What are the best arguments in favor of theism and against atheism?

[Cobol]

Almost.

They both have positive energy. If their balance were nil, they could remain for ever. And that is what happens near a gravitational source, e.g. a black hole. If their existence is compensated by a source of negative energy, the balance might get to zero and so, they can stay. That is the essence of Hawking black hole radiation.

But if their balance is positive, then they must return their loan in a time that is short enough to satisfy Eisenberg indetermination principle about energy values. And they can do that only by disappearing soon after.

And that is why our Universe is long term stable. Its total energy, and therefore mass, is zero.

Ciao

- viole

Agree

Virtual particles that are created are the result of a quantum fluctuation, but the energy of this fluctuation must be zero, so 1 particle has positive mass and the other has negative mass, so that if they annihilate the mass is zero. If one with negative mass is sucked into the black hole, it takes mass away from the black hole, and the positive particle becomes real instead of virtual basically. So every time when negative particle enters a black hole, energy is lost in the black hole, because negative energy particles annihilate with the positive energy. Positive particles that were outside the black hole during that time go away from the black hole, which is hawking's radiation.

 

[ratiocinator]

Therefore, for omnipotence, energy must be infinite. Mass and energy are the same thing, mass exists therefore enertgy is not infinite...

This is another non sequitur. Why do you imagine that the existence of mass rules out infinite energy?

You may not agree, your agreement is not required.

An illogical argument against god is no better than an illogical argument for god.

 

[ChristineM]

This is another non sequitur. Why do you imagine that the existence of mass rules out infinite energy?



An illogical argument against god is no better than an illogical argument for god.

The first law of thermodynamics as related to the conservation of energy.

However it is not illogical.

 

[ratiocinator]

The first law of thermodynamics as related to the conservation of energy.

I know, but that doesn't answer my question. I'm somewhat baffled as to what you think the logic is here.

If there is an infinite amount of energy, then some of it being used up in order to have some mass, doesn't mean that there wouldn't be an infinite amount left. Infinity is odd like that. How many positive integers are there {1, 2, 3,...}? How many positive, even integers are there {2, 4, 6,...}?

All of which is somewhat academic since energy conservation is actually due to the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics - which presumably some theists would argue, has nothing to do with a being who is "outside of time".

 

[ChristineM]

I know, but that doesn't answer my question. I'm somewhat baffled as to what you think the logic is here.

If there is an infinite amount of energy, then some of it being used up in order to have some mass, doesn't mean that there wouldn't be an infinite amount left. Infinity is odd like that. How many positive integers are there {1, 2, 3,...}? How many positive, even integers are there {2, 4, 6,...}?

All of which is somewhat academic since energy conservation is actually due to the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics - which presumably some theists would argue, has nothing to do with a being who is "outside of time".

You are assuming energy is infinite.

Although the universe is potentially infinite it's only around for a finite time. Currently it measures about 93 billion light years across, it is finite. Therefore the energy it contains must be finite.

Ahh, you you have evidence of a being existing outside of time? or is that just a supposition? Many theists have made such a claim, all failed to prove such a claim. Thus adding to another major proof that no god exists, prof bny exhaustion.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are assuming energy is infinite.

No, that's why I started the sentence with "If". You are trying to rule out an omnipotent god. If you are trying to rule something out, you should not be making your own assumptions, like energy being finite.

Although the universe is potentially infinite it's only around for a finite time. Currently it measures about 93 billion light years across, it is finite. Therefore the energy it contains must be finite.

That is the observable universe. There is nothing in current science that can rule out an infinite universe.

Ahh, you you have evidence of a being existing outside of time? or is that just a supposition?

Look, I'm an atheist - I think the various god concepts are totally unsupported myths as much as you do - I'm just trying to say that we need to be careful about the arguments we use and make sure that they are sound.

Many theists have made such a claim, all failed to prove such a claim. Thus adding to another major proof that no god exists, prof bny exhaustion.

Yes, they have failed to prove such claims but no, that isn't a proof that there is no god.

Making a bad argument for something doesn't mean that it's wrong. You have made a bad argument for there being no omnipotent god, but I think you're almost certainly right that there isn't.

 

[ChristineM]

No, that's why I started the sentence with "If". You are trying to rule out an omnipotent god. If you are trying to rule something out, you should not be making your own assumptions, like energy being finite.


That is the observable universe. There is nothing in current science that can rule out an infinite universe.


Look, I'm an atheist - I think the various god concepts are totally unsupported myths as much as you do - I'm just trying to say that we need to be careful about the arguments we use and make sure that they are sound.


Yes, they have failed to prove such claims but no, that isn't a proof that there is no god.

Making a bad argument for something doesn't mean that it's wrong. You have made a bad argument for there being no omnipotent god, but I think you're almost certainly right that there isn't.

Not my assumption, is is the understanding of related sciences, cosmology, quantum gravity, black hole theory etc

No, that is the calculated universe, the observable universe is judt under 14 billion light years across.

I know that from your previous posts, my argument(s) are scientifically sound based on current knowledge.

Failure to prove a god several billion times over 10 thousand years compiles a mass of proof by exhaustion. It would only take one positive result to dispel that proof and atheism would go thevway of the dodo. Its not, ever happened.

No i haven't made a bad argument, you simply fail to comprehend the scope of the argument in the context of the universe.

I like to say i am right through atheism and out the other side, I know I'm right that there isn't a god, which sets me apart from the typical atheist who only believes it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not my assumption, is is the understanding of related sciences, cosmology, quantum gravity, black hole theory etc

You need to show your working - not make baseless assertions.

No, that is the calculated universe, the observable universe is judt under 14 billion light years across.

See: Observable universe

It is estimated that the diameter of the observable universe is about 28.5 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.8×1023 kilometres or 5.5×1023 miles)

There is no way in which current science can calculate the size of the universe.

I know that from your previous posts, my argument(s) are scientifically sound based on current knowledge.

That makes no sense at all. How can my criticisms support your assertions?

Failure to prove a god several billion times over 10 thousand years compiles a mass of proof by exhaustion. It would only take one positive result to dispel that proof and atheism would go thevway of the dodo. Its not, ever happened.

No, that is nothing like a proof by exhaustion. That would require every single possible god concept (or class of god concepts if you could prove equivalence) to be proved false.

I like to say i am right through atheism and out the other side, I know I'm right that there isn't a god, which sets me apart from the typical atheist who only believes it.

More like the blind faith of the theists, then...

 

[ChristineM]

You need to show your working - not make baseless assertions.


See: Observable universe

There is no way in which current science can calculate the size of the universe.


That makes no sense at all. How can my criticisms support your assertions?


No, that is nothing like a proof by exhaustion. That would require every single possible god concept (or class of god concepts if you could prove equivalence) to be proved false.


More like the blind faith of the theists, then...

E=mc2, thermodynamics and the age of the universe are not baseless assertions

Observable universe 13.8 (approx) bilion light years across

Yes it can, there are actually several ways the size of the universe can be calculated

Did i say your criticism supports my claims? No. I said my claims are scientifically sound

You rendering of the method of proof by exhaustion is not logical, failure to prove a positive is just as valid as provided by a negative

Nope, more comprehension that so much overwhelming evidence against god's existing is enough for me.

 

[ratiocinator]

E=mc2, thermodynamics and the age of the universe are not baseless assertions

I never suggested that any of them were. You cited "understanding of related sciences, cosmology, quantum gravity, black hole theory etc" as a reason to conclude that energy was finite. Now you are talking about "E=mc2, thermodynamics and the age of the universe" which are equally irrelevant.

How about providing an actual reasoned argument instead of (apparently) random lists of scientific concepts?

Observable universe 13.8 (approx) bilion light years across

I refer you back to the link and the quote.

Yes it can, there are actually several ways the size of the universe can be calculated

Such as...?

You rendering of the method of proof by exhaustion is not logical, failure to prove a positive is just as valid as provided by a negative

Failure to prove a positive is quite obviously not the same as proving a negative. Proof by exhaustion, in this case, requires the latter.

Nope, more comprehension that so much overwhelming evidence against god's existing is enough for me.

Which backs up my point. You have taken something that convinces you and turned it into an absolute and unquestionable belief - just like theists do.

 

[ChristineM]

I never suggested that any of them were. You cited "understanding of related sciences, cosmology, quantum gravity, black hole theory etc" as a reason to conclude that energy was finite. Now you are talking about "E=mc2, thermodynamics and the age of the universe" which are equally irrelevant.

How about providing an actual reasoned argument instead of (apparently) random lists of scientific concepts?


I refer you back to the link and the quote.


Such as...?


Failure to prove a positive is quite obviously not the same as proving a negative. Proof by exhaustion, in this case, requires the latter.


Which backs up my point. You have taken something that convinces you and turned it into an absolute and unquestionable belief - just like theists do.

I think you should re reread my post, and stop reading into my posts what suites your sensibilities

How about you learn to use Google rather than asking me to to teach you 3 or 4 years worth of physics and cosmology on a forum post

?

?

Not so, proof is not case specific

As a wannabe atheist, your comprehension of my mindset is irrelevant

 

[ratiocinator]

I think you should re reread my post, and stop reading into my posts what suites your sensibilities

How about you learn to use Google rather than asking me to to teach you 3 or 4 years worth of physics and cosmology on a forum post

?

?

Not so, proof is not case specific

As a wannabe atheist, your comprehension of my mindset is irrelevant

So, basically, you can't answer any of the points I've made. You can't even cite sources that support your assertions.

I really do wish that people who purport to use science and logic actually bothered to make sure they understood it first. It's usually theists who are at fault but that doesn't mean that atheists shouldn't be challenged too.

Ho-hum.

 

[ChristineM]

So, basically, you can't answer any of the points I've made. You can't even cite sources that support your assertions.

I really do wish that people who purport to use science and logic actually bothered to make sure they understood it first. It's usually theists who are at fault but that doesn't mean that atheists shouldn't be challenged too.

Ho-hum.

How pathetic, you misrepresent, make up bs, misunderstand, even lie then gloat that you think you won, honey, your ignorance about thermodynamics, infinity, mass/energy equivalence, conbservation of energy, the size and difference between the physical and observable universe put you on a par with creationists.

I do wish the hard of thinking would stop pretending to be clever.

 

[ratiocinator]

How pathetic, you misrepresent, make up bs, misunderstand, even lie then gloat that you think you won, honey, your ignorance about thermodynamics, infinity, mass/energy equivalence, conbservation of energy, the size and difference between the physical and observable universe put you on a par with creationists.

All of which is very easy to say but you have not been able to back up your 'arguments' even when given the chance. Random lists of science terms do not actually constitute an argument.

If you think I've lied, then point it out. If I have posted anything that isn't true, I will withdraw it and apologize.

Let's take the possibility of an infinite universe as an example.

Remember that I said: "There is no way in which current science can calculate the size of the universe."
and you said: "...there are actually several ways the size of the universe can be calculated"

Universe 101 (NASA)

We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

Universe (Wiki)

Observations, including the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), and Planck maps of the CMB, suggest that the Universe is infinite in extent with a finite age, as described by the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) models.

Because we cannot observe space beyond the edge of the observable universe, it is unknown whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite.

What Do You Mean, The Universe Is Flat? (Scientific America)

Cosmologists seem to believe that the universe goes on forever without coming back—and in particular, that space has infinite extension. But when pressed, most cosmologists would also admit that, in fact, they have no clue whether it's finite or infinite.

I could go on.

 

[Sanmario]

My concept of God:

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning."

Please everyone, present your concept of God, so that we can work as to concur on it, because the OP is about God (or gods}.

"What arguments do you believe point to there being a God or gods and why do you think this makes more sense than the idea that there are no gods? I am personally a non-believer but I would greatly like to hear arguments against this position and possibly find a religion that at least makes sense."

Dear everyone here, please do not be afraid or be into taboo and phobia with coming out presenting your concept of God, because otherwise you are conducting yourself direction-less.

From now on I will be writing a post everyday with my concept of God at the top of my post, and a challenge to you all to present your concept of God.

God or gods? Well, to be relevant, just keep to God in the three monotheistic religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, that will narrow down the scope of your efforts, if you do exert some to come up with your concept of God, or look up the dictionaries of English, and pick up a definition of God, which is the one mentioned in the West when that word God is used by adherents of the three monotheistic religions.

So, when you write next, please take the task to present your concept of God.

No need to go into religions which according to you do not have God or gods, we are concerned here as per the author of this thread with God or gods.

 

[ChristineM]

All of which is very easy to say but you have not been able to back up your 'arguments' even when given the chance. Random lists of science terms do not actually constitute an argument.

If you think I've lied, then point it out. If I have posted anything that isn't true, I will withdraw it and apologize.

Let's take the possibility of an infinite universe as an example.

Remember that I said: "There is no way in which current science can calculate the size of the universe."
and you said: "...there are actually several ways the size of the universe can be calculated"

Universe 101 (NASA)


Universe (Wiki)



What Do You Mean, The Universe Is Flat? (Scientific America)


I could go on.

Easy to say when it's fact.

I have provided my evidence, that you cant comprehend is hardly my problem.

You made up bs about my posts to boost your ego, that is lying

If you read my post properly you will note i stated this universe is potentially infinite but has a measurable start date, if it can be measured then it cannot be physically infinite. Or do you disagrwe that infinity is unmeasurable?

As for measuring the universe

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5743624/how-can-we-measure-the-size-of-the-universe

Read it and give yourself a basic grounding in cosmology.

 

[Blackdog22]

Belief creates life, hope, and simple nirvana. Dis-Belief is the lack of these things.

Well sex technically creates life unless they are capable of parthenogenesis. Hope comes from many things outside of belief. I hope I get a raise next month, I don't necessarily believe that will happen however. Nirvana is typically associated with Buddhism and I am not sure how it fits into Christianity unless your title is misleading. You also haven't stated what beliefs cause these things exactly, nor did you necessarily say belief is exclusively responsible for these things so perhaps im just farting into the wind here.

Main point being, belief isn't necessary for any of these things and if I believe a rock is in fact a magical creature capable of curing my ills I am not sure it accomplishes any of the goals you have stated. Meaning, belief can also be a total lack of everything you stated.

 

[Segev Moran]

I'd say the cosmological argument is the best argument for a (first) cause that is not a cause within the system. Given that energy is neither created nor destroyed within a closed system, the origin is energy (or of the quantum vacuum) would seem to be a mystery, easily solved by a cause outside of the system.

But whether or not that is an argument for "theism," per se, I'm not willing to say. It obviously isn't an argument for a God who throws down lightning bolts to punish people, or Jesus dying for my sins.

Yep.. It can also be easily solved by an eternal system..or a simulated system... or a system that is a part of another system.. or a system, that is one on billions of systems and so on.
I think the key keyword in your reply is "Mystery"...
On that we are in agreement

 

[Segev Moran]

There is no argument.

Of course there is!

Atheists absolutely know in their mind that there is no god.

Ehhhm... Nope... that's wrong.
What we do know, is that there is no evidence of a god.

Theists absolutely know in their mind that there is a god.

Only in their mind

Neither side wants to hear from the other side and nothing will change their minds.

Weird claim... I can count a few dozens theists that became atheists and I know a few Atheists that became theists... and I guess anyone in this forum can claim the same.

 

[Segev Moran]

What arguments do you believe point to there being a God or gods and why do you think this makes more sense than the idea that there are no gods? I am personally a non-believer but I would greatly like to hear arguments against this position and possibly find a religion that at least makes sense.

Obviously all of them make sense.. otherwise only a few would have followed them.
The problem is defining what "Make sense" is.
Some people will claim that it makes sense that some force is micro managing the universe.. (I cant see how it makes sense, But each one can have he's own sense about things)
The thing is that sense is a subjective thing.

If you ask me, Looking back ion the history of humans, the only thing that makes sense is that religion is another tool humans use.
It was a bold and important step for humans in their way for science.

Each religion tries to explain things that science couldn't in the past... As we discovered more about the universe, The religions changed accordingly.
So today, Rarely people will worship the sun as a god.. We know better today.
No matter what religion you pick, it tries to explain the unknown in a philosophical way
[/QUOTE]