Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[shunyadragon]

irreducible complexity youtube - Bing video
This needs to be explained, as Darwin said himself,

It is up to the Fundis at the Discovery Institute to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis to support what you claim. It is a fact that you do not have the scientific background to even remotely understand this. In other words you are clueless.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks, I started looking for scientific refutation of 'irreducible complexity' in in, so far no luck, if you know which page it is, please, point it out.

The fact that no falsifiable hypothesis based on scientific evidence to support ID, is the reason it is refuted. In science it is up to the one making the claim to support and come up with the evidence to support the hypothesis, So far the Discovery Institute has failed come up with anything.

The hypothesis for 'Irrefutable Complexity' would have to falsify that 'complexity' in life could not come about by natural means. Could you come up with such a hypothesis? A hard question, because the scientists at the Discovery Institute have failed.

 

[leov]

Your reference to Irreducible Complexity' would indicate that it is not all your idea, but nonetheless you appear to have a very active creative imagination to come up with scifi plots.

What are your qualification in the sciences related to evolution that lead you to this conclusion?

I tried explain this thing on one forum back in 1999 , and I had no idea about existence of this theory, just some logical thoughts about evolution of complex biological structures.

 

[shunyadragon]

I tried explain this thing on one forum back in 1999 , and I had no idea about existence of this theory, just some logical thoughts about evolution of complex biological structures.

Pin the tail on the donkey blindfolded does not help your case. The concept has been around long enough for you to have some knowledge. Have you anything to provide, or are you just firing blanks in the dark, or still looking for the donkey.

Nonetheless, I gave you the criteria in detail from the perspective of a scientist. The ball is in your court.

 

[Maximilian]

Disbelief is a belief. It is certainly not neutral. The second the Atheist adopts the position of disbelief, there are evidentiary assumptions being made, a stance adopted and an evidentiary burden being assumed.

As long as this burden is not satisfied just how can anyone deem their position to be rational?

 

[Unguru]

You are trying to assert that all atheist are hard atheists....the majority are soft atheists. They simply lack a belief in a god because the evidence is insufficient for belief.

Yes and if you knew anything about Theism, you would know that we simply just lack your theory of no god, you can't assume anything otherwise. You don't know who is and who isn't a hard or soft Theist.

 

[Unguru]

Now, I will ask you a simple question: suppose I make this fire-breathing dragon claim, and we've gone through all your objections: are you prepared to believe I have a fire-breathing dragon in my garage? Because if you say no, you are doing precisely what atheists do with respect to God. We've posited every way we can think of in which we could see some evidence of such a being, and are constantly thwarted with claims of why that evidence wouldn't work, and are therefore supposed to just go ahead and believe. So, you gonna believe the dragon? Why or why not?

This analogy is as useful as saying that buying a fashion mag is identical to performing open heart surgery.

 

[leov]

Formation of complex biological

Pin the tail on the donkey blindfolded does not help your case. The concept has been around long enough for you to have some knowledge. Have you anything to provide, or are you just firing blanks in the dark, or still looking for the donkey.

Nonetheless, I gave you the criteria in detail from the perspective of a scientist. The ball is in your court.

care to refute it?

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes and if you knew anything about Theism, you would know that we simply just lack your theory of no god, you can't assume anything otherwise. You don't know who is and who isn't a hard or soft Theist.

i have no theory of n god. I lack a belief in a god.

 

[Road Warrior]

...I'm an agnostic-atheist. I do not know, but I've got a pretty good idea.

I do know that you cannot have an Impossible Thing: no such thing as a Married Bachelor, for example. Or a Square Circle....

Yes, I’m familiar with the...ummm, belief.

Not inside the Natural Universe you can’t.

 

[Unguru]

i have no theory of n god. I lack a belief in a god.

And we reject that position, nothing more or less.

 

[Unguru]

You are, of course, welcome to be as flippant and rude as you'd like, if you think it helps your argument. I don't, frankly.

I hope you remember post #53.

Meanwhile, it is most certainly not a strawman. You made a rather specific claim about "God" which you cannot know, which is not settled fact, and which a great many people disagree with. ("God is neither subject or object, it is the source behind the existence of those quantities. When there is no subject or object, then there is only God.") That this happens to be your opinion, your belief, even your faith is neither here nor there when it comes to whether it can be said to be a factual statement.

Yes it is a Strawman because you want to intentionally misrepresent God as being a concept congruent to a chair, a car, a planet, a duck, a roll of gum. The only way you can support your positive position is by discussing "God" in terms that contract it's essential qualities, whether the person is a strong or soft theist is irrelevant.

The rest of what I said, to which you enjoyed responding so rudely, is also true. You yourself suggested that to "know God" you must put a lot of "thought into the concept of God." And yet I maintain that is entirely inadequate. Whatever conclusions you might come to are based on:
what other people thought and wrote about God
what you think about what they wrote

Now you're strawmaning me. I never mentioned "know God" once in this entire thread, this is all you've repeatedly mentioned. I have however suggested that your posts show a lack of proper thought, as you're clearly relying on fallacious reasoning thoroughly.

Nothing, not a single thing, is based on any actual study or examination of God itself, and as a result, it is entirely possible to come to any conclusions that seem good to you, as so many others have done and seem good to them, though strangely, they are often so very different.

Again, attacking a Strawman. You're acting again like God is your knee, or your elbow, or a train, or your local prostitute, or a Ferrari. As long as you misrepresent our positions to attack strawmans, you will continue to have the delusion that you are refuting our positions.

 

[Milton Platt]

Thanks, I started looking for scientific refutation of 'irreducible complexity' in in, so far no luck, if you know which page it is, please, point it out.

It was a trial in which the judge ruled that Creationism (repackaged as ID) was not based in science and was a religious concept.
Science does not owe anyone a refutation of an idea which does not even present a scientific theory to be tested against the evidence.

Maybe this will help you understand:

Browse the Talk.Origins Archive

 

[Milton Platt]

And we reject that position, nothing more or less.

You reject what position??? I didn't present one. How is the fact that I don't hold a belief in a god a position? I'm not making a claim as to whether a god exists, I'm stating my lack of belief that one does.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This analogy is as useful as saying that buying a fashion mag is identical to performing open heart surgery.

Wow! Has anybody ever seen such wisdom?

In respect of your awesome powers of argument, I think I need waste no more time on you...

 

[Milton Platt]

Why would that be so bad? We live in a world full of theologians and zealots all trying to convince us that a god does exist, without ever producing a sliver of convincing evidence, except for asserting that something cannot come from nothing without help (while also asserting that the help can come from nothing without its own help) and quoting scriptures written by ordinary humans with ordinary understanding as if they must have had access to god that nobody else does.

That "evidence" seems to be enough to convince a lot of folks (who were, of course, trained with their baby food into it), but not a lot of others, who like a little more substance in their evidence.

Something cannot "just exist", and yet their god does???

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I hope you remember post #53.



Yes it is a Strawman because you want to intentionally misrepresent God as being a concept congruent to a chair, a car, a planet, a duck, a roll of gum. The only way you can support your positive position is by discussing "God" in terms that contract it's essential qualities, whether the person is a strong or soft theist is irrelevant.



Now you're strawmaning me. I never mentioned "know God" once in this entire thread, this is all you've repeatedly mentioned. I have however suggested that your posts show a lack of proper thought, as you're clearly relying on fallacious reasoning thoroughly.



Again, attacking a Strawman. You're acting again like God is your knee, or your elbow, or a train, or your local prostitute, or a Ferrari. As long as you misrepresent our positions to attack strawmans, you will continue to have the delusion that you are refuting our positions.

I have to say it, I don't have enough respect for your reasoning powers to spend any more time with you. I "represent God" only as God has been represented to me...which by the way you have not yet done. The chair, car, planet, duck and gum I can see, kick, chew, eat and all manner of other things. Their "essential qualities" are mostly familiar, although I can't possibly say what the duck thinks about being eaten. But when you provide me the "essential qualities" of your god, I'll respond again. Until then, sorry, you're just blowing air.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm not saying you believe in XXX.
You say you don't think something came from nothing. Unless you can show where it came from down to the pre big bang, pre singularity, etc, then you don't know and can't rule out something from nothing.
Which is why I stated in reality everyone believes in a form of something from nothing.
We can't even use the laws we know because they break down and probably didn't exist then either.

And you would be wrong: I do not need to believe in something from nothing.

Belief is giving up on rationality. Belief is the acceptance of something for which there is zero evidence, but "thinking" that it is true anyhow.

I do not do that. That would be irrational.

I do not believe in a form of something from nothing: for all I know? The universe always was: no need for your Straw Man.

Maybe there is a multi-verse-- an infinite, always-existing thing, also removing the need for "something from nothing".

I do not know-- neither do you. But I hold no beliefs on the subject either way.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Something cannot "just exist", and yet their god does???

Special Pleading Logical Fallacy, if I remember correctly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Something cannot "just exist", and yet their god does???

This is, after all, the very crux of the matter..when you can't explain something no matter how hard you try, you have to either say "I don't know," or invent something "outside the rules" that does the explaining for you.

I'm on the "I don't know" side.