Atheists, where did the universe come from?

[shmogie]

Agnostic atheist is a conflict in terms.
agnostic is a word based in early Christianity, the gnostics were a heretical group who claimed they had special knowledge no one else had. An a -gnostic has no knowledge as to the existence of God, maybe yes, maybe no.

A theist contends there is a god/s, an a-theist contends there is not.

One cannot say there is no God, then say there may be a God at the same time. A non sequitur.
Once again you invoke the term term logic, and declare that faith based belief is illogical, by the rules of logic, absolutely not true.

You get on an airplane along with 200 other people. You have never met the maintenance people who service it, but you have faith they did. You know nothing about the pilots, but purely by faith you believe they are qualified.

You will tell me that based upon the evidence regarding air travel, your faith is warranted.

Nevertheless, airplanes fall out of the sky quite regularly. The passengers in those planes had all the evidence you do to have faith that the aircraft was in proper working order and the pilot was qualified to fly, in most cases they are literally dead wrong.

You wake up each morning with total faith that gravity will hold you down during the day.

Faith is good, in that without it you would be terrified to get on an airplane or walk out the door.

We all exercise faith every day, and make decisions based upon it.

Faith in God is perfectly warranted and logical for those who exercise it.

You blew off my point about evidence, nevertheless it is true. Evidence is not the truth. Evidence CAN lead to the truth, but it can lead nowhere as well

Yet it can be given too much value, be misinterpreted, or found to be worthless.

I have evidence, perfectly valid for me, for my Faith in God. It includes science, as an example, Christians and Jews have proclaimed for thousands of years that the universe burst into existence in an instant. Modern science held to the steady state universe and scoffed at the idea of instant creation.

Thanks to Hubble, Einstein, Pensance and others, the BB theory came about, supporting the deist position.

However, science is just one area from which I draw evidence, and negative evidence. There is logic, philosophy, theology that supply evidence as well, evidence you probably deem inadmissable, no matter, it is admissable for me.

 

[ratiocinator]

Agnostic atheist is a conflict in terms.

No; atheism is about belief (or lack thereof) and agnosticism is about knowledge.

One cannot say there is no God, then say there may be a God at the same time. A non sequitur.

I can say that I see no reason whatsoever to believe that any of the many, many god-ideas are actually real (no reason to believe any of them), without being able to 100% rule out (no full knowledge) that something that might be referred to as "god" exists.

Much the same for alien abductions, teapots in orbit around Mars, vampires, and the Loch Ness monster.

You get on an airplane along with 200 other people. You have never met the maintenance people who service it, but you have faith they did. You know nothing about the pilots, but purely by faith you believe they are qualified.

You will tell me that based upon the evidence regarding air travel, your faith is warranted.

Nevertheless, airplanes fall out of the sky quite regularly. The passengers in those planes had all the evidence you do to have faith that the aircraft was in proper working order and the pilot was qualified to fly, in most cases they are literally dead wrong.

I do find it amazing when people try to compare things like this to religious faith. There is solid evidence about how safe flying is and what risk you are taking by getting on aeroplane (not much compared to other forms of transport). That some people die in crashes doesn't alter that or call into question the evidence. They took the same risk as all the others and were very unlucky. Nobody suggests that there is any evidence that flying is 100% safe.

I have evidence, perfectly valid for me, for my Faith in God. It includes science, as an example, Christians and Jews have proclaimed for thousands of years that the universe burst into existence in an instant. Modern science held to the steady state universe and scoffed at the idea of instant creation.

Thanks to Hubble, Einstein, Pensance and others, the BB theory came about, supporting the deist position.

Is this serious? Like the BB is anything like the creation myths...

 

[Subduction Zone]

No; atheism is about belief (or lack thereof) and agnosticism is about knowledge.



I can say that I see no reason whatsoever to believe that any of the many, many god-ideas are actually real (no reason to believe any of them), without being able to 100% rule out (no full knowledge) that something that might be referred to as "god" exists.

Much the same for alien abductions, teapots in orbit around Mars, vampires, and the Loch Ness monster.



I do find it amazing when people try to compare things like this to religious faith. There is solid evidence about how safe flying is and what risk you are taking by getting on aeroplane (not much compared to other forms of transport). That some people die in crashes doesn't alter that or call into question the evidence. They took the same risk as all the others and were very unlucky. Nobody suggests that there is any evidence that flying is 100% safe.



Is this serious? Like the BB is anything like the creation myths...

Some theists appear to know that their reasoning is not based upon logic. As a result they try to accuse others of doing the same. Equivocation fallacies and other poor reasoning is used to accuse others of the same errors that they make. They think that if they lower the belief of others to their level that somehow gives their beliefs legitimacy.

 

[Audie]

Some theists appear to know that their reasoning is not based upon logic. As a result they try to accuse others of doing the same. Equivocation fallacies and other poor reasoning is used to accuse others of the same errors that they make. They think that if they lower the belief of others to their level that somehow gives their beliefs legitimacy.

That is for example why they talk about "Darwinism"..

 

[PruePhillip]

Here-- let me destroy that point by point:

#1 And 79% is toxic to humans, if that were all there was. Argument refuted.

#2 Life has evolved to exist within the current gravity gradient. But, experiments in space, with micro-gravity? Show that some life *thrives* in other gravity settings. Argument refuted.

#3 Live evolved on a planet, who's orbit varies by quite a bit (it's not circular, much to the chagrin of religious types, it's oval. Meaning the distance varies. By a lot). But since life evolved *on*earth*, life likes conditions *on*earth* as they are. Argument refuted.

#4 What? Absolutely nonsense. For starters? The expansion rate isn't ... fixed. Argument-- if you can even call it that-- self-refutes for being incredibly silly.

#5 Another absolutely nonsensical piece of horse exhaust. The crust's thickness? Has no real bearing on life, all that much. It *does* control the movement of the continents, sure. But life would have evolved just fine, without continental drift. Silly "argument" refuted.

#6 Nonsense. The tilt of the earth has changed in the past, and will likely change again in the future-- yet, here life is! Silly argument refuted. Plus? #2, above also refutes this one.

#7 This absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. If the speed of light were different? Life would be different, to match the different conditions. You have it exactly backwards. Refuted.

#8 Yes. So what? Rabbit Trail. Meaningless diversion. Also see #2, above.

#9 Absolute nonsense. So nonsensical, that it doesn't even need more than "DISMISSED!"

#10 See #2.

#11 Absolute nonsense. Even worse than #9. DISMISSED.

#12 LMAO! Oh. My STARS that's hilarious!

What's even funnier? You left out the moon! You totally left out an actual argument that might have made some sense!

And for the most part I accept your point. I regret posting this graphic as lots of it are silly.
I was looking for something else in a hurry and neglected to read it properly.
Oxygen levels for instance vary wildly over earth's history - lots of it just means more fires
and larger insects. The Jupiter effect has been questioned. I could go on, but your point is valid.
Here's what I was really looking for

ps in reading this one too there are things not quite right - saying there needs to be an "electric
force" is not what fine tuning is about - it's the value of that force. This is what happens when you
Google Image things.

 

[PruePhillip]

Exactly backwards, that is. Douglass Adams has a cute Parable that shows exactly why:

I have encountered this funny aphorism before. It makes me smile.
But the seeming cleverness of it hides the fact that its disingenuous:
you simply can't have what we believe to be "life" in many models of
the universe.

Saying there could have been different models of life in different models
of the universe really doesn't make a lot of sense. Could you have life
in a world without molecules, for instance, or in a universe that lasts less
than a second?

 

[PruePhillip]

Quote - "I have evidence, perfectly valid for me, for my Faith in God. It includes science, as an example, Christians and Jews have proclaimed for thousands of years that the universe burst into existence in an instant. Modern science held to the steady state universe and scoffed at the idea of instant creation.
Thanks to Hubble, Einstein, Pensance and others, the BB theory came about, supporting the deist position."

Is this serious? Like the BB is anything like the creation myths...

Yes, it's serious. One of the early objections to the Big Bang was that it
posited a BEGINNING TO THE UNIVERSE. Science held that the universe
was eternal - and that was one way of getting around the conundrum of
how it could have started.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"knowledge"

What are the sources of knowledge, please?
Isn't experience also a source of knowledge, please?

Regards

You are asking about the subject of epistemology, which is the study of what can really be considered to be knowledge, and which beliefs may be considered justified and which may not. It should be clear to you, since some experiences happen only within the brain itself (as is the case in some mental illnesses that "experience" voices and hallucinations) that not all experiences are a source of actual knowledge. You might look up the word anosognosia as a first exploration into how the mind can fool us into thinking we know what we do not.

Many people have "religious experiences" under the influence of drugs, or just under the influence of self-induced sensory alteration...sleep deprivation, painful emotional events, repetitive dancing, music or chanting, and so on...that do not reflect any reality other than that produced in their own brain.

But even more simply, we experience many things that turn out not to be what the seem. A teenage girl finally gives in to the football captain's lust because she believes she's experiencing his love for her. But that love is very likely not what it seems, and won't be there when it's needed about nine months later.

Be careful what you think you mean by "experience." Remember, when Paul "experienced" blindness and the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus, nobody else around him experienced anything, and it turns out he wasn't blind, either.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here we are again, ¨ scientists are working on where the universe came from ¨.

Scientists will never know where the universe came from. They will never ever get outside the universe to where the source of the universe is.

You do realize that you are now making a claim that you cannot support...you are pretending to be able to see into the future and know definitively what cannot ever happen.

I don't think that a really intelligent person could ever make such a claim...though many who thought themselves intelligent have done so. And have pretty generally, so far, been wrong.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

speculating isn´t searching, you clown. Are theories fact ( real answers), or just theories ?

A scientific theory is usually rejected by other scientists with other pet theories

I have no problem rejecting them as well

Except that you do it without bothering with the hard work of examination and presentation of your own theory. You merely reject what you don't like. An emotional response, and as likely to be "right" as any other such response.

 

[shmogie]

No; atheism is about belief (or lack thereof) and agnosticism is about knowledge.



I can say that I see no reason whatsoever to believe that any of the many, many god-ideas are actually real (no reason to believe any of them), without being able to 100% rule out (no full knowledge) that something that might be referred to as "god" exists.

Much the same for alien abductions, teapots in orbit around Mars, vampires, and the Loch Ness monster.



I do find it amazing when people try to compare things like this to religious faith. There is solid evidence about how safe flying is and what risk you are taking by getting on aeroplane (not much compared to other forms of transport). That some people die in crashes doesn't alter that or call into question the evidence. They took the same risk as all the others and were very unlucky. Nobody suggests that there is any evidence that flying is 100% safe.



Is this serious? Like the BB is anything like the creation myths...

No; atheism is about belief (or lack thereof) and agnosticism is about knowledge.



I can say that I see no reason whatsoever to believe that any of the many, many god-ideas are actually real (no reason to believe any of them), without being able to 100% rule out (no full knowledge) that something that might be referred to as "god" exists.

Much the same for alien abductions, teapots in orbit around Mars, vampires, and the Loch Ness monster.



I do find it amazing when people try to compare things like this to religious faith. There is solid evidence about how safe flying is and what risk you are taking by getting on aeroplane (not much compared to other forms of transport). That some people die in crashes doesn't alter that or call into question the evidence. They took the same risk as all the others and were very unlucky. Nobody suggests that there is any evidence that flying is 100% safe.



Is this serious? Like the BB is anything like the creation myths...

I suggest you obtain a dictionary and learn the definitions of atheist and agnostic.

You missed the gist of the discussion you are responding to, not the safety of aircraft, but the nature of faith.

The BB is remarkably like the Genesis account in many ways

What you see to believe or not to believe is irrelevant to me.

 

[shmogie]

You do realize that you are now making a claim that you cannot support...you are pretending to be able to see into the future and know definitively what cannot ever happen.

I don't think that a really intelligent person could ever make such a claim...though many who thought themselves intelligent have done so. And have pretty generally, so far, been wrong.

Really ? At the rate the universe is expanding, and the distances already to itś edge, even at the speed of light man could never reach itś edge.

In addition, since there is absolutely no knowledge of what, if anything exists outside the universe, nor, any way to determine this ( mathematical equations re the BB break down approaching the bang, or outside the universe) even a methodology to penetrate the edge of the universe is fraught with huge numbers of hazards.

Your indirect slam at my intelligence is noted, and rates a high 10 on the chuckle scale.

 

[Jung]

It must have had a starting point, no?

If your question cannot be answered yet why assume that a god created it?

 

[shmogie]

Except that you do it without bothering with the hard work of examination and presentation of your own theory. You merely reject what you don't like. An emotional response, and as likely to be "right" as any other such response.

Oh, but I do do the research. It has nothing to do with emotion, or what I don´t like, it is a matter of learning what science actually says about an issue.

Presenting my own theory ? Is that necessary for pointing out the limitations and flaws of other theories ?

Since I am obviously a Christian, and there are only two known theories of creation, everything created itself, or God created it, then showing that it many cases the lack of evidence for a scientific theory makes it no more plausible than the God theory.

People snort and deride, but what they believe is in fact just as unbelievable as God creating.

Which absurdity by human standard do you choose ? A rhetorical question

 

[shmogie]

If your question cannot be answered yet why assume that a god created it?

Why assume anything else ?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Really ? At the rate the universe is expanding, and the distances already to itś edge, even at the speed of light man could never reach itś edge.

In addition, since there is absolutely no knowledge of what, if anything exists outside the universe, nor, any way to determine this ( mathematical equations re the BB break down approaching the bang, or outside the universe) even a methodology to penetrate the edge of the universe is fraught with huge numbers of hazards.

Your indirect slam at my intelligence is noted, and rates a high 10 on the chuckle scale.

But you see, you don't necessarily have to get to the absolute end of anything to establish some knowledge about it. You don't need to get to the end of a calculation for Pi to know that it is irrational and never, ever ends. You can know that there is no largest prime number using some pretty trivial reasoning (known to Euclid over 2,3 years ago, for example).

Therefore, although I do not make any such claim, it is certainly possible that as the universe has been, and is, expanding, it has also left traces of the means and mechanics of that expansion way back here, where we still have access to them, and may find a way to interpret them.

And therefore my claim stands, that you have claimed to know something about the future that you cannot know.

 

[Willamena]

View attachment 27020
I have encountered this funny aphorism before. It makes me smile.
But the seeming cleverness of it hides the fact that its disingenuous:
you simply can't have what we believe to be "life" in many models of
the universe.

Saying there could have been different models of life in different models
of the universe really doesn't make a lot of sense. Could you have life
in a world without molecules, for instance, or in a universe that lasts less
than a second?

Wow, did you miss the point. The point is that there are those people who feel that, because there is life, their environment was made to support it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since I am obviously a Christian, and there are only two known theories of creation, everything created itself, or God created it, then showing that it many cases the lack of evidence for a scientific theory makes it no more plausible than the God theory.

People snort and deride, but what they believe is in fact just as unbelievable as God creating.

Which absurdity by human standard do you choose ? A rhetorical question

Yet, you happily leave unanswered the very obvious corollary for me: There can only be two theories of God, either something created God, or God created itself.

But of course, you don't do that...you simply make a completely unwarranted exception in this one particular case. An exception you make for nothing else. And yet, I have to point out to you, that you can try, and try, and try and try again, and you will never bring me one single piece of evidence that there is an intelligence that existed without or before or in the absence of anything at all, that for some really bizarre reason...in an endless, formless, existence-less existence, suddenly felt the need to make a whole bunch of troublesome something that it would very shortly get angry at and try to kill off everybody in it. Can you provide an epistemological justification for that belief?

 

[Willamena]

Agnostic atheist is a conflict in terms.
agnostic is a word based in early Christianity, the gnostics were a heretical group who claimed they had special knowledge no one else had. An a -gnostic has no knowledge as to the existence of God, maybe yes, maybe no.

Agnostic dates no further than the man who coined the term: Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869. It has nothing to do with the Christian Gnostics. It was coined on gnostos, meaning "to know."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wow, did you miss the point. The point is that there are those people who feel that, because there is life, their environment was made to support it.

I rated this a winner, but I just had to say that you are trying to find a way to show members that a "me-centric" or "anthropo-centric" or "puddle-centric" point of view is unlikely to lead to real wisdom on any question.

Well done.