Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2011, 04:10 PM
 
Tongue RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
We now take a break from hot under the collar (*insert pervert Priest image here) for this important snap us out of Theist Trollism break...

[Image: prepared-zombie-jesus-skull-penetration-...295331.jpg]

I think context is important. ElShadai, is an old Hebrew name for "god". So, god joined an atheist website to argue in circles, positing false claims, unscientific fallacies, Biblical nonsense and refuted affirmations that a false idol does exist and he can (not) prove it to us who know it's simply not true.

Are you kidding me? Present a better explanation for our existence than Theism?

Which version? Polytheism? Monotheism. A god created billions of people and yet approves only one way of believing that?

Prove what created your god who reigns at the head of one monotheist cult ideology, beleaguered within it's own ranks by sectarianism!
Believers can't even find peace as to what god is in the ranks of monotheists who believe god is absolute. And here Elshadai is asking us to prove to him that something besides his god created us? Atheists!

Tell you what Elshadai, besides getting off on thinking you're riling up the damned here, prove with Theism what created god.

I'll wait over here in the sauna, where I relax after a long yoga session after a hot cup of chamomile tea with a mineral water chaser. You don't rile us up, make us think we're wrong being atheists, or upset us that we can't come up with a viable option to god as the cause of human and all creations source of existence.
You sir are simply out matched. Not by myself in the realm of scientific proof however, in the grand scheme you have entered a community wherein you look desperate to find something to answer your faith with fact.

And how you comport yourself in the process provides an example of what thus far your faith in a god of love and a prince of peace, makes you to become.

So, continue to be ill mannered. Your personal impression shall simply go further to impress upon us your character, as you choose to go lower.

Enjoy a thinking day. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GassyKitten's post
25-05-2011, 04:39 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
@GassyKitten, I bet he wont answer that in the way you want. We have seen this kind of rethoric over and over again...

"God could not have been created because he is eternal and beyond the rules of the universe, balh blah blah.... "god" is the unmoved mover..."

Its like reading the Aquinas argument again, and BTW I'm starting to suspect this guy is the so called philosopher I mentioned in my thread in the Philosophy section, I dont know, but I think its possible. Because his rethoric and manners are quite similar.

Also I would like to see I he is capable of giving a reasonable explanation other than this "god" dont play by the rules, about the denial of infinite regress aka. What created the necesary being? and what created the creator of such necesaty being? ad infinitum.

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 04:44 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 01:04 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  could you elaborate further?

To make naturalism, on which atheism is based of, credible, you need to formulate POSITIVE evidence that leads to naturalism as best explanation for our existence.

That's not exactly how I look at it. Naturalism makes one positive assertion, and rejects one assertion. It makes the assertion that the natural world exists, and rejects the notion that the supernatural world exists. It's always up to the positive claim to provide the burden of proof, so when someone claims the supernatural world exists, naturalism doesn't have to supply a rebuttal, only react to evidence given. It does, however, make the positive claim that the natural world exists, which does require evidence to be put out since it is a positive claim. The evidence of the natural world existing is rather obvious though, since we live in the natural world. That is why naturalism is a good default position(after establishing the natural world exists). Philosophies themselves don't need to put forth evidence for themselves, but for the claims they make. We do not necessarily evaluate the evidence for naturalism, but the evidence that deals with the claims naturalism makes.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  How do you imagine our universe formed without cause ? Either the universe had no cause at all, and existed eternally, without beginning, or it came into being through the Big Bang. If you believe this, than you have two options : either it was caused by something, or was caused by nothing. It self caused itself. These are the two alternatives you have.

As has been pointed out several times now, you need to be cautious when asserting dichotomies. In order for them to be sturdy logic, especially when dealing stuff like the cause of the universe, you need rule out that there are any other possible explanations. We don't choose an idea or hypothesis based on it being the best one available, we base it on evidence.

But, since you are asking, I'll go ahead and dive into the Big Bang as best as a person who lacks a Ph.D. in Quantum Mechanics and/or Physics can. To my understanding of the big bang, the universe was condensed into a singularity. There was no space or time, and because of this it's in doubt if the law of case and effect can even be applied. In fact, because the universe was so dramatically different, we really aren't sure what laws can be applied. The Big Bang doesn't deal so much the universe prior to it, but what did happen(expansion). Some speculate that a quantum event(which even in our modern universe escapes the law of cause and effect) could have caused it. But here's the real noteworthy part; we don't know. We don't know what caused the Big Bang(or the creation of the universe if you want to broaden it), and that's okay. We don't have to choose an idea if we aren't comfortably sure on it.

Even if the Big Bang was proven false, that would mean nothing but the Big Bang is false. If I didn't have enough knowledge to walk through your written flow-chart of sorts, that still wouldn't prove God. If we don't know, we don't know.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Elaborate them, and show why one of them is more compelling, than a intelligent , timeless, eternal, spaceless, very powerful creator, that created everything through his power and will.

There you go with insisting that God is the default position again. The default position on the creation of the universe is a big fat "We Don't Know". Not God, nor the Big Bang, nor any other idea.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 05:19 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
I'd give some advice to ElShidai that I once gave to someone who asked me the same question.

Go read "The greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins. It outlines the evidence for Evolution without mentioning any religion. In fact, the book was so well structured at not bringing faith into it, that it was even endorsed by some Bishops who wrote a letter to the British Parliament requesting that Evolution be taught in Schools.

Once you've read the book and examined the evidence for yourself, please come back and raise any issues/questions you still might have. Answering your question requires more than an internet Q&A session but if you understand genetics (i.e the passing on of your parents genes to you) and how it affects you, you will gain a wealth of information about how and why the world and life exists.

Even religious intellectuals of today are starting to use Evolution and Science to explain the history of the universe yet keep their faith as a moral compass toward doing good and being moral. I think it's time the fanatics started this trend too.

Sinex
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 07:31 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
I agree completely with Sinex. Read "the greatest show on earth". I didn't mention it earlier because I wasn't yet aware you disbelieved evolution and such. There are the occasional religion inserts but none of them are very focused. Richard Dawkins made this book about explaining evolution as a provable fact. Now when you read this book take as much time as you need to grasp the concepts. Don't just say he's lying on parts try to understand his position. If you can come back after reading his book, and have a rational discussion of his book I will discuss whatever you want to discuss and if you feel necessary read a book you suggest in response.

On a side note let me explain the difference between atheism and religions (Theism is an ideology so it doesn't really discuss the difference in the way people tend to argue). Atheism is the assertion of there being no reason to hold a theistic philosophy (I use the term philosophy as if you remove the supernatural part theism is a philosophy, or soft science, which does not have provable claims through repeated tests and verifications). Religions are generally very complex philosophies which detail a way to handle a vast number of occurrences in life. And assert claims towards many unknowns. Religions tend to a have a hypothetical answer for things like what happens when you die, how did it all start? what makes people different than non people? etc. Atheism does not. Atheism exists as only the assertion that you do not hold the claims of these philosophies. To ask an atheist to explain the origin of the world before there is a definite answer is silly, because atheists aren't concerned with the origin of the world in regards to their being atheists. If you want a more secular philosophy look at secular humanism. We are not a shared philosophy. Most of us have come to our own personal conclusions, but we generally accept that they are not verifiable and do not bother discussing them on here. If you want someone to believe like you but don't want to deceive them, you have to know that what you believe is certain. Your original question is not best answered here.

I do happen to be formulating my own non-theistic religion/philosophy, but have not gone far enough to really discuss the view.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 09:01 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 03:34 PM)Thammuz Wrote:  I'm not even going to waste my time trying to explain this shit.

You accept Jesus and miracles without questioning it

who told you i did not question them ? Its exactly my questioning that brought me finally to believe, the gospels are compelling.


Quote:but you expect me to give you a PHD-level explanation of every scientific discovery?

no, i am not demanding that much. A link to good scientific papers on the web do it.

Quote:My claims are clear and logical, don't reverse them. If you want to believe a human can survive in a whale belly for 3 days, fine.

this topic is not meant to defend difficult parts in the bible. If you make your own google research, you will find aknowledgeble explanations to each question.

Quote:If you think evolution is false, ignore the evidence.

Microevolution is a proven fact. Macroevolution is not. That is a fact as well.

Quote: If you don't want to know about contradictory scriptures in the Vatican vaults, fine.

there are many apocryphic scriptures. so what ?

Quote:If you wish to deny history books and older stories of gods and virgin births that were used as a basis for the christian story, fine.

how do you KNOW that ?

Quote: If you think the great flood really occured, even though there is no geological evidence for it, fine.

you should educate yourself better.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/..._flood.htm

Quote:But don't you think that I'm impressed by your pseudoblabbering and arrogant behaviour.

you make a better case of yours, if you leave personal attacks outside the door.

Quote:PS: learn some manners. I'm getting really irritated by the way you talk.

are not YOU calling my writings pseudoblabbering and arrogant behaviour ? Isnt it you to need some manners ?


(25-05-2011 03:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Would you care to define "complex systems" for us?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

A complex system is a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more properties (behavior among the possible properties) not obvious from the properties of the individual parts.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Such understanding is plainly obvious when one has experience in software programming as well as engineering and mechanical design.

As I am currently earning my master's degree in computer engineering and computer science, I think I can safely say that no, it isn't.

Please explain why.


Quote:You obviously understand little about evolution or abiogenesis.

why is it obvious to you ?

Quote:Have you ever heard the saying that a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters, typing for an infinite length of time, will eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare? If so, you should be able to understand precisely why entering random data into a computer can create code which compiles and runs correctly.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t287-inf...-a-creator

It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10143).

Quote:Beyond that, life is not a computer program. Your analogy only "works" (by which I mean doesn't work; see above) when one assumes that the only possible states for life to exist in are "fully formed" and "nonexistent". Life is a series of chemical reactions. There are hundreds of intermediary reactions necessary to get to a functioning life form. With enough random chemical interactions over a large enough area, with a large enough supply of ingredients, and with a timescale of sufficient size - like early Earth - life's formation is not only possible, but likely.

Popper, K.R., Scientific reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science; in: Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T. (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270, 1974.

the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:
‘What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
‘Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  The mathematical possibility of such a complex structure arising in a primordial "soup" through random chance was calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle to be one in 10 to the 30,000 power or in simple terms- statistically impossible.

Quote:Is English your first language? "Unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

can you read ?

The mathematical possibility of such a complex structure arising in a primordial "soup" through random chance was calculated by Sir Fred Hoyle to be one in 10 to the 30,000 power or in simple terms- statistically impossible.

Quote: In fact, given that there are literally quadrillions of planets in the universe, all of which have existed for billions of years, even if only one in every six billion had the opportunity to develop life, it's practically guaranteed that at least one of them would.

No, its not.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abio...e-on-earth

If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. This putative soup, assumed by many scientists to have given birth to life over 3.5 billion years ago, was located in the ocean or mud puddles. Others argue that the origin of life could not have been in the sea but rather must have occurred in clay on dry land. Still others conclude that abiogenesis was more likely to have occurred in hot vents. It is widely recognized that major scientific problems exist with all naturalistic origin of life scenarios. This is made clear in the conclusions of many leading origin-of-life researchers. A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means.

Quote:The ones which contradict the entirety of Genesis, for a start.

And where is the empirical evidence ?

Quote:And if you're going to keep asking this question, you need to listen to the answers which have been given. Both myself and others in this thread have already explained to you why "God did it" is neither compelling nor logical.

And chance shall be ?

Quote:No, it's perfectly easy. You simply don't understand the idea of the burden of proof, so this is all going over your head.

If you insist on that, why do you participate at this topic ?

Quote:Read Genesis.

i have read Genesis. so what ?

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  First Law of Information (LI1)

Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.)
There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

Quote:No definition or support for this claim is given. Bare assertion fallacy. The argument is dismissed.

Then i suppose you are able to present codified information, which arose naturally, without intelligence involved ? that would be a scientific sensation.

[quote]
(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  i do not need to present proofs.

Yes, you do.

its not the topic of this thread. Beside this, there are no proofs in regard of Gods existence. And its the wrong question , to ask for proofs. The right question should be: how can we best explain our existence ?

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  there are several reasons to believe in God. And the reasons are VERY good.

No, they aren't.

Ignoring my posts won't make them go away. You're only making a fool of yourself by refusing to acknowledge the objections raised in favor of simply spouting the same nonsense repeatedly.

nonsense, ist to give answers like above, which do not explain absolutely nothing.
that is foolish behavior. you waste your time, and mine, that way.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  Why do you think millions of people have given their life for him

Argument from popularity fallacy.

I don't think so. There is a reason, why these people gave their life for this cause. Otherwise, they would have all fooled themself.

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  specially the apostles, which were eye witnesses of his miracles ?

Bare assertion fallacy.

have you ever read the new testament ?

(25-05-2011 03:15 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  To make naturalism, on which atheism is based of, credible, you need to formulate POSITIVE evidence that leads to naturalism as best explanation for our existence.

No. You only need to negate everything else. Naturalism is the default position.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t383-is-...t-position

Many atheists claim that atheism is the default position. In other words, they claim that when persons are born, they are naturally atheists and that it is only through indoctrination that they become theists. But, this claim is nothing more then an unsubstantiated opinion. How does an atheist know that people are not hardwired to believe in God? How does an atheist know that children don't naturally believe in God and have to be taught not to believe in God?

If the atheist says that it must be a cognitive choice to believe in God, then again we have to ask how the atheist knows this. People believe in things without really understanding why and often times they're surprised at what they do believe in naturally. So, that doesn't work either.

So when an atheist says that atheism is the default position, he is offering nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion upon which he wants to build an argument that atheism is somehow valid, or superior, or natural. The conclusion is not supported by the premise.

But, what if it is true that atheism is the natural position of the person? Now, we are not saying that is the case, but what if it were? Would it mean that there is no God? Of course not. Even if an atheist were to hold the position that atheism is the default position (which cannot be verified) what does that have to do with whether or not God exists? It is irrelevant to the issue.

So, when atheists like to say that atheism is the default position, I like to respond with a request for them to prove it. They can't. They need to stop offering unsubstantiated opinions as facts.

This is not something that you can argue. It is built into logic. The system which requires the existence of nothing except that which is already established (in this case, naturalism) is automatically the default position. The only way to change this is to prove that this system is false.

The burden of proof is on you.

Quote:No. The universe can have a beginning without a cause. Time only exists within the universe. Without time, there is no causality, no need for a cause to produce an effect or for an effect to be preceded by a cause.

that is pure nonsense. All empirical experience shows that everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the...l-argument

out of nothing, nothing comes. The denial of the first premise, although strictly logically possible, is metaphysically unactualizable. By definition, nothing has no potentialities. Thus, it is impossible for something to arise out of nothing, for how can its existence be actualized if the potential is not there? [3] The truth of the causal premise is additionally supported by our everyday experience. If the causal premise were false, then it is quite odd as to why we don't observe things coming into existence uncaused and out of nothing in our everyday experience. Presumably, nobody lives their life worrying about the possibility of an elephant suddenly appearing out of nothing in their living room. Writes Craig:

"Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There cannot be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness does not have any properties. Nothingness is the absence of anything whatsoever. As such, nothingness can have no properties, since there literally is not anything to have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there is not anything to be constrained."
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 09:26 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 09:01 PM)ElShadai Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 03:34 PM)Thammuz Wrote:  If you think the great flood really occured, even though there is no geological evidence for it, fine.

you should educate yourself better.

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/..._flood.htm


And you should educate yourself better... about not using an unverified YEC page as your "end all discussion" reference source. That's like me saying that the Holocaust never happened and then linking you to NaziApologist(dot)com.

I find it hard to trust anything on a site that quote mines, cherry picks, and claims that paleontologists are agreed that "fossils are unreliable and lacking in patterns and order."


Edit: And please explain to me how you accept microevolution but not macroevolution. You do realize that macroevolution IS microevolution, just observed along a long enough timeline?

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 09:29 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 03:44 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  The site offering to "pay a million dollars" for something that's already been proven (by the many experiments and models over the last 50 years) is hosted on a free public domain name similar to the geocities and angelfire sites of old. I couldn't possibly guess why credible scientists wouldn't jump at the opportunity to answer the challenge of a site that appears to have been designed using the pre-built template commonly found in photo album sites.

Hmmmm.

it seems you are badly informed. Abiogenesis has NOT been proven true. Quit the contrary is the case.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t60-abio...e-on-earth

Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth. The abiogenesis problem is now so serious that most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field because they are ‘uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled’ because ‘it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations’ and they worry that a ‘frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding’.


(25-05-2011 04:10 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  I think context is important. ElShadai, is an old Hebrew name for "god". So, god joined an atheist website to argue in circles, positing false claims, unscientific fallacies, Biblical nonsense and refuted affirmations that a false idol does exist and he can (not) prove it to us who know it's simply not true.

show why you think so.

Quote:Tell you what Elshadai, besides getting off on thinking you're riling up the damned here, prove with Theism what created god.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god

God has always existed, independent from anything he created.Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.So, if there were onces absolutely nothing, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.


The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.




(25-05-2011 04:44 PM)ashley.hunt60 Wrote:  That's not exactly how I look at it. Naturalism makes one positive assertion, and rejects one assertion. It makes the assertion that the natural world exists, and rejects the notion that the supernatural world exists.It's always up to the positive claim to provide the burden of proof

According to Wiki :

Naturalism is the belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world

that is a positive assertion, and needs positive evidence as well to back up the claim.

,
Quote: so when someone claims the supernatural world exists, naturalism doesn't have to supply a rebuttal, only react to evidence given. It does, however, make the positive claim that the natural world exists, which does require evidence to be put out since it is a positive claim. The evidence of the natural world existing is rather obvious though, since we live in the natural world.

naturalism asserts, ONLY the natural world exists. So naturalists need to provide positive evidence for such claim.

Quote:But, since you are asking, I'll go ahead and dive into the Big Bang as best as a person who lacks a Ph.D. in Quantum Mechanics and/or Physics can. To my understanding of the big bang, the universe was condensed into a singularity. There was no space or time, and because of this it's in doubt if the law of case and effect can even be applied.

why not ? from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. That should be unquestionable. Absolutely nothing is the absence of any thing, and from it never something can arise.

Quote:In fact, because the universe was so dramatically different, we really aren't sure what laws can be applied. The Big Bang doesn't deal so much the universe prior to it, but what did happen(expansion). Some speculate that a quantum event(which even in our modern universe escapes the law of cause and effect) could have caused it. But here's the real noteworthy part; we don't know. We don't know what caused the Big Bang(or the creation of the universe if you want to broaden it), and that's okay. We don't have to choose an idea if we aren't comfortably sure on it.

see above.

the kalaam cosmological argument has not found a compelling rebuttal.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the...l-argument




(25-05-2011 05:19 PM)Sinex Wrote:  I'd give some advice to ElShidai that I once gave to someone who asked me the same question.

Go read "The greatest show on earth" by Richard Dawkins. It outlines the evidence for Evolution without mentioning any religion. In fact, the book was so well structured at not bringing faith into it, that it was even endorsed by some Bishops who wrote a letter to the British Parliament requesting that Evolution be taught in Schools.

Once you've read the book and examined the evidence for yourself, please come back and raise any issues/questions you still might have. Answering your question requires more than an internet Q&A session but if you understand genetics (i.e the passing on of your parents genes to you) and how it affects you, you will gain a wealth of information about how and why the world and life exists.

Even religious intellectuals of today are starting to use Evolution and Science to explain the history of the universe yet keep their faith as a moral compass toward doing good and being moral. I think it's time the fanatics started this trend too.

Sinex

evolution does not explain the origin of life, the fine tuning of the universe, and the origin of the universe itself.

In regard of Dawkins. I have little respect for him, after reading the God delusion book. his arguments are really ridiculously weak.
Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 09:46 PM
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
Look at another site!! if you reference that page anymore I'm leaving, and I am trying to entertain you here. Getting all of your answers from one source is completely groundless especially seeing as how fallacious the articles have been. There is no certainty of information if it's not questioned. Look at sites that don't agree and read about them. Just reading that one site is going to make you horribly biased.

What makes you think us discussing atheism as a starting point is to make that the higher ground? We're just discussing that the concept of god is presented by others. Yes religion and a creator idea can be reached naturally, but not at birth. And there is no way that a baby is going to be pre-programmed with the knowledge of christianity, or it would've existed well before it came around. All that we are born atheists means, is that before theism is discussed it is not something someone worries about at all. There are primarily secular cultures where plenty of people just can't even grasp the concept of a god. This is because as a child it was never introduced, and they've already made many suppositions of the world which they've often verified through evidence. Someone who understands that there are answers to questions doesn't look for the non answer that religion offers.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 09:53 PM
 
RE: Please present a better explanation for our existence than Theism
(25-05-2011 07:31 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I agree completely with Sinex. Read "the greatest show on earth". I didn't mention it earlier because I wasn't yet aware you disbelieved evolution and such.

I do not believe in macroevolution. micro evolution however is a unquestionable , proven fact.


Quote:There are the occasional religion inserts but none of them are very focused. Richard Dawkins made this book about explaining evolution as a provable fact.

macroevolution is wishful thinking. Its NOT a proven fact.

Quote:Now when you read this book take as much time as you need to grasp the concepts. Don't just say he's lying on parts try to understand his position. If you can come back after reading his book, and have a rational discussion of his book I will discuss whatever you want to discuss and if you feel necessary read a book you suggest in response.

why do you not post here, what you understood and convinced you through the book ?

Quote:On a side note let me explain the difference between atheism and religions (Theism is an ideology

theism is not a ideology. its the faith in the existence of a supernatural being.


Quote:so it doesn't really discuss the difference in the way people tend to argue). Atheism is the assertion of there being no reason to hold a theistic philosophy (I use the term philosophy as if you remove the supernatural part theism is a philosophy, or soft science, which does not have provable claims through repeated tests and verifications).

you wont find them either in historical sciences, on which neo darwinism relies.

Quote: Atheism does not. Atheism exists as only the assertion that you do not hold the claims of these philosophies.

weak atheism yes. strong atheism however makes a positive claim : most probably, god does not exist.

Quote:To ask an atheist to explain the origin of the world before there is a definite answer is silly, because atheists aren't concerned with the origin of the world in regards to their being atheists.

you are exposed to my ideas. to the ideas of theists. at the very moment, you take posistion to that information, and deny it, you become a strong atheist.

Quote: If you want a more secular philosophy look at secular humanism. We are not a shared philosophy. Most of us have come to our own personal conclusions,

if you have made the conclusion, god most probably does not exist, you are a strong atheist.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: