"Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2014, 08:41 PM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
(07-02-2014 01:42 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 12:45 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I dodge nothing, you pathetic lying theist shill.

C'mon then you shirker, present your case for atheism.

My "case" for atheism is that I don't believe your fucking fairy tales.


Quote: I think you you qualify for white feather atheism, as your view rests on "cos evidence works bitchez"?

Your bullshit argument is long-lost, and all your bullshit argument deserves any more is "cos evidence works bitchez". Far better than your view that you can just make up whatever bullshit you want to and try to push it on the world. How's that working for you, Ace?


Quote: I really hope so as it makes me laugh due to the fantastic simplemindedness of it.


That's because you are too fucking stupid to figure it out.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 09:21 PM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
(07-02-2014 01:42 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  present your case for atheism.

Not believing bullshit when there is no evidence for the bullshit means you are much less likely to be fooled. Having a skeptical nature and using critical thinking means that you are more likely to have a world view that matches as close to reality as we can get.

It means that you are less gullible and in a better position to make rational decisions about your money, your life, your future and the financial well-being of your city, your country and all the things we vote on each year.

~Fin

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
08-02-2014, 05:27 AM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
Quote:Youkay wrote
Having said that, quantum mechanical processes are part of nature, therefore I do infact believe that nature is self-creating in that sense.

I wouldn't use the term 'self creating' but 'continuously changing/forming'
Self creating gives the impression of 'creation ex-nihilo' which makes no sense either for a God or Nature. (a contradictory notion)
However no reason to assume nature continuously is changing/forming as part of an eternal process - keeping to rules of conservation of energy.
This also applies to quantum mechanics - whether particles "go in & out of our perceivable existence" the net energy in the system is the same in the totality of the system.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
08-02-2014, 05:34 AM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
(06-02-2014 12:36 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 08:35 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I assume you are meaning abiogenesis? No atheist claims the universe (which is nature) created itself.

Nope, I mean that existence was caused by a process inherent within it.

This makes no sense brownshirt.
Causation is part of existence. All processes are part of existence. "Anything within it" are all part of existence. 'EXISTANCE' cannot be caused - it would always exist. The universe to all intents & purposes is a synonym for existence - i.e whatever exists is part of the universe. This is true for mass, energy, time, space, quantum systems and mathematical patterns & processes.
We don't need to posit something 'outside' existence because this doesn't make sense and we have no evidence for such an idea of God or external agency

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
08-02-2014, 05:44 AM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
(06-02-2014 12:56 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 12:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Sounds like you're assuming that nature can be created.

Unless there is some justification that nature cannot be created, why should I accept this unless I've already reached naturalism as a conclusion?

Brownshirt
- you are making straw man arguments in this post:

As for the big bang - cosmologists have investigated the first 3 minutes during a very small, high temperature + pressure state.

What actually happened at time=0 or close to zero (plank constant) we don't know - This does NOT imply self creation (and definitely not God which is used to fill any gap in knowledge)

It is most likely that the big bang is a transition phase and energy is eternal and indestructible - neither created not destroyed.
No one says "the universe just popped in from nothing".
Even cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss describe an early quantum state which is not technically an absolute nothing (an ontological nothingness) i.e something always exists.

No need for God, No need for intelligent design.
It doesn't make sense to ask "what caused the universe" because causality itself is part of the universe.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
08-02-2014, 05:46 AM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
As for something coming out of nothing:
It could be as per Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Bertrand Russell, Paul Davies, objectivists and numerous other philosophers/scientists/mathematicians - that the universe eternally exists is in some form or other i.e rejecting "Ex Nihilo" creation as illogical & contradictory.

The "big bang theory" only tells us what happens very close to time=0. It does not say what happens at t=0 or if the concept of "before" even makes sense (as mentioned in prev post causality is part of the universe).

The key assumption being made is placing "nothing" as the default and asking "why is there something rather than nothing ?"

What if something always exists and "nothing" is just a relational word to contrast the absence of one thing from something else ?

i.e nothing cannot exist in absolute terms - (its irrational) it only exists in relation to something.

Just saying "only nothing exists" is an oxymoron and even then there would be "potential for something" which IS SOMETHING ! (a potential could be compatible with Platonism or other metaphysical systems)
I.e "nothing" presupposes the existence of something.

There are different concepts of "nothing" and even the physicists/cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss do not mean an absolute ontological nothingness when discussing the "beginning" of the universe that we can detect. Lawrence Krauss description of nothing is definitely an absence of space-time objects you are familiar with but it involves quantum fluctuations which are still a something (just not the visible universe we see)

The reason why atheists reject the concept of God in relation to the above arguments about "something cannot come from nothing" is because the Kalam cosmological argument (the cosmological argument being discussed) has many flaws and fallacies - some of which I mentioned above.

Sticking God at the beginning really doesn't solve anything and just compounds mystery with more mystery + contradictions

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
08-02-2014, 05:47 AM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
If we consider the universe to be "Everything which exists" then causality is part of existence and part of the universe. It therefore makes no sense to ask "what caused the universe" I.e the universe must be eternal apriori.

As previously mentioned the big bang would then be a phase transition not an absolute (ontological) beginning. This is compatible with modern cosmology.

There are many scenarios which could mean the universe we see is just one phase of many universes either simultaneously, parallel or in the past. (so called level 1,2,3 & 4 multiverses) - the higher the lever the more speculative and entering philosophy & not empirically testable hypothesis.

Not knowing the absolute answer to this question (i.e if it isn't ultimately empirically verifiable) does not mean we can make stuff up about a God magically popping things into existence !!!.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSBd-93YlYHNd8W6D_uUK...x32QSSGT4R]
[/quote]

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
08-02-2014, 05:48 AM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
Saying "an agent capable of causing the start of the universe" just complicates things & does not answer the question - it also makes no sense.
If "time" is created then the agent presupposes time because causation presupposes time as does some "mind of an agent" (minds are time dependent with attributes of potential, deciding, desiring, wanting, doing etc)

Therefore "an agent capable of causing the start of the universe" could not start time (its a contradiction)
If time then has no beginning then neither does space as they are related space-time.
Again, as mentioned above none of this contradicts modern cosmology because the concept of the big bang itself does not go to T=0 "singularity" but to plank time (or very close to this - we don't really understand the first minute).
It may well be that "the singularity" does not exist and plank time is just a phase transition to out current visible universe.

...inference to God is just a god of the gaps and further complicates the matter as per previous post.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
08-02-2014, 05:49 AM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
Quote:'lookingforanswers' wrote:
The problem is that if there is nothing in this universe that can exist without a cause, then where did everything come from?

You said it in your premise:
The problem is that if there is nothing in this universe that can exist without a cause, then where did everything come from?

*CAUSALITY* applies within the universe. If we consider the universe to be everything which exists then causality is part of existence.
It makes no sense to ask what caused causality or what caused existence or what caused the universe because words like causality OR creating presuppose time which is part of the universe/existence.

The conclusion would be existence/the universe would be eternal regardless if we can empirically verify this or know what the previous transition phases are which caused the big bang (we don't know). We would know this conceptually or apriori based on reason alone because creation Ex-Nihilo is contradictory & makes no sense.
Hence no need to presuppose a God - adding mysteries to mysteries has NO explanatory power !!! Is not science and is an unnecessary assumption - just complicates matters.

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Baruch's post
08-02-2014, 05:51 AM
RE: "Show me scientific facts on your disbelief in all Gods".
(06-02-2014 12:36 AM)Brownshirt Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 08:35 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I assume you are meaning abiogenesis? No atheist claims the universe (which is nature) created itself.

Nope, I mean that existence was caused by a process inherent within it.

The alternative being that existence was caused by a process outside of existence? A non-existent process?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: