Athiesm and disproving God

[Bunyip]

our universe, our planet and our sentience is mind bogglingly improbable- comparative to millions of other species, a silent galaxy and an infinite variety of non functioning universes you'd get by altering the values of the universal constants infinitesimally

You can not know that. Probability is comparative - you have no other universe for comparison.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The highest part is in all directions and everywhere. Everything is the highest part. There's no part that is separate and higher that all things that are.

A God that is "higher" but separate is trumped by a God that is both high but not separate.

Think about it. A God who is separate, outside of this universe, is one thing. But a God who is both outside, separate, and included within this universe, is a greater thing. 1 apple or 1 orange is just either or, and neither is greater, but 1 apple AND 1 orange is more than either one separate.

And the true savior in every situation and your life is always... you.

---edit

Another thing to think of, let's go back to the apple. Which part of the apple is the highest? The seeds that bring new life? Or the core that protects the seeds? Or the meat that is juice and delicious? Or the skin the protects the whole apple? Or the branch on which it grows? Which one is highest? If you have an answer, it will tell me more about you than anything about the apple.

It is that which is within which is most important, in this case, the seed. That is the lord. Everything not clean is thrown out, like the ''nous'' in platonism

 

[Robert.Evans]

Hmmmm....sounds apocryphal. If you want to argue that atheistic scientists can be as wedded to an outlook as believers, this strikes me as pretty obvious even without making unverifiable claims about their historical dissing of the Big Bang. If the scientist is human, he/she will be subject to prejudices. Besides, the Big Bang is generally considered no threat to atheism. Moreover, there's been Xian opposition to it even recently.

It appears they did have at first though. That is the point, it left the door wide open for God...if I can put it that way.

And you might find some atheists disagree with the statement that they are somehow prejudices.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If I may answer, it's because it's based on observation of the universe, which is necessarily an empirical study.

Which is based on believing what your own mind tells you

 

[Robert.Evans]

I would like to run through it in another thread if you don't mind.

So do you or do you not believe in a place where your soul will end up if you are sinful?

Perhaps to the first. I would have to research, but it usually falls on deaf ears, and no one likes working for no reward. We might do it over time though... we shall see

To the second..... hmmm... It is a difficult subject as I don't see much written on it -unless you have something- but there is more than one Self (soul). Part is of the higher and part of the lower. The Egyptians used to think that there was more than one soul, and it is also an ancient belief. So, to answer your question, yes, but that is the same for everyone. You see, if you wash yourself, there is always dirt in the water, even though you are clean. So there will always be something left over. So the process will never stop. That is why it is infinite. The universe is one consciousness. That consciousness is everything we see and don't see. But that is just one consciousness although we see many things, and many different minds of people and therefore many different consciousnesses. But the whole is One. But there are many ''Ones'' which all reflect the Original One. It expands at a phenominal rate, and won't stop. It is a mind, one might say, out of control. Yet it is controlled eventually through death. But then it starts again. The Self is recycled as our atoms are. We are like a grain of sand in a desert, tiny in comparison with the Whole. Understand our universe in part, is like understanding your back yard. We know little really.
So the place the Self goes to is just another realm. Hell is death and also the cleansing fire,. It is only eternal (aeonian) in the sense that it is an on going process, not that the one Self remains there forever. (forever also means an aeon)

 

[Revoltingest]

And you might find some atheists disagree with the statement that they are somehow prejudices.

Woe unto the person who thinks himself free of prejudice. The only defense against it is awareness of one's own.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am not ignoring anything.
I am merely calling a spade a spade.

You offer up nothing but bold empty claims to support your bold empty claims.


My stance is really simple:

I do not know​

and

You have not given enough support for your claims.​

yet you keep saying I am claiming god did not do it, nature did...
Two lies back to back


your saying I claimed "luck and magic"
Your saying I claimed "god did not do it"

I can go on

So you say you don't know. So it is a bag on the head then... haha enjoy, but don't forget not to argue in fututre as you ''don't know''

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If I may answer, it's because it's based on observation of the universe, which is necessarily an empirical study.

the singularity appearing by some naturalistic, unintended/ automated process ? philosophical speculation at best

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's where every shred of evidence points, unless you can prove otherwise.

what shred would that be?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can not know that. Probability is comparative - you have no other universe for comparison.

Hawking considers the improbability practically infinite- hence the number of random multiverses required to fluke this one.
i.e. the improbability of all the attributes of the universal constants arriving at the precise values needed to create space/time- far less sentient life in it--
is hardly a controversial observation these days.

but

You can not know that. Probability is comparative - you have no other universe for comparison.

IS a good argument against the case that the origins of the singularity were 'probably natural'

compared to what reference for how universes are usually created?!

 

[McBell]

So you say you don't know. So it is a bag on the head then... haha enjoy, but don't forget not to argue in fututre as you ''don't know''

Interesting how you ignore the meat of my posts, but then whine that my posts have no meat.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is that which is within which is most important, in this case, the seed. That is the lord. Everything not clean is thrown out, like the ''nous'' in platonism

To me, all of the apple is the highest, and the seed is just one part of it, so you can see we have completely different views on how to look at the idea of "highest". I don't separate it and take one part and call it the highest. The same way with God and the universe, it's the same, there's no higher thing beyond and separate from all things.

 

[Robert.Evans]

To me, all of the apple is the highest, and the seed is just one part of it, so you can see we have completely different views on how to look at the idea of "highest". I don't separate it and take one part and call it the highest. The same way with God and the universe, it's the same, there's no higher thing beyond and separate from all things.

God shows us in this universe that there is a beginning to everything, even this universe (now who would have thought that many years ago). Why does he do that? Because it is a fractal action which replicates what already is.. Therefore we know he comes from something simple, something that is a Singularity. So there has to be an inner and outer, the inner is greater. It is the outer that protects the inner, just like the bark on a tree

 

[Ouroboros]

God shows us in this universe that there is a beginning to everything, even this universe (now who would have thought that many years ago). Why does he do that? Because it is a fractal action which replicates what already is.. Therefore we know he comes from something simple, something that is a Singularity. So there has to be an inner and outer, the inner is greater. It is the outer that protects the inner, just like the bark on a tree

Well, we just have to disagree.

For a God that is non-temporal, there is no first or beginning. The beginning and the end are simultaneous. There's no cause-effect, but only "is". Alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, and upholder of everything in between, that makes God beyond just the idea of a "first".

 

[Cephus]

what shred would that be?

So you're just acknowledging that you have nothing to show gods exist. Thanks for admitting it.

 

[crocusj]

IS a good argument against the case that the origins of the singularity were 'probably natural'

compared to what reference for how universes are usually created?!

Are you saying that universes are created unnaturally?

 

[Bunyip]

Hawking considers the improbability practically infinite- hence the number of random multiverses required to fluke this one.
i.e. the improbability of all the attributes of the universal constants arriving at the precise values needed to create space/time- far less sentient life in it--
is hardly a controversial observation these days.

but


IS a good argument against the case that the origins of the singularity were 'probably natural'

compared to what reference for how universes are usually created?!

Buddy, Hawkingdoes not support the 'fine tuning' argument. He also knows that you can not calculate the probability of things being the way they are.

What is the probability of an omniscient god magically popping into existence and creating a universe with you in it by the way? (Please show the math, I would love to see the calculation here. And when you show the calculation for the mathematical probability of your creator god, we can compare it to your probability calculations for the naturalistic universe ok?)

 

[McBell]

Buddy, Hawkingdoes not support the 'fine tuning' argument. He also knows that you can not calculate the probability of things being the way they are.

What is the probability of an omniscient god magically popping into existence and creating a universe with you in it by the way? (Please show the math, I would love to see the calculation here. And when you show the calculation for the mathematical probability of your creator god, we can compare it to your probability calculations for the naturalistic universe ok?)

Might I suggest he show the math for his probability calculations for the naturalistic universe as well?

 

[Bunyip]

Might I suggest he show the math for his probability calculations for the naturalistic universe as well?

Indeed, i'd love to see the math comparing relative probabilities for creation by god and naturalism.
Not holding my breath though.

 

[Dayman]

The simple fact is no one could ever prove there is no God. It seems more likely for there to be proof of god. Simply because you can always argue that God created whatever scientific reasoning there is against God. Not that I believe one or the other.