Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[Road Warrior]

You seem confident that he said it. Can you post a link to a post?
It's rather implausible. Most likely you reinterpreted something he did post. That's why I'm asking you to back this up.
Tom

Let @Bob the Unbeliever deny my question himself first. All he's done so far is scream "STRAW MAN!!!!!" He's never denied he made the post despite repeated requotes of his statement nor amplified what he meant by it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Atheism [is] a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism." -Stanford Encyclopedia (Bracket mine.)

Yes, well as I see it, that "most important metaphysical question" is quite the wrong one. But it arises for one reason, and one reason only...ignorance. Let's try some examples of the right question and the wrong question:

Ancient Greek Woman: "our son was struck and killed by lightening today. What caused that, and how can we protect our other children? (Right Question) or "why did Zeus want our son dead and send his lightening? (Wrong Question)" Now, in this example, those ancient Greeks had zero idea of what could cause lightening, and no tools at all to investigate the phenomenon. Now, of course, we know a great deal more, and can answer the "right question" quite easily.

In the seventeenth century, Galileo, through observations of Jupiter using his new telescopes, posited that the Earth revolved around the sun, as Jupiter's satellites orbited Jupiter, along with a study of Copernicus' writings on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs. The Inquisition was having none of that, since they asked "how can the Earth move when scripture claims it is fixed and immovable? (Wrong Question) And so, of course, they sentenced Galileo to house arrest for life, and forbade him to teach anything about the matter whatever. This win, by scholasticism and absolutism over reason and humanism also brought the Italian Renaissance to an end. The "right question" would have been something more like "how we can reconcile these observations with what the Bible says?" but, as we know, that is never the sort of question that absolutist believers ever ask. Because they are not seeking knowledge, they are seeking certainty and comfort in their beliefs.

So, the question "does God exist" is a Wrong Question. Many much better questions occur, but you and others like you will never ask them. Things like "why does the world exist," which, after you break that down into the millions of questions that science HAS asked, leads to the answers that tells us what we know now, and will lead us to more answers in future that we don't know now. Asking "does God exist," will never yield anything useful, no matter which answer you choose.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And when atheist after atheist after atheist confirms for me that they do in fact have ASD? Exactly how is that me "labeling" them?

I see, you are personally surveying all the world's atheists (there are about 500,000,000 of us) and generalizing from...uh, how many so far? And I have to say, I have some doubt as to whether you are being entirely truthful, since your implication (which you don't support) is that all or nearly all of the atheists you are surveying do have ASD. But surely a solid Christian like yourself would never resort to misleading...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Like when Tyson told us there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals?

Or how about when he conflated the Observer Effect with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

In many cases Tyson's audience "gets" steaming piles of bull **** served with a rich baritone voice. That so many people regard him as an authority is a good indication America's sliding down hill when it comes to science literacy.

You know, nobody is perfect, and neither of the areas you cite is within NDG's area of specialization. And in fact, although there was some confusion over the math question, it is still true that there are orders of infinity. It is still true, for example, that since not every natural number is a prime, and prime numbers are natural numbers, and there are an infinite number of primes, then the "infinity of natural numbers" is much, much larger than the "infinity of prime numbers."

Yes, it's true that America is sliding down hill when it comes to science literacy, but I think examination will show that to be much more the fault of religious belief than it is one of trusting only one or two public figures to be knowledgeable to the point of expert in every possible field. I don't listen to my doctor's advice on problems not within her competence, nor do I prefer the advice of mathematicians over my doctor when the matter concerns my health.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And what happens when that innate moral sense gets mangled beyond all recognition?

The history of the human species is what happens.

 

[columbus]

Let @Bob the Unbeliever deny my question himself first. All he's done so far is scream "STRAW MAN!!!!!" He's never denied he made the post despite repeated requotes of his statement nor amplified what he meant by it.

So the answer is "no"?
Tom

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is an argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

Try again.

No, that was not argumentum ad lapidem. The only "prophecy" that comes to pass is one that, a) accurately predicts an event (rather than saying some roundabout words that can be interpreted all sorts of ways with no means of accurately mapping the prediction and the event) and b) the prophecy can be shown to have been made before the event.

And there are precious few (if any) of those...

 

[Hop David]

You know, nobody is perfect, and neither of the areas you cite is within NDG's area of specialization.

How about Tyson's botched attempt to calculate the spin gravity of the rotating space station in 2001 A Space Odyssey? This is freshman physics. Further, centrifugal force (not really a force by inertia in a rotating frame) is a basic concept in astrophysics.

And in fact, although there was some confusion over the math question,

Indeed. Tyson's explanation is addled and confused.

it is still true that there are orders of infinity.

There are a lot more than 5 orders of infinity.

It is still true, for example, that since not every natural number is a prime, and prime numbers are natural numbers, and there are an infinite number of primes, then the "infinity of natural numbers" is much, much larger than the "infinity of prime numbers."

Wrong. If a one to one correspondence can be established between two sets they are said to have the same cardinality. The set of prime numbers has the same cardinality as the set of natural numbers.

Tyson screwing up his simplified pop science is merely annoying. More serious is using his addled memory and strong confirmation bias to invent histories. And then he uses his bad history to push a narrative.

He is useful though. He serves to discredit the neckbeards that put him on a pedestal.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How about Tyson's botched attempt to calculate the spin gravity of the rotating space station in 2001 A Space Odyssey? This is freshman physics. Further, centrifugal force (not really a force by inertia in a rotating frame) is a basic concept in astrophysics.



Indeed. Tyson's explanation is addled and confused.



There are a lot more than 5 orders of infinity.



Wrong. If a one to one correspondence can be established between two sets they are said to have the same cardinality. The set of prime numbers has the same cardinality as the set of natural numbers.

Tyson screwing up his simplified pop science is merely annoying. More serious is using his addled memory and strong confirmation bias to invent histories. And then he uses his bad history to push a narrative.

He is useful though. He serves to discredit the neckbeards that put him on a pedestal.

I'll just take it, then, that you've never made a misstatement in the midst of a conversation in which you didn't have your cue cards. Congratulations. Not sure why you like to focus on human errors made by other humans, but whatever floats your boat.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, it's so coherent it just seems incoherent in its coherency. It is ultra-coherent!

To quote myself from another thread: ""Things" exist because they are defined by relationships in the mind from sensory data that discriminately pulls information from the environment. Without this, what is everything but "no thing"? The universe dissolves into undefined infinity. Nothing."

Still incoherent. It is terrible egocentric to think our physical existence exists, because we somehow think about it.

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
And yet it is because of multiple independent pieces of concrete evidence that billions upon billions of neurotypical men and women all across the world have come to the natural conclusion that Almighty God exists.

Ah . . . no, no such concrete evidence exists, nor natural conclusions, though humans pour enough concrete to cover the earth one foot deep. This is an over the top 'argument from popularity.'

In fact there is no objective verifiable evidence either way, therefore by your logic agnosticism is the only rational preferred choice.

 

[Hop David]

I'll just take it, then, that you've never made a misstatement in the midst of a conversation in which you didn't have your cue cards.

A mischaracterization of Tyson's falsehoods. Not isolated off the cuff remarks but errors he tells and retells over and over again.

For example Tyson's account of Bush's 9-11 speech was a standard part of Tyson's routine for eight years. According to Tyson, Bush's speech was an "attempt to distinguish we from they." That's what Christian Republican presidents do, right? Exploit tragedy to sow division. Except that Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. See this Washington Post column.

It's noteworthy that Tyson delivered this steaming pile of bull **** repeatedly to large groups of self proclaimed skeptics. For eight years. Folks who are always patting themselves on the back for their ability to sniff out bull ****. "We question everything!" the so called skeptics like to brag, "We demand evidence to support a claim!"

Well these pious hypocrites swallowed Tyson's tales hook, line and sinker -- no questions asked. Which shows these "skeptics" are just as happy as anyone to swallow falsehoods if they seem to support their personal prejudices.

 

[Unguru]

So....

You reject our rejection of your bare claim.

No, we just reject your claim, that is all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we just reject your claim, that is all.

You really can't. I bet you do not understand how claim.

 

[We Never Know]

Note the irony of someone who constantly uses projective Straw Man logical fallacies complaining about someone's signature...

Ok. Is it your claim that you don't believe/think something came from nothing?

If that's your claim, then what do you believe/think everything came from?

Keep in mind if you say you don't know, that opens up the window that it all could have came from nothing because without knowing, you logically can't rule anything or "nothing" out.

 

[We Never Know]

I never knew as to what is ASD. I googled and find a write up Atheism and autism - Conservapedia , which confirms one's point of view.
Regards

ASD=Autism spectrum disorder

 

[We Never Know]

I'll just take it, then, that you've never made a misstatement in the midst of a conversation in which you didn't have your cue cards. Congratulations. Not sure why you like to focus on human errors made by other humans, but whatever floats your boat.

If one is speaking of what one knows, why does he need cue cards?

 

[Lionel Refson]

Yes, well as I see it, that "most important metaphysical question" is quite the wrong one. But it arises for one reason, and one reason only...ignorance. Let's try some examples of the right question and the wrong question:

Ancient Greek Woman: "our son was struck and killed by lightening today. What caused that, and how can we protect our other children? (Right Question) or "why did Zeus want our son dead and send his lightening? (Wrong Question)" Now, in this example, those ancient Greeks had zero idea of what could cause lightening, and no tools at all to investigate the phenomenon. Now, of course, we know a great deal more, and can answer the "right question" quite easily.

In the seventeenth century, Galileo, through observations of Jupiter using his new telescopes, posited that the Earth revolved around the sun, as Jupiter's satellites orbited Jupiter, along with a study of Copernicus' writings on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs. The Inquisition was having none of that, since they asked "how can the Earth move when scripture claims it is fixed and immovable? (Wrong Question) And so, of course, they sentenced Galileo to house arrest for life, and forbade him to teach anything about the matter whatever. This win, by scholasticism and absolutism over reason and humanism also brought the Italian Renaissance to an end. The "right question" would have been something more like "how we can reconcile these observations with what the Bible says?" but, as we know, that is never the sort of question that absolutist believers ever ask. Because they are not seeking knowledge, they are seeking certainty and comfort in their beliefs.

So, the question "does God exist" is a Wrong Question. Many much better questions occur, but you and others like you will never ask them. Things like "why does the world exist," which, after you break that down into the millions of questions that science HAS asked, leads to the answers that tells us what we know now, and will lead us to more answers in future that we don't know now. Asking "does God exist," will never yield anything useful, no matter which answer you choose.

Completely agree!

 

[Audie]

More to the point is why some theos believe such
stupid things about atheists?

 

[Road Warrior]

More to the point is why some theos believe such
stupid things about atheists?

My humble guess is because, using many of the atheists exemplified on this forum, it’s the most logical thing to believe.