end up with you say that the number that is used to divide total mass of the universe is unfound. Look for total mass of the universe and you will see that I got that number from there. If you want to get the other number you might want to use the drake equation. So I will just leave it at this. go here to get a reasonable number for life in universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation and here to total mass in universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe If that is not good enough for you then that is your problem.BumFluff122
First of all there is a thing called "lack of belief". Just because someone doesnt believe in God doesnt mean that they believe to the contrary. I dont believe in God but it's as much a "belief" as not playing video games is a hobby.[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)Gambler_3
Now onto your question,
This is one of the most downright silliest argument which seems to come up everytime in these discussions.
If one believes in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that God was created out of nothing, or that he has always existed.
See what I did there? Why is God given such exemplary status? Why should his existence not demand an explanation? If god exists then he must have come out of nothing or would always been there, what difference does it make if we apply that to the universe?
Secondly the God of the bible and other religions have many attributes associated with him. He apparamtly has power over all things and cares for human beings, there is plenty of evidence that no one cares for human beings except human beings themselves. Why do you assume that the only God which can exist is someone who cares for human beings? What if a god exists who indeed created the universe but could care less about humans and doesnt even know whether they exist? Given the sheer size that humans occupy of our tiny universe, it is very much possible that god doesnt even know about humans as long as he is not omniscient.
This is stupid, you didn't do anything. Belief in a divine being does not require a physical explanation of how he came to be, it simply requires belief in a divine being that is beyond physics and chemistry. Also, don't confuse belief in a particular religion's God with belief in a divine being of some sort. The idea of God and the Bible is essentially a fabrication of the human mind. The belief in a divine being is the belief that something supernatural (for lack of a better word) that can't be explained by physical processes caused the creation of a universe. And finally, it is in fact silly of you to dismiss belief in a god without having any belief to the contrary. Imagine if I tossed a coin right now and told you that it landed on heads. If you somehow knew for certain, or had significant proof to suggest that it landed on tails, you could rightfully argue that I am full of ****. But since you have absolutely no flippin clue as to what the coin landed on, it would be utterly ridiculous for you to argue about the outcome one way or another.Taking my argument out of the scientific logic but have you ever really asked the question and looked for an answer. I did and the answer I got restored my faith. I think you should really ask yourself that question and reflect on an answer. Questions like the purpose of life, consciousness, suffering and our role in the world. Reflect on those questions and maybe you might find different answers.I used to be a Catholic from birth but recentlyI lost my faith completely after stopping going to church for many years. The reason : the world has so much sufferrings but where is God ? St. John wrote in one of his letters that : God IS LOVE but why doesnt he care about his creatures who suffer so much ? (wars, sickness, natural disasters...)Why the God of love created animals that kill and eat one another ? The enormous amount of sufferrings and evils are clearly incompatible with the doctrine ofa loving God so I became an atheist. But myfamily are still catholics, and I dont want to 'convert" them to become atheists like me. since I dont want to get into arguments with them, and I think that the belief in Christian God is a kind ofpsychological crutch to them so I dont want to destroy their "crutch".
Zensword
I did not get my ideas from a "site". I thought about them. And I gave you all the information you needed to get the numbers you wanted. Drakes equation calculates the probability of life in the universe given from many observable factors, so it not "Out of Thin Air". And you should also take a class in logic. I pointed your flawed logic and gave an example. Your argument is you just can't do that because you can't. You don't think many things affect light traveling through space like neutrinos, and what not. Just because we do not know the effects of neutrinos on light does not mean we cannot study light. Even though neutrinos are everywhere and interact with everything does not mean that we can't therefore study anything since we do not know the interactions of neutrinos with matter. So you really can't cling to that in order to ignore my argument. SpartanNapoleonNo. You are misinterpretting what I'm stating completely. As stated, one does not take the amount of X in Y to find the probability that X can exist in Y without a helping hand when other forces are at work including such things as evolution. That is exactly what you are doing.
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]...quantum mechanics has been tested and verified. It is the reason why scientists are currently searching for a Theory of Everything. If quantum mechanics was just guesswork it wouldn't have made it as far as it has. I think you should actually take a class in physics before you talk about quantum mechanics. OR I can.. you know. actually read abotu it and study it on my own. Drastic I know but soem people actually do things like that.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] Wait you are the one saying that you cannot use data that is not known for sure. Then you use quantum physics a science that is mostly theory and is based on nothing exact for a counter argument. There is a word for that "Hypocrisy". You just use any argument whether you believe it or not to justify your belief.SpartanNapoleon
huh? Atheist make a claim that there cannot be a god. I don't know why that claim doesn't need to be proven. And I'm happy being agnostic; I don't know why the OP cares about why Atheists say.In a logical society, usually for things to exist they have to be proven first.
Papitar
[QUOTE="Papitar"]huh? Atheist make a claim that there cannot be a god. I don't know why that claim doesn't need to be proven. And I'm happy being agnostic; I don't know why the OP cares about why Atheists say.Atheists don't make any claims. There are different versions of atheism. What you are talkign about is gnostic atheism which the vast majority of atheists aren't believers in. Agnostic atheists claim that there is no proof of God so therefor living your life as if there is one is ludicrous.In a logical society, usually for things to exist they have to be proven first.
smc91352
huh? Atheist make a claim that there cannot be a god. I don't know why that claim doesn't need to be proven. And I'm happy being agnostic; I don't know why the OP cares about why Atheists say.Atheists don't make any claims. There are different versions of atheism. What you are talkign about is gnostic atheism which the vast majority of atheists aren't believers in. Agnostic atheists claim that there is no proof of God so therefor living your life as if there is one is ludicrous. I knew that. I assumed the op was talking about gnostic atheists 'cause asking agnostics about a belief is dumb.[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="Papitar"]
In a logical society, usually for things to exist they have to be proven first.
BumFluff122
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Atheists don't make any claims. There are different versions of atheism. What you are talkign about is gnostic atheism which the vast majority of atheists aren't believers in. Agnostic atheists claim that there is no proof of God so therefor living your life as if there is one is ludicrous. I knew that. I assumed the op was talking about gnostic atheists 'cause asking agnostics about a belief is dumb.Oh. I was responding with regards to what the thread has turned into as opposed to what the original intent of the thread was. IU complete agree, because agnostic atheists don't believe in much of anything. What they do have is a lack of belief. The word atheism is often used by theists as a one-definition word that can't stray off that one definition.[QUOTE="smc91352"] huh? Atheist make a claim that there cannot be a god. I don't know why that claim doesn't need to be proven. And I'm happy being agnostic; I don't know why the OP cares about why Atheists say.smc91352
I think the majority of atheists in here are happy with the way their beliefs, or lack of beliefs, don't conform to any mass thought. And soem of the people in here who do call themselves atheists are also buddhist.Wow, so many atheists. You guys should try out Buddhism if that's the case. It's about as logical as it can get.
alert0
[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]First of all there is a thing called "lack of belief". Just because someone doesnt believe in God doesnt mean that they believe to the contrary. I dont believe in God but it's as much a "belief" as not playing video games is a hobby.[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)F1_2004
Now onto your question,
This is one of the most downright silliest argument which seems to come up everytime in these discussions.
If one believes in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that God was created out of nothing, or that he has always existed.
See what I did there? Why is God given such exemplary status? Why should his existence not demand an explanation? If god exists then he must have come out of nothing or would always been there, what difference does it make if we apply that to the universe?
Secondly the God of the bible and other religions have many attributes associated with him. He apparamtly has power over all things and cares for human beings, there is plenty of evidence that no one cares for human beings except human beings themselves. Why do you assume that the only God which can exist is someone who cares for human beings? What if a god exists who indeed created the universe but could care less about humans and doesnt even know whether they exist? Given the sheer size that humans occupy of our tiny universe, it is very much possible that god doesnt even know about humans as long as he is not omniscient.
This is stupid, you didn't do anything. Belief in a divine being does not require a physical explanation of how he came to be, it simply requires belief in a divine being that is beyond physics and chemistry. Also, don't confuse belief in a particular religion's God with belief in a divine being of some sort. The idea of God and the Bible is essentially a fabrication of the human mind. The belief in a divine being is the belief that something supernatural (for lack of a better word) that can't be explained by physical processes caused the creation of a universe. And finally, it is in fact silly of you to dismiss belief in a god without having any belief to the contrary. Imagine if I tossed a coin right now and told you that it landed on heads. If you somehow knew for certain, or had significant proof to suggest that it landed on tails, you could rightfully argue that I am full of ****. But since you have absolutely no flippin clue as to what the coin landed on, it would be utterly ridiculous for you to argue about the outcome one way or another. Huh so belief in God requires no rationality or "proof"? Now why am I not surprised from that response.:roll:Yes I will laugh at it cuz you have no means of knowing that the coin will land on heads. Now if I was a 3 year old and didnt know that coin toss is a blind chance then I may not laugh at you.
Oh and I am fairly atheistic of the abrahimic god, agnostic for all other gods.
No. You are misinterpretting what I'm stating completely. As stated, one does not take the amount of X in Y to find the probability that X can exist in Y without a helping hand when other forces are at work including such things as evolution. That is exactly what you are doing. Dude that is exactly how you do probabilities. How much X in Y. If you want to make a claim like you need to back it up not just state something because I said so. Like so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory Since consciousness can be defined as a subset of matter then you can find the probability by the total mass of consciousness divided by total matter. Anything else does not matter for probability. And I have no idea why you even bring evolution up as it has nothing to do with this. Please do research before just blindly going against an opposing view.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] I did not get my ideas from a "site". I thought about them. And I gave you all the information you needed to get the numbers you wanted. Drakes equation calculates the probability of life in the universe given from many observable factors, so it not "Out of Thin Air". And you should also take a class in logic. I pointed your flawed logic and gave an example. Your argument is you just can't do that because you can't. You don't think many things affect light traveling through space like neutrinos, and what not. Just because we do not know the effects of neutrinos on light does not mean we cannot study light. Even though neutrinos are everywhere and interact with everything does not mean that we can't therefore study anything since we do not know the interactions of neutrinos with matter. So you really can't cling to that in order to ignore my argument. BumFluff122
Just to skip 38 pages and get right down to it; has anyone yet presented an explanation for how something can come out of nothing? If one doesn't believe in a divine being creating the universe, there must either be proof that the universe was created out of nothing, or that it has always existed. If not, believing in no god is just as ridiculous as believing in a god. (As far as I know, in the field of physics, there hasn't been an observed case of something being created out of nothing)F1_2004
The only position that posits "something out of nothing" is a religious one. Science has never claimed as such. As you know, there has to be something there to form the universe.
I think you should actually take a class in physics before you talk about quantum mechanics. OR I can.. you know. actually read abotu it and study it on my own. Drastic I know but soem people actually do things like that. Well then why do you say stuff at the quantum level just magically appears out of nothing. It is not what quatum physics is about. Quantum physics is used because objects in the micro level do not follow the same laws as physics that we commonly know. This is true with electrons as you cannot predict where they are at any point in time. However this does not mean that they magically appear and disappear. Infact if any particle was to magically appear or dissapear it would violate the most basic law of physics. E=MC^2 which states that matter can only be created out of energy and energy out of matter. And if this law is violated then physics would be turned on its shoulders.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]...quantum mechanics has been tested and verified. It is the reason why scientists are currently searching for a Theory of Everything. If quantum mechanics was just guesswork it wouldn't have made it as far as it has.
BumFluff122
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]OR I can.. you know. actually read abotu it and study it on my own. Drastic I know but soem people actually do things like that. Well then why do you say stuff at the quantum level just magically appears out of nothing. It is not what quatum physics is about. Quantum physics is used because objects in the micro level do not follow the same laws as physics that we commonly know. This is true with electrons as you cannot predict where they are at any point in time. However this does not mean that they magically appear and disappear. Infact if any particle was to magically appear or dissapear it would violate the most basic law of physics. E=MC^2 which states that matter can only be created out of energy and energy out of matter. And if this law is violated then physics would be turned on its shoulders. No one actually claims that it comes from "nothing". Its just that our understanding of vacuum energy is so limited that it appears that way, and we don't have a good explanation for it. And it makes for good pop-science headlines.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] I think you should actually take a class in physics before you talk about quantum mechanics. SpartanNapoleon
And by saying that you can argue that either argument is subjective from ones own bias. Since both having a God and not having a God makes sense or make no sense you really cannot rationally argue for either. So each person's own oppinion is just as valid as the other one. I doubt humanity will ever prove if the Big Bang Theory is true or we were created by a divine being, but there is more evidence towards the BBT. Wait why must the Big Band Theory mean God did not create the Universe. The person that proposed the big bang theory was a catholic priest that argued that the big bang actually showed that God created the Universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
So....The Universe can't of come from nothing, but God can. Wahuh?
Bluestorm-Kalas
[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]OR I can.. you know. actually read abotu it and study it on my own. Drastic I know but soem people actually do things like that.Well then why do you say stuff at the quantum level just magically appears out of nothing. It is not what quatum physics is about. Quantum physics is used because objects in the micro level do not follow the same laws as physics that we commonly know. This is true with electrons as you cannot predict where they are at any point in time. However this does not mean that they magically appear and disappear. Infact if any particle was to magically appear or dissapear it would violate the most basic law of physics. E=MC^2 which states that matter can only be created out of energy and energy out of matter. And if this law is violated then physics would be turned on its shoulders. No one actually claims that it comes from "nothing". Its just that our understanding of vacuum energy is so limited that it appears that way, and we don't have a good explanation for it. And it makes for good pop-science headlines. Read a couple of post back from BumFluff122 and repeat what you just said.ProudLarry
Read a couple of post back from BumFluff122 and repeat what you just said.SpartanNapoleon
If you're refering too:
Quantum physics often has particles seemingly appearing out of nothing through quantum fluctuationsBumFluff122
Note that he uses the word "seemingly". BumFluff, I'm sure can speak for himself, but it doesn't sound like he is claiming what you say he is.
[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"]Read a couple of post back from BumFluff122 and repeat what you just said.
ProudLarry
If you're refering too:
Quantum physics often has particles seemingly appearing out of nothing through quantum fluctuationsBumFluff122
Note that he uses the word "seemingly". BumFluff, I'm sure can speak for himself, but it doesn't sound like he is claiming what you say he is.
But he used that as a response to how can matter be created out of nothing. In other words God needed to create matter.[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"]
If you're refering too: [QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Quantum physics often has particles seemingly appearing out of nothing through quantum fluctuations
SpartanNapoleon
Note that he uses the word "seemingly". BumFluff, I'm sure can speak for himself, but it doesn't sound like he is claiming what you say he is.
But he used that as a response to how can matter be created out of nothing. In other words God needed to create matter. I don't know exactly what he said, but vacuum energy is somewhat analogous to the Big Bang and the origin of matter. In both cases we have matter appearing in the universe from an unknown origin, or through unknown processes. And the existence of vacuum energy isn't really debatable, like many claim the Big Bang to be.[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]No. You are misinterpretting what I'm stating completely. As stated, one does not take the amount of X in Y to find the probability that X can exist in Y without a helping hand when other forces are at work including such things as evolution. That is exactly what you are doing. Dude that is exactly how you do probabilities. How much X in Y. If you want to make a claim like you need to back it up not just state something because I said so. Like so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory Since consciousness can be defined as a subset of matter then you can find the probability by the total mass of consciousness divided by total matter. Anything else does not matter for probability. And I have no idea why you even bring evolution up as it has nothing to do with this. Please do research before just blindly going against an opposing view.Conciousness arose as a result of evolution. You have been arguign against evolution this entire time. The only bit of probability you canh achieve by takign all the matter in the universe and deviding it by the amount of concious matter in the universe is how likely, if you choose an individual piece of matter in the universe, if that indivudla piece will be a part of consiouness or not. You can not immediatly come to the conslusion that some supreme being exists due to the probability which is exactly what you've been arguing.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] I did not get my ideas from a "site". I thought about them. And I gave you all the information you needed to get the numbers you wanted. Drakes equation calculates the probability of life in the universe given from many observable factors, so it not "Out of Thin Air". And you should also take a class in logic. I pointed your flawed logic and gave an example. Your argument is you just can't do that because you can't. You don't think many things affect light traveling through space like neutrinos, and what not. Just because we do not know the effects of neutrinos on light does not mean we cannot study light. Even though neutrinos are everywhere and interact with everything does not mean that we can't therefore study anything since we do not know the interactions of neutrinos with matter. So you really can't cling to that in order to ignore my argument. SpartanNapoleon
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment