fkin LMFAO @ Atheism, only retards think it’s a logical worldview.

[sy2502]

Lack of belief in a deity is an illogical position, the correct position is saying "I can't know whether there is a God or not, so I will suspend any belief or lack of belief"

Well then you assume illogical positions all the time. Like when you believe Santa doesn't exist, or pixies don't exist, or invisible pink dragons don't exist, or Thor and his mighty hammer doesn't, or the moon isn't filled with cream cheese.

In fact we take position on issues all the time based on the evidence we have at the time. The point is to stay open to revising your position if new evidence comes along. I am willing to bet most atheists would stop being atheists if any evidence of god ever came along.

[Alchem]

Well then you assume illogical positions all the time. Like when you believe Santa doesn't exist, or pixies don't exist, or invisible pink dragons don't exist, or Thor and his mighty hammer doesn't, or the moon isn't filled with cream cheese.

We have good reasons to believe Santa doesn't exist though because he's within our realm and there is no evidence for him or his factory and ****, same with pixies they would have been spotted by now. Invisible stuff might exist, I am actually agnostic about that, there might be things we humans can't perceive. It's likely that the moon isn't filled with cream cheese because it would rot by now and it goes against scientific evidence.

All the examples you posted are NOTHING like God, God is one of 3 explanations (3 hard to comprehend) of the existence. So it's a significant thing, not some hypothetical invisible magical flying juicy cock.

[Jh1479]

Well you only have two options: either something always existed or something came from nothing, and both of them don't make sense.
So I say you need something which is effectively or the equivalent of a God, but it doesn't follow that you also believe in Religion, because I don't.

[sy2502]

We have good reasons to believe Santa doesn't exist though because he's within our realm and there is no evidence for him or his factory and ****, same with pixies they would have been spotted by now.

Those are all assumptions you are making about Santa and pixies, but you don't actually know. Santa is a magical being, obviously his shop is invisible. Pixies are also magical and can avoid detection.
PS: god hasn't been spotted by now either. Just saying...

It's likely that the moon isn't filled with cream cheese because it would rot by now and it goes against scientific evidence.

Space is colder than your freezer, pretty sure cheese would keep just fine in space. Also no bacteria to spoil it.

All the examples you posted are NOTHING like God,

Magical invisible being with no evidence of his existence? Sounds just like god actually.

God is one of 3 explanations (3 hard to comprehend) of the existence. So it's a significant thing, not some hypothetical invisible magical flying juicy cock.

I'll call this Argument From Lack Of Imagination. I can make up about a dozen explanations of existence just off the top of my head. Unfortunately the fact I can make them up doesn't make them significant.

People who believe in god know no more about existence than atheists. They simply have stories they tell themselves, but when it comes down to actual knowledge they know nothing more than everyone else.

[Jh1479]

Magical invisible being with no evidence of his existence? Sounds just like god actually.

There is evidence, either something always existing or something coming from nothing and neither of them making sense.

[Austanian]

There is evidence, either something always existing or something coming from nothing and neither of them making sense.

How does not understanding something provide evidence?

[numberguy12]

Definitions are... Definitions. If all definitions were "subjective" there would be no point to having a definition in the first place.

1) A statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary;
2) an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.

There's nothing "subjective" anywhere in there. There is only "exact".

Annnnnnnd guess what, there is more than one dictionary people consult, and THATS why definitions are subjective. There is no one golden book from the heavens that people use to find out what exactly a word means. With English, there is the Oxford dictionary, merriam webster, online dictionaries, etc etc.

More importantly to this situation though is you also go off of (subjective) word usage throughout groups/regions. The American Atheists association will have their own definition of what atheism means.....independent of what's found in the dictionary.....

[numberguy12]

I never tried to prove God at all, I'm showing that the other alternative explanations also don't make sense.

Either "existence" has been there forever, in which case it implies infinite regress, which is illogical, because an infinite chain of causes and effects going back to infinity can never reach the present.

or Existence just popped in being when there was nothing, by nothing I mean the absence of existence. Which also doesn't make sense.

what the heck are you left with then after you discount any possibility of an infinite past, or created from nothing. Your other option is created from something....which someone can arbitrarily call God. So your argument, if taken by cases, is actually supporting God. You even said yourself:

All the examples you posted are NOTHING like God, God is one of 3 explanations (3 hard to comprehend) of the existence. So it's a significant thing,

The true suspender of belief (agnostic) will not go out of his way rule out certain cases like created from nothing. He will simply suspend all types of belief to be the most logical.

Back to the flawed argument though. I see nothing specifically illogical about an infinite past. You can assume that nothing can have existed forever, but that's simply an assumption. The whole argument that the present never can be possible because it would take an infinite time to reach: Well the number 2 isn't possible then because integers extend forever negatively. Surprised I never see this argument in math class, would be a huge theorem.

[Jh1479]

How does not understanding something provide evidence?

Because no one will ever be able to explain it.
I saw an astrophysicist say that we don't need God because the universe is infinite, so then he's saying that something always existed, which is impossible.

[sy2502]

There is evidence, either something always existing or something coming from nothing and neither of them making sense.

Evidence of what? We don't even know if "something came from nothing" or not. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. If it didn't, that "something else" could be anything. A god, a team of gods, a law of nature, an infinite multiverse... What evidence are you talking about exactly?

[Austanian]

Because no one will ever be able to explain it.
I saw an astrophysicist say that we don't need God because the universe is infinite, so then he's saying that something always existed, which is impossible.

How does not being able to explain something provide evidence of God?

[numberguy12]

Evidence of what? We don't even know if "something came from nothing" or not. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. If it didn't, that "something else" could be anything. A god, a team of gods, a law of nature, an infinite multiverse... What evidence are you talking about exactly?

For simplicity, I am just lumping everything that possibly created the universe into the term God. It tends to make the argument simpler and reduces the cases to created from nothing/created from something (God).

So if we are actually in a universe that was say created within a "next level up universe" by Bill....who was conducting a science experiment in the next level up universe and created our big bang .....then Bill is just being defined to be God in that case.

Or if the Big Bang was caused by a law of nature....nature would be "God"

[Jh1479]

How does not being able to explain something provide evidence of God?

Because you need something which is outside of human comprehension (the equivalent of or effectively a God) to end the unsolvable problem of how something either came from nothing or how something always existed.

It doesn't follow that you need to become a Koran or Bible thumper.

[sy2502]

For simplicity, I am just lumping everything that possibly created the universe into the term God. It tends to make the argument simpler and reduces the cases to created from nothing/created from something (God).

So if we are actually in a universe that was say created within a "next level up universe" by Bill....who was conducting a science experiment in the next level up universe and created our big bang .....then Bill is just being defined to be God in that case.

Or if the Big Bang was caused by a law of nature....nature would be "God"

Sounds like we are well on our way to calling pretty much anything convenient "god".

[Alchem]

Back to the flawed argument though. I see nothing specifically illogical about an infinite past. You can assume that nothing can have existed forever, but that's simply an assumption. The whole argument that the present never can be possible because it would take an infinite time to reach: Well the number 2 isn't possible then because integers extend forever negatively. Surprised I never see this argument in math class, would be a huge theorem.

I don't get how that is analogous to the argument I'm making with regards to an infinite regress of causes and effects. Numbers aren't real, they're in the imagination.

[DreamerCut]

Any source that says god created the world only states he created the earth and that the earth is the center of the universe.

It took brave scientists years of research and trial+error to discover the earth was not the center of the universe. Therefore, the Big Bang is probably more logical and believable.

[ymer]

Any source that says god created the world only states he created the earth and that the earth is the center of the universe.

It took brave scientists years of research and trial+error to discover the earth was not the center of the universe. Therefore, the Big Bang is probably more logical and believable.

[numberguy12]

Sounds like we are well on our way to calling pretty much anything convenient "god".

It's just that the characteristic "created our universe" is the only characteristic that makes sense to attribute to a deistic God- it is the only relevant thing here. Why go into detail what it is....is he male? Does he have a gray beard? Does it take up the size of a galaxy? Is it infinite? Does God speak? None of these make sense to talk about.

I don't get how that is analogous to the argument I'm making with regards to an infinite regress of causes and effects. Numbers aren't real, they're in the imagination.

The main point is you never gave a logical refutation of an infinite past- you merely said it's not possible. Not one logical contradiction was explicitly stated.

[Alchem]

The main point is you never gave a logical refutation of an infinite past- you merely said it's not possible. Not one logical contradiction was explicitly stated.

It is a logical contradiction though, take any particular action, for example a particular movement for your hand, your hand moved because your brain sent signals to your nervous system to your hand, because of neurons firing in your brain, the neurons in your brain now are caused by the neurons in your brain from a moment before, and so on until you reach conception in your mother's womb, and then go on to both your parents and their bodies, and then their parents, and their parents, and so on, and eventually you reach the stage where inanimate matter became alive (abiogenesis) and from there you continue in the causal chain to the formation of the earth, solar system, galaxy, etc and eventually Big Bang, and then whatever conditioned caused the big bang, etc. to an infinite past

Now for your hand to make that particular movement, you'd need an infinite chain of causes, an infinite chain of causes would take an infinite amount to time to traverse, but infinity cannot end, therefore the particular movement of your hand would not be possible.

[Austanian]

Because you need something which is outside of human comprehension (the equivalent of or effectively a God) to end the unsolvable problem of how something either came from nothing or how something always existed.

It doesn't follow that you need to become a Koran or Bible thumper.

Failing to see how generating "God" solves that problem. You just set it back another step and the problem still remains. God either came from nothing or something always existed.

That is not evidence. That is lack of understanding.

[acrawlingchaos]

Definitions are... Definitions. If all definitions were "subjective" there would be no point to having a definition in the first place.

1) A statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary;
2) an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.

There's nothing "subjective" anywhere in there. There is only "exact".

Though we know many terms, especially those in the political and religious arena, can have multiple meanings, implied meaning and expanded philosophical meanings.

They are very literally mutually exclusive.

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

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Not the same thing. One cannot simultaneously disbelieve yet not-disbelieve. You are either an Atheist or an Agnostic.

How would you define the following terms.

I don't know if god is real, but I doubt it.

and

I don't know if god is real, but I do not doubt it.

Again, seems to me Agnostic atheist and agnostic theist would seem to fit well.




In laymen's terms, I would say you are correct. I am speaking to more nuanced philosophical terms that have quite expanded meanings. There are dozens of branches of atheism and none of them have the exact same belief systems. For example, I tend not to be uncomfortable with anti-religionist (or militant atheist), for the same reason I am uncomfortable with militant Christians or Militant Muslims. My belief also tends to be very passive, whereas god plays no real part of my life, or in the surrounding culture. The god debate just seems to be a non-factor for me. Though I do enjoy the discussion.

[acrawlingchaos]

It's just that the characteristic "created our universe" is the only characteristic that makes sense to attribute to a deistic God- it is the only relevant thing here. Why go into detail what it is....is he male? Does he have a gray beard? Does it take up the size of a galaxy? Is it infinite? Does God speak? None of these make sense to talk about..

In that case, why call it god at all, other than to confound it with well established understandings of god?

[numberguy12]

It is a logical contradiction though, take any particular action, for example a particular movement for your hand, your hand moved because your brain sent signals to your nervous system to your hand, because of neurons firing in your brain, the neurons in your brain now are caused by the neurons in your brain from a moment before, and so on until you reach conception in your mother's womb, and then go on to both your parents and their bodies, and then their parents, and their parents, and so on, and eventually you reach the stage where inanimate matter became alive (abiogenesis) and from there you continue in the causal chain to the formation of the earth, solar system, galaxy, etc and eventually Big Bang, and then whatever conditioned caused the big bang, etc. to an infinite past

Now for your hand to make that particular movement, you'd need an infinite chain of causes, an infinite chain of causes would take an infinite amount to time to traverse, but infinity cannot end, therefore the particular movement of your hand would not be possible.

I'm sorry, but the bolded is not a good argument. You are saying an infinite number of causes requires an infinite amount of time....but an infinite amount of time is precisely what a physical reality extending infinitely into the past in fact does have.

Regardless, this is not a precise type of argument at all. A logical contradiction would be something like "p and not p"....or more loosely in reality "There are an odd number of people in that committee, and an even number of people in that committee". I'm seeing no similar logical contradiction for an infinite past. To further complicate things, the very notion of cause is a pretty vague and imprecise term, especially in view of modern science.

[numberguy12]

In that case, why call it god at all, other than to confound it with well established understandings of god?

Actually a good point. Not sure why one would. The name itself would be strictly arbitrary. Convention I guess

[Jh1479]

Failing to see how generating "God" solves that problem. You just set it back another step and the problem still remains. God either came from nothing or something always existed.

That is not evidence. That is lack of understanding.

No - because God is God because it neither needed to be created by something previously and it also has the ability to have always existed.

[Alchem]

I'm sorry, but the bolded is not a good argument. You are saying an infinite number of causes requires an infinite amount of time....but an infinite amount of time is precisely what a physical reality extending infinitely into the past in fact does have.

Regardless, this is not a precise type of argument at all. A logical contradiction would be something like "p and not p"....or more loosely in reality "There are an odd number of people in that committee, and an even number of people in that committee".

Let me put it in simpler terms

1. If a car needs to go from point A to point B
2. And the condition for this is that the wheels have to rotate an infinite number of rotations

then the car will never reach point B because an infinite number of rotations can never be concluded.

It's really self-evident in my opinion, it's like you're asking me to prove to you that contradictions are impossible, you're doubting logic itself at this point.

[Austanian]

No - because God is God because it neither needed to be created by something previously and it also has the ability to have always existed.

Holding an opinion on something is not evidence nor is arbitrarily excluding "God" from your self-created conundrum.

[numberguy12]

Let me put it in simpler terms

1. If a car needs to go from point A to point B
2. And the condition for this is that the wheels have to rotate an infinite number of rotations

then the car will never reach point B because an infinite number of rotations can never be concluded.

It's really self-evident in my opinion, it's like you're asking me to prove to you that contradictions are impossible, you're doubting logic itself at this point.

No, not asking to prove contradictions are impossible, I'm just waiting for a logical contradicton to be provided at all (still has not been provided).

Not sure where you are going with the car example. If anything the fact that a car can move 1 km should be impossible eh? If doing so means traveling an infinite number of infinitely small distances, which should be impossible. But cars do in fact move 1 km all the time. Imprecisely defined notions of infinity don't get arguments too far.

[NVious]

Yes clearly people need to worship a child ****er, slave owner and war monger as "perfection" in order to be coherent and rational.

Just lmao @ the Islamic critique of atheism.

[Jh1479]

Holding an opinion on something is not evidence nor is arbitrarily excluding "God" from your self-created conundrum.

Its not an opinion, everyone agrees that we exist in a universe, which does present an unsolvable conundrum, the Big Bang doesn't solve it and there never will be anything that solves it unless we all just accept that there has to be something God-like.