(July 12, 2011 at 8:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The theory of the "big bang" does not address what may have happened before the "big bang". In fact, many proponents have stated in no uncertain terms, that there is no reason to believe that the laws of physics would have been similar prior to this event, that we are currently at a loss as to explaining the events prior to the big bang, if such a thing did occur, due to the nature of the thing itself. Emphasis being on the currently.

The idea that the big bang states that something came from nothing is a common straw man of theists, particularly christian theists. Further, our lack of knowledge in this regard does not default to the position that "goddidit", a position which you continue to assume regardless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj

This was a very informative programme about the likely pre-big bang universe.

Quote:Neil Turok, Director of Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, working with Paul Steinhardt at Princeton, has proposed a radical new answer to cosmology’s deepest question: “What banged?” Answer: Instead of the universe inexplicably springing into existence from a mysterious `initial singularity’, the Big Bang was a collision between two universes like ours existing as parallel `membranes’ floating in a higher-dimensional space that we’re not aware of. One bang is followed by another, in a potentially endless series of cosmic cycles, each one spelling the end of a universe and the beginning of a new one. Not one bang, but many.

Quote:Sir Roger Penrose has changed his mind about the Big Bang. He now imagines an eternal cycle of expanding universes where matter becomes energy and back again in the birth of new universes and so on and so on.

were just possible two explanations.

Some VERY cool stuff there, Plumb!

(July 13, 2011 at 8:22 am)Rhythm Wrote: There's a simple way to make this point to you. The atheist, strong or weak, makes fewer unproven assumptions to reach his conclusion. The atheist does not let "god" stand in for "i don't know". Even at the very foundation of the argument, when all attributes of god are removed from the discussion, the strong atheist does not refer to what is left as god. The strong atheist does not assume that a god is necessary, or that any old thing that the deist can conjure up is by definition god. The strong atheist does not rely on philosophical arguments for or against god, nor logical arguments, but evidence. A position which arises from evidence, or lack of evidence, can hardly be said to be a position of ignorance.

The strong atheist has constructed a model which fits with our observations (that gods are not present in the universe),
makes predictions (that you wont find any gods)
and can be falsified (by finding god/s).

By your definition a strong atheist is not someone who asserts God does not exist not then. They really admit they do not know too, which is what I originally said was wiser.

I interpreted the definition of strong atheist which was proposed as someone who would assert that God does not exist.
In which case your argument would not apply to them.

This model also cannot apply to God, because you'd have to define God before you could observe him. If the only thing you assume is that God is an entity who created the universe, then where would be the first place you'd go to start looking for him?

Rhythm Wrote:The proposition of an unknowable god is by definition an argument from ignorance. It may be the supreme argument from ignorance, in that it's premise is the assumption that some things are simply unknowable, and that what we do not know or cannot know is then god.

Not that somethings are unknowable, but are currently unknown. I, also, do not assert that it is God, but that it might be God. Which is a true a statement since God's nature is currently not known.

Rhythm Wrote:Even your god is not an unknowable god, in that it is a creator god. If a god were a creator god we would have knowledge of that god through the very obvious effects of it's creative act. Your own belief in a creator god does not equal an unknowable god.

The only position I have put forth is that God probably created this universe due to its rules. The definition I gave of God, for me, was any entity that, at least, has the property that it created the universe. Anything else is not known by this definition. The only knowledge we have of this creative act, is obviously the universe. As for the ability to discern whether a Creator exist or not from this creative act does not directly follow from the act of creating. In other words, it is fully possible to have knowledge the of the Creator without the ability to recognize it as knowledge of the Creator. This fact follows precisely from the fact that the nature of God is not known and why I say you cannot attempt to observe or look for God if you don't know his nature.

Rhythm Wrote:Does this make your position ignorant?

No, because I have never asserted anything. I only reason that God probably created the universe. At no point do I think I know what I know I do not know, this is ignorance.

Rhythm Wrote:In any case, if you want to use the unknowable god as your premise, you're going to have to give evidence to support it. That is where your conclusion is flawed, your premise is an unsupported assumption, and as such any conclusions you reach based on this premise will be lacking in worth or value compared to any conclusions based on a premise which does have evidence to support it.

Not necessarily. My premise does not require evidence because i have never asserted anything true. My premise gives reasonable cause to believe, which, inherently, surrenders itself to the possibility of error. If it didn't, then that would mean I was putting forth reason as fact. Therefore, it is already understood that any conclusions generated from this premise cannot be considered evidence and I have never tried to present them as such. If you think I did, then you have misunderstood.

Rhythm Wrote:In the event that the position of no gods is determined to be supported by fallacious reasoning, it would simply leave the position in a state whereby it can only be argued for by belief, by faith. This would make it equal to the position of an unknowable god, not lesser, or ignorant, but standing on exactly the same footing. We would still of course be left with the observation that gods are not present in the universe, that magic is not a cause for any observed effect.

I agree with most of this statement. This describes my beliefs in a nutshell and I've never demonstrated or implied they were anything otherwise. The only statement that I have a problem with is

"We would still of course be left with the observation that gods are not present in the universe, that magic is not a cause for any observed effect."

Because you would have to define God, something which has already been admitted to be currently unknown, by my definition at least, in order to observe God. Therefore, no observation could tell you that God is not present, as you've stated. Magic is only what you do not understand. Understanding the laws of nature doesn't in anyway disqualify what we see as possible evidence for or against God. I agree, that it is fully rational to withhold assent to any assertions about God based on the fact that one cannot discern what is God from what isn't (your modern atheist). My only premise has been that you cannot assert God doesn't exist from any observation you might make.

Rhythm Wrote:Again, for the record, I am a "strong atheist", so your questions ARE directed at me, I've repeated myself here so that you cannot simply hand wave me away by stating that I'm no "true strong atheist". One does not have to be a "true stong atheist" to raise objections to your premise, but since you have repeatedly asserted that only a "true strong atheist" may reply to your argument.........I throw my name into the hat.

No, as I've said you are not a strong atheist by the definition I had assumed, which is someone who would assert that God does not exist. I gather you have no beliefs about God, which is just an atheist, by the definition I assumed.

Rhythm Wrote:Here is a link for you, this might help you to understand the many objections that have been raised to your op, and subsequent posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

The argument you have made as to gods existence is a form of the cosmological argument. That god can be argued to exist based on some property of the cosmos that demands his existence. A proof by logic.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
Specifically it is the fine-tuning argument.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...g_argument
It also touches on the argument from design.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...rom_design
As well as the first cause.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...irst_cause

Is there anything in this post that you feel needs further clarification?

I have saved these pages and will look over them. I've only taken one philosophy course, Western philosophy, so far so I haven't had the chance to take in such detailed positions and arguments against this common position. However, of the examples from the links I did look over, they appear to apply to those who would make assertions about God from cause or intelligent design, which I have never made.

Alastor, what you seem to want to find are the theological noncognitivists here.

The only issue precluding many of us from being in that camp is the ubiquity of the term "god" in culture. That has no bearing on it having reality or making sense, though, as "bling" is now in the dictionaries, too.

theVOID Wrote:You can't presuppose that, all we know is that the mechanics had a chance of creating an isolated region of space-time, a universe, and that it happened. We can't say anything about whether or not the cause has a tendency towards creating these regions, for all we know the universe producing event is one of the more rare events that this entity/object/mechanics produces - That is all the more true if you are considering this cause to be related to string theory, there are over 10^500 different possible universes, in those circumstances you're about as far from a specific universe creating 'bias' as you could get.

The fact that the universe even had a chance to become this specific even in one universe demonstrates an incredibly specific bias. Why was one universe even possible to begin with? Why wasn't it the case that no universes could be formed at all; because of some mechanical bias that allows universes to be created, however, rare. Also, the fact that an event could be rare. shows mechanical bias in itself.

theVOID Wrote:You're saying it must have a bias towards this specific type of universe, or that it likely had a bias towards this universe? They're very different claims at an ontological level and both require a different response.

I answered the latter (likely bias) above, If the former is the case your claim essentially reduces to;

1. X (the universe) exists.
2. Y (unknown mechanism) caused X
3. Therefore, Y has a bias towards X.

It's a non sequitur, you haven't explained why, out of all the possible things that Y could cause, it has a bias towards X. An parallel argument would be as follows;

1. X (Bosons) exist.
2. Y (The LHC's Lead nuclei collision) caused X
3. Therefore, Y has a bias towards X.

This word substitution demonstrates your argument is invalid, bosons might be caused by the LHC's lead nuclei collisions but they are also one of the more rare results from Lead Nuclei collisions, Ferimons are a much more common result and thus if you were to say that the LHC as a cause was 'biased' towards one or the other you must conclude it is Ferimons the bias is towards.

This argument is accurate in describing what I have stated. You are appealing to particulars and admittedly so was I. However, it is not necessary for my argument to stand. For example, I'm don't have to necessarily say Y(unknown mechanisms) had more of a bias toward X(universe) than anything else it could cause, for example other universes. I only need to acknowledge that the existence of a universe itself demonstrates some kind of bias in mechanics to begin with, no matter how far back you may go, the universe formed for some reason and that reason follows some kind of rule and therefore is demonstrates a bias against, say, the opposite of that rule. It would be wrong for one to assume a bias towards bosons in your example (the particular) but not wrong for one to assume a mechanical bias which existed to allow for the formation of a boson.

I am a strong Atheist and I assert there is no God, not based on ignorance but based on

Human history.-There have been an untold number of Gods in the past. each with their own origin, miracles, rules and regulations. each with their own promises of salvation/damnation/reincarnation

The lack of any evidence whatsoever.-all there is, is unprovable philosophical arguments based on nothing but exploitation of gaps in human understanding and circular reasoning

Almost everything that was accounted to God has been found to be entirely naturalistic - Evolution,, morals, emotions, altruism ( the origin of matter and our universe seems to be the last stronghold left for God to hide in)

That is a few of the reasons Why I can assert that there is no God. The greatest thing you can do to convince me otherwise is prove it. Give me evidence. In fact speak to God. Ask him to show himself to the world. if he appeared to everyone in the planet at once I doubt there would be many Atheists left.

This should be interesting since you are actually the first person to respond who this thread actually applies too, despite how weary I am of this thread now. However, an atheist is general not you. But still...one more go of it I suppose...

thebigfudge Wrote:Human history.-There have been an untold number of Gods in the past. each with their own origin, miracles, rules and regulations. each with their own promises of salvation/damnation/reincarnation

You mean the history of opinions concerning God's character? This has nothing to actually do with the possibility that a Creator exist or not.

thebigfudge Wrote:The lack of any evidence whatsoever.-all there is, is unprovable philosophical arguments based on nothing but exploitation of gaps in human understanding and circular reasoning

We cannot say there is a lack of evidence, but rather a lack of ability to discern evidence from non-evidence from the esoteric nature of a Creator should one exist. You cannot assert anything from this other than "I don't know."

thebigfudge Wrote:Almost everything that was accounted to God has been found to be entirely naturalistic - Evolution,, morals, emotions, altruism ( the origin of matter and our universe seems to be the last stronghold left for God to hide in)

You mean people's opinion on the subject turned out not to be facts? This in no way gives anyone reasonable cause to assert God, or a Creator, does not exist. There is only reasonable cause to assert that humans are very superstitious. You are making assumptions about such a possible Creator based on other peoples opinions of one, which, as I said, is no different from religious people.

thebigfudge Wrote:That is a few of the reasons Why I can assert that there is no God. The greatest thing you can do to convince me otherwise is prove it. Give me evidence. In fact speak to God. Ask him to show himself to the world. if he appeared to everyone in the planet at once I doubt there would be many Atheists left.

Your obvious problem is that you have already formed your own opinion about the nature of an existential God and assert that God does not exist based on your opinion of him. This is similar to religious people who would form their own opinion about him and then assert he exist based on that opinion. However, neither party actually understands God, therefore any assertion based on an assumption about him is inherently an assertion without reasonable cause. As I've said, ignorance is pretending you know what you do not know.

(July 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm)Alastor Wrote: As I've said, ignorance is pretending you know what you do not know.

Oh, the irony.

(July 13, 2011 at 7:04 pm)DaveD Wrote:

(July 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm)Alastor Wrote: As I've said, ignorance is pretending you know what you do not know.

Oh, the irony.

One thing is certainly ironic, atheist are just as prone to sarcasm and close-mindedness as religious people as your cowardice response, and ridiculously immature and offensive signature pic as well, have shown.

If you're referring to anything I've said that implies I think know something, when I know I do not, then back up your remark with a quote and explain how it shows I'm ignorant by my definition.

(July 13, 2011 at 8:03 pm)Alastor Wrote: One thing is certainly ironic, atheist are just as prone to sarcasm and close-mindedness as religious people as your cowardice response, and ridiculously immature and offensive signature pic as well, have shown.

Choosing to be close minded about the fact that is embodied in his signature, are we?