Why dont YOU believe in God?

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]God is outside of the universe he created, the laws do not apply to him. All scientific laws that we know of have applied only to this universe, not anything outside of it. We don't have enough evidence to say that they affect things outside, like God. HoolaHoopMan

And yet you're assuming all of this. You have no idea if causality exists outside our universe or if EVERYTHING is subject to some form of it. The only argument you can make of this is 'because I said so'.

There's nothing to suggest that the universe needed a creator anymore than your creator needed one as well.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

No I did not. I was merely saying that basing your non-belief on abiogenesis is kinda logically wrong since they're not incompatible. I never said anything about basing your belief in God on abiogenesis.

RationalAtheist

I can't see how belief in most Gods is logically compatible with abiogenesis.

You did say something about basing your belief in God on abiogenesis. You said it was "kinda ...well baseless". I was enquiring why you wrote that. Rather then all the defensiveness and denial, why not state what you actually do think.

We're not talking about any specific God here. Just God in general.

Eh no, I said basing your non-belief on abiogenesis is baseless. That does not equate basing your belief in God on abiogenesis not being baseless.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]God is outside of the universe he created, the laws do not apply to him. All scientific laws that we know of have applied only to this universe, not anything outside of it. We don't have enough evidence to say that they affect things outside, like God. kingkong0124

And yet you're assuming all of this. You have no idea if causality exists outside our universe or if EVERYTHING is subject to some form of it. The only argument you can make of this is 'because I said so'.

There's nothing to suggest that the universe needed a creator anymore than your creator needed one as well.

what :lol:

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

The magnitude of the world and the universe leads me to be think there is a Creator. And, with the use of cause and effect, it is easy to justify the existence of a God.

kingkong0124

Your intuition doesn't constitute evidence for the existence of a magical being. People had thought that heavier objects fell faster than ligher objects and that the heart was the center of emotions and intelligence; human "intuition" has been wrong so many times, which is why people invented a little something called the scientific method to actually test these hypotheses.

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] An in-depth statement to another in-depth statement. themajormayor

We're not talking about any specific God here. Just God in general.

themajormayor

Which God in general?

Eh no, I said basing your non-belief on abiogenesis is baseless.

That does not equate basing your belief in God on abiogenesis not being baseless.

themajormayor

Why do you think it is baseless and what does that last bit mean?

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Except when causality is applied to your 'Creator'. Heisenderp

Your intuition doesn't constitute evidence for the existence of a magical being. People had thought that heavier objects fell faster than ligher objects and that the heart was the center of emotions and intelligence; human "intuition" has been wrong so many times, which is why people invented a little something called the scientific method to actually test these hypotheses.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]God is outside of the universe he created, the laws do not apply to him. All scientific laws that we know of have applied only to this universe, not anything outside of it. We don't have enough evidence to say that they affect things outside, like God. kingkong0124

And yet you're assuming all of this. You have no idea if causality exists outside our universe or if EVERYTHING is subject to some form of it. The only argument you can make of this is 'because I said so'.

There's nothing to suggest that the universe needed a creator anymore than your creator needed one as well.

Bolded: It most definately is not. You're the one making claims stating that your God doesn't require a first cause. I'm asking you how you know this, and the only answer you've given me is 'lol because I said so'. By stating that your God isn't subject to needing a first cause you're implicitly saying that you understand the workings regarding cause/effect outside of our universe. That's a positive claim, ergo the burden of proof is on you.

[QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] The law of cause and effect only affects this universe. Since God is effectively outside of this universe, all the laws of science that we have found only apply to this universe, not God. kingkong0124

Your intuition doesn't constitute evidence for the existence of a magical being. People had thought that heavier objects fell faster than ligher objects and that the heart was the center of emotions and intelligence; human "intuition" has been wrong so many times, which is why people invented a little something called the scientific method to actually test these hypotheses.

Apart from an uncaused cause... Or God, right?

Which God in general?

I dunno. Let's say; not limited by space or time, creator of this universe.

Why do you think it is baseless and what does that last bit mean?

Cause it's not incompatible with God. The last bit means that; just cause I say it's baseless doesn't mean basing your faith on abiogenesis is not baseless. I don't know why I have to explain this to you.

RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

Your intuition doesn't constitute evidence for the existence of a magical being. People had thought that heavier objects fell faster than ligher objects and that the heart was the center of emotions and intelligence; human "intuition" has been wrong so many times, which is why people invented a little something called the scientific method to actually test these hypotheses.

RationalAtheist

Apart from an uncaused cause... Or God, right?

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] um, no, you shouldn't. My fact is based on common sense. It can't be any simpler. If there is no proof it exists, don't believe it exists. It's stupid and counter productive. Also, a god is not on the same level as extraterrestrial. extraterrestrial can exist within the world we live in. We shouldn't say it does exist, but it is much more likely than a god seeing as it is within our world and not in some fairy tale land that could never be proven. Toxic-Seahorse

Hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy alone and about the same number of galaxies in the observable universe. And you DO NOT believe there is any form of life anywhere else than earth. You are the stupid one.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"] um, no, you shouldn't. My fact is based on common sense. It can't be any simpler. If there is no proof it exists, don't believe it exists. It's stupid and counter productive. Also, a god is not on the same level as extraterrestrial. extraterrestrial can exist within the world we live in. We shouldn't say it does exist, but it is much more likely than a god seeing as it is within our world and not in some fairy tale land that could never be proven. Toxic-Seahorse

You are quite the betting man, then.

[QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] The law of cause and effect only affects this universe. Since God is effectively outside of this universe, all the laws of science that we have found only apply to this universe, not God. kingkong0124

Your intuition doesn't constitute evidence for the existence of a magical being. People had thought that heavier objects fell faster than ligher objects and that the heart was the center of emotions and intelligence; human "intuition" has been wrong so many times, which is why people invented a little something called the scientific method to actually test these hypotheses.

What you just said is the very definition of intuition... Something completely untestable that "sounds" and "feels" obvious. Just like people thought that it was "obvious" that the heart controlled emotion based on the sole observation that it starts to beat loudly when we have emotions. It feels obvious because they haven't looked at other possibilities, such as the nervous and endocrine systems. You're doing the exact same thing: you're basing your hypothesis on the only thought that everything in the Universe needed a cause. 200 years ago everyone believed what you said, until they discovered quantum mechanics and abiogenesis.

That's just tackling the postulate (premise) of your argument. The reasoning that comes from it is also completely wrong

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

And yet you're assuming all of this. You have no idea if causality exists outside our universe or if EVERYTHING is subject to some form of it. The only argument you can make of this is 'because I said so'.

There's nothing to suggest that the universe needed a creator anymore than your creator needed one as well.

HoolaHoopMan

Bolded: It most definately is not. You're the one making claims stating that your God doesn't require a first cause. I'm asking you how you know this, and the only answer you've given me is 'lol because I said so'. By stating that your God isn't subject to needing a first cause you're implicitly saying that you understand the workings regarding cause/effect outside of our universe. That's a positive claim, ergo the burden of proof is on you.

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

Your intuition doesn't constitute evidence for the existence of a magical being. People had thought that heavier objects fell faster than ligher objects and that the heart was the center of emotions and intelligence; human "intuition" has been wrong so many times, which is why people invented a little something called the scientific method to actually test these hypotheses.

Heisenderp

What you just said is the very definition of intuition... Something completely untestable that "sounds" and "feels" obvious. Just like people thought that it was "obvious" that the heart controlled emotion based on the sole observation that it starts to beat loudly when we have emotions. It feels obvious because they haven't looked at other possibilities, such as the nervous and endocrine systems. You're doing the exact same thing: you're basing your hypothesis on the only thought that everything in the Universe needed a cause. 200 years ago everyone believed what you said, until they discovered quantum mechanics and abiogenesis.

That's just tackling the postulate (premise) of your argument. The reasoning that comes from it is also completely wrong

In both of these cases something does not come from nothing. Though causality doesn't apply to quantum mechanics it doesn't mean that something comes from nothing. Cause nothing doesn't exist.

[QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"] It's not human intuition. Something cannot come out of nothing. themajormayor

What you just said is the very definition of intuition... Something completely untestable that "sounds" and "feels" obvious. Just like people thought that it was "obvious" that the heart controlled emotion based on the sole observation that it starts to beat loudly when we have emotions. It feels obvious because they haven't looked at other possibilities, such as the nervous and endocrine systems. You're doing the exact same thing: you're basing your hypothesis on the only thought that everything in the Universe needed a cause. 200 years ago everyone believed what you said, until they discovered quantum mechanics and abiogenesis.

That's just tackling the postulate (premise) of your argument. The reasoning that comes from it is also completely wrong

In both of these cases something does not come from nothing. Though causality doesn't apply to quantum mechanics it doesn't mean that something comes from nothing. Cause nothing doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is all on the person testing the hypothesis. All I have to do is present one single case (quantum mechanics) where the hypothesis fails to prove it wrong.

I dunno. Let's say; not limited by space or time, creator of this universe.

themajormayor

What reason would you have to believe in one of those?

Cause it's not incompatible with God. The last bit means that; just cause I say it's baseless doesn't mean basing your faith on abiogenesis is not baseless. I don't know why I have to explain this to you.

themajormayor

It is incompatible with most Gods. You don't have to explain anthing to me, but I thought you might be interested in justifying what you write, since you recently set up a Gamespot Deism union to discuss such stuff and have advertised it in your sig too.

"Something cannot come out of nothing" applies to this universe only.. God is outside this universe..we don't have any evidence to say that the law of cause and effect still applies outside of this universe. kingkong0124

That is a wonderfully handy rule, but where did you find it out? Do you have and positive evidence that our universal laws can be transcended, or is absense of evidence good enough for you?

I do not know that God does not require a cause, but no evidence points otherwise. It's similar to the traditional atheist point of view of, "I'm an atheist, there is no God, and there is no evidence to point otherwise." kingkong0124

So basically you're stance is an Argument from Ignorance.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

[QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

What you just said is the very definition of intuition... Something completely untestable that "sounds" and "feels" obvious. Just like people thought that it was "obvious" that the heart controlled emotion based on the sole observation that it starts to beat loudly when we have emotions. It feels obvious because they haven't looked at other possibilities, such as the nervous and endocrine systems. You're doing the exact same thing: you're basing your hypothesis on the only thought that everything in the Universe needed a cause. 200 years ago everyone believed what you said, until they discovered quantum mechanics and abiogenesis.

That's just tackling the postulate (premise) of your argument. The reasoning that comes from it is also completely wrong

Heisenderp

In both of these cases something does not come from nothing. Though causality doesn't apply to quantum mechanics it doesn't mean that something comes from nothing. Cause nothing doesn't exist.

The burden of proof is all on the person testing the hypothesis. All I have to do is present one single case (quantum mechanics) where the hypothesis fails to prove it wrong.

[QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

In both of these cases something does not come from nothing. Though causality doesn't apply to quantum mechanics it doesn't mean that something comes from nothing. Cause nothing doesn't exist.

themajormayor

The burden of proof is all on the person testing the hypothesis. All I have to do is present one single case (quantum mechanics) where the hypothesis fails to prove it wrong.

Wut? You said that my example of quantum mechanics doesn't "prove" that something can come from nothing. I replied by saying that I don't need to prove anything. How is that now a direct response?

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

I dunno. Let's say; not limited by space or time, creator of this universe.

RationalAtheist

What reason would you have to believe in one of those?

That's a completely different discussion. I don't have time right now for that. But if you only want to know then the cosmological argument for example.

Cause it's not incompatible with God. The last bit means that; just cause I say it's baseless doesn't mean basing your faith on abiogenesis is not baseless. I don't know why I have to explain this to you.

themajormayor

It is incompatible with most Gods. You don't have to explain anthing to me, but I thought you might be interested in justifying what you write, since you recently set up a Gamespot Deism union to discuss such stuff and have advertised it in your sig too.

Right but not the Deistic God for example.

And I think you are misinterpreting what I write.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="Heisenderp"]

The burden of proof is all on the person testing the hypothesis. All I have to do is present one single case (quantum mechanics) where the hypothesis fails to prove it wrong.

Heisenderp

Wut? You said that my example of quantum mechanics doesn't "prove" that something can come from nothing. I replied by saying that I don't need to prove anything. How is that now a direct response?

I dunno. Let's say; not limited by space or time, creator of this universe.

That's a completely different discussion. I don't have time right now for that. But if you only want to know then the cosmological argument for example.

themajormayor

Have you only got time to discuss why (or rather that) other people's beliefs have no basis?

Is the cosmological argument your reason for belief? It has no real basis, for me.

Right but not the Deistic God for example.

And I think you are misinterpreting what I write.

themajormayor

What is not, well ....baseless about believing in a Deistic God?

I don't miss-interpret what you write, but do feel free to correct me.

I only believe in Satan as my follower.

Gaming-Planet

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

I dunno. Let's say; not limited by space or time, creator of this universe.

That's a completely different discussion. I don't have time right now for that. But if you only want to know then the cosmological argument for example.

RationalAtheist

Have you only got time to discuss why other people's belief have no basis?

Is the cosmological argument your reason for belief? It has no real basis, for me.

Pretty much. We've had the stupid anti-matter discussion and now you're putting words in my mouth based on your own misinterpretations. That's enough for one night.

Right but not the Deistic God for example.

And I think you are misinterpreting what I write.

themajormayor

What is not, well ....baseless about believing in a Deistic God?

I don't I miss-interpret what you write, but do feel free to correct me.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. And for the record I don't really consider myself a Deist.

I'm gonna invent a new word here; baseful. It's the opposite of baseless. If I understand you correctly you think I think it's baseful to base you religious belief on abiogenesis. Which I never said. And I don't think it is. I think abiogenesis is irrelevant to the question.

Something cannot come out of nothing. kingkong0124

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]Something cannot come out of nothing. Zeviander

Pretty much. We've had the stupid anti-matter discussion and now you're putting words in my mouth based on your own misinterpretations. That's enough for one night.

themajormayor

I didn't think that was a stupid discussion. I found it quite revealing. I'm not putting any words in your mouth - I was only asking questions.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. And for the record I don't really consider myself a Deist.

themajormayor

I think it does and I thought you were. I thought we'd arrived at a Panendeist philosophy for you a while ago and you stated yourself as a Desist only 2 days ago. There's no need to be ashamed.

http://uk.gamespot.com/unions/Nonrelgious/forums/29164024/whats-up-with-deism

I'm gonna invent a new word here; baseful. It's the opposite of baseless. If I understand you correctly you think I think it's baseful to base you religious belief on abiogenesis. Which I never said. And I don't think it is. I think abiogenesis is irrelevant to the question.

themajormayor

I can invent new words too but can I use "having a basis" instead of baseful? I'm not interested in what you didn't say - but more interested in what you mean.

I want to take this from a non-religious perspective. But does something really come out of nothing? AFAIK 'nothing' doesn't exists. I agree though that causality doesn't apply.themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]

Pretty much. We've had the stupid anti-matter discussion and now you're putting words in my mouth based on your own misinterpretations. That's enough for one night.

RationalAtheist

I didn't think that was a stupid discussion. I found it quite revealing. I'm not putting any words in your mouth - I was only asking questions.

Well I think it was stupid and was completely irrelevant to the thread.

That has nothing to do with this discussion. And for the record I don't really consider myself a Deist.

themajormayor

I think it does and I thought you were. I thought we'd arrived at a Panendeist philosophy for you a while ago and you stated yourself as a Desist only 2 days ago. There's no need to be ashamed.

http://uk.gamespot.com/unions/Nonrelgious/forums/29164024/whats-up-with-deism

Yup Panendeist it is. If you look at the Deism Union board you can even see one of my posts where I said so. I'm not sure Panendeism really is Deism though since it allows for a God that interacts with and transcends the universe. Which I think is something deists doesn't believe in. I could be wrong though. I don't wanna get hung up on labels to much.

And also that is not stating I am a Deist. You can be part of the union without being Deist.

I'm gonna invent a new word here; baseful. It's the opposite of baseless. If I understand you correctly you think I think it's baseful to base you religious belief on abiogenesis. Which I never said. And I don't think it is. I think abiogenesis is irrelevant to the question.

themajormayor

I can invent new words too but can I use "having a basis" instead of baseful? I'm not interested in what you didn't say - but more interested in what you mean.

Right and as I said think basing your religious belief on abogenesis is baseless. I think it is irrelevant to the question of God's existence.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]I want to take this from a non-religious perspective. But does something really come out of nothing? AFAIK 'nothing' doesn't exists. I agree though that causality doesn't apply.Zeviander

Yeah I've heard about it too. It's something about virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Though I find it really hard to believe they come from absolutely nothing. Since nothing itself isn't even really a concept in physics. But it's way out of my league too so I probably shouldn't talk about it. But I do anyway.

Ive noticed theres a lot of atheist on this forum ( and all over the word )

and although I'm Christian, a lot of you guys bring up good points why you dont believe in a God.

So help me out...What are the reasons why I shouldnt belive in a God...in other words give me YOUR reason...

My ultimate goal is to make a list of ever reason and to somehow be able to find the answer to each.

I know some of you love trolling, but please keep it away from this theard...

apperciate any input from either religious or non religious people

Acez626

- No evidence for a god
- No historical evidence for jesus (evidence that does exist is either A) Been made up by the church or B) not what it claims to be)
- Evidence that goes against the bible (world is round, not at center of universe, not 6000 years old etc) Why if these things are wrong is the god part correct?
- The religious love to pick and choose from the bible/qua-ran/whatever scripture they follow and form it into their own beliefs and claim it as the word of god. It's a flawed belief system that lacks any form rationality or truth.
- Instead of looking for the real answers they look towards a 2000+ year old holy book. It's like "yeah you get to live forever, see your dead loves ones and all you have to do is believe in god!!! Or you will burn" It's pathetic. They don't want to look at the real hard facts so they take the false answers instead and then walk around thinking they know how everything was created.
- Religion promotes bigotry. It's a large group of sheep told what to believe, how to act, how to behave, what is right and what is wrong. People who dont think for themselves and people told to ignore evidence against the supposed "all might creator"

I could go on but this is some of my short reasons.

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]Something cannot come out of nothing. Zeviander

Think his head would asplode if we introduced him to the 'zero sum energy universe' theory?

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]I want to take this from a non-religious perspective. But does something really come out of nothing? AFAIK 'nothing' doesn't exists. I agree though that causality doesn't apply.Zeviander

At the quantum level, everything is always being shuffled (even time...at the quantum level, an event can occur before its precipitator...ripples in a pond before you throw the rock into it). This means that even very unlikely events do sometimes occur.

Of course, I prefer the brane theory myself: since matter and energy are the same thing, it's not hard to imagine everything in this universe being the residual heat energy of a brane collision.

Now you may ask "well where does the brane come from"? Where and when are questions you can ask of this universe (brane), but outside of it such ideas are irrelevant.

For instance, if you could view our universe from an outside dimension, you could view all of time at once from end-to-end. A singularity of time where from an outside perspective all events occur simultaneously.

Further, distance and space are irrelevant outside of our universe because spacetime (as we know it) only exists within our universal bubble, so asking "where and when" of anything outside of it is useless, as such ideas do not pertain to the multiverse.

God sounds authoritative and picky. The Devil welcomes all with open arms.DroidPhysX

I guess it goes to show the deception of Satan with post like these.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]God sounds authoritative and picky. The Devil welcomes all with open arms.Philokalia

I guess it goes to show the deception of Satan with post like these.

which part of that do you disagree withcheese_game619

The Idea of he who was a liar since creation has our best interest in mind.

there was nothing about lies there. it just said god comes across as authoritative and picky.cheese_game619

LIES AND SLANDER

BEGONE DEVIL WORSHIPER