I'm an Atheist Skeptic

[Something completely different]

So, basically what you just told me, is that you don't know.... Doesn't seem like a good reason for me to become an Atheist.

To me it is, because I still have the possibility "to know" through scientific inquiry into the the big bang, and how it came to be.

Imagine what this world would be like if every unknown would have always been conected with god, and hadnt been further investegated.

We would still see mentaly disabled people as being cursed by demons and thunder to be a gods punishment.

I prefer the option of simply aknowlegeing that I dont know something - with still having the option to investigate and come to knowlege, than having fundermental "truths" which make it unable for me to further invastigate and question their nature.

[Voltron]

I dont have one.

So, basically what you just told me, is that you don't know.... Doesn't seem like a good reason for me to become an Atheist.

It's the perfect reason to become an atheist. You're the only one in this conversation that is claiming to have all of the answers, when you've really got no clue.

[Creed of Heresy]

So, something must have created the universe. If I go out and say, "God was the creator." you will most likely say, "Then who created God?" which is an amazing question. So lets explore it. If something created God, then something needed to create whatever created God, and something needed to create that, and something needed to create that, etc. You get an Infinite amount of creators (called an infinite regress), but you acknowledge that there is a creator of some sort.

There is no acknowledgment at all, simply the requesting of further evidence...which cannot be provided due to the ad hoc ad infinitum argument of creator creating creator. Occam's Razor cuts through this silliness, which is all your post is so far.

I think we need an FAQ page for the theists. Something for them to peruse to answer their own questions without bothering us about them. I'm so tired of reading this same stuff over and over again. You are aware, Mr. Howie, that this lovely forum has a search function, correct? With a minimal amount of time [and far less bothering of us with these impertinent strawmen] on your part all your questions could be answered easily. but let's not fool ourselves, here. You need to boost your faith by feeling like you've gone toe-to-toe with the godless heathens in a battle of wits and came out on top. Unfortunately, we're war-weary. We've been over this stuff a hundred times, and some of us many more than that. After a while, the jack-in-the-box either stops popping up or at least he isn't smiling when he does and the music isn't so whimsical as much as it sounds like the screeching of nails on a chalkboard.

So quit turning the crank. Go look for your answers on your own, if you truly want them, otherwise stop wasting our time pretending you're doing anything more than just stroking your faith.

[journeyinghowie]

So, basically what you just told me, is that you don't know.... Doesn't seem like a good reason for me to become an Atheist.

What's your hypothesis about how god came into existence?

Haha. Well, since the God of the Christians is part of the meta-physical world, he is outside of the laws of physics. This makes the law of cause and effect non-applicable to him. SO, God doesn't need a creator. He says, "I am who I am." God just IS. He doesnt have a creator. He doesnt need one. He is eternal.

You may call this a non-scientific approach, but since science is the study of the physical world, it cannot reach the level of God who is in the meta-physical world. You have to realize that this is actually a reasonable approach, unlike saying that the universe came into being out of nothing.

[Annik]

Someone needs to watch a Krauss lecture.

[Ryantology]

Provide evidence that such a thing as the 'metaphysical world' exists.

[Creed of Heresy]

Metaphysics. Really. You ask "how is atheism rational" and then dip into the most irrational nonsensical area of philosobabble there is.

Well by your logic Santa Claus also exists in metaphysical realm, as does the easter bunny and the tooth fairy. They don't need creators either. They just are. They are eternal. Therefore they are real. As is anything else we suppose. Why bother with logical discourse at all when we can claim to immediately win just by making the claim?

And this is why atheism is rational and why theism is not. You are not arguing in the realms of rationality, you are arguing in the realms of irrationality. Rational discourse is within the confines of the human mind. That which cannot be proven nor disproven has no place in reality and therefore there is no need to believe anything involving it. Your argument is far more unreasonable than saying that everything came from nothing...because at least the latter can be proven or disproven. Your statement cannot. By the definitions of reason, your position is completely unreasonable.

[Gilgamesh]

So, basically what you just told me, is that you don't know.... Doesn't seem like a good reason for me to become an Atheist.

"What is your hypothesis on how flying pink unicorns came into existence?

Oh, you don't have one?

lol, well I'm not very convinced that I should be of the position that flying pink unicorns don't exist then."

That is basically what you just said. I hope you now realise that there are some errors in your logic.

[Creed of Heresy]

Provide evidence that such a thing as the 'metaphysical world' exists.

I'll save everyone the trouble of pointing out the obvious:

He can't.

[Aractus]

I'm a Catholicism sceptic!

I believe that science (particularly physics) has basically proven that there is a God of some sort. Here's how:

Through the Big Bang theory, we see that the universe has now been widely accepted to have a beginning. We know that this beginning didn't spontaneously appear out of nothing, because nothing is a scientific impossibility*. Nothing can't create something, because it is nothing. It doesn't work. The only other possibility is that something created the universe.

Incorrect. Even I don't use the argument, although I agree that claiming that the universe is able to self-create itself is untestable and strictly speaking not science, that doesn't mean that science has "proved otherwise". The thing that they exploit in their argument is time. Time from our perspective pushes forward indefinably. From our perspective it is a property of our universe, but it may not be, and if it isn't then it means that it functions apart from the universe, thus the universe doesn't have to begin at zero. But the more serious cosmologists like Hawkings imagine that time does exist as a property of our universe, and instead imagine quantizing general relativity. The passage of time is an illusion brought about by the properties of our universe, it isn't a real thing at all. In this scenario it is not important that time "reduces to zero" at the beginning of the universe. Basically the argument is that because we all agree that an expanding universe inevitably creates a whole bunch of stuff even if you start with just a small amount of matter, even a singularity, and because the universe itself has laws, those laws will see the emergence of matter regardless of whether you start with something or nothing at all. Hawkings claims the law of gravity alone is enough to create the universe (where and how we get the law is supposedly from string theory), basically gravity represents negative energy and matter represents positive energy. That's the theory, it doesn't violate physics as you claim it does.

So, something must have created the universe. If I go out and say, "God was the creator." you will most likely say, "Then who created God?" which is an amazing question. So lets explore it. If something created God, then something needed to create whatever created God, and something needed to create that, and something needed to create that, etc. You get an Infinite amount of creators (called an infinite regress), but you acknowledge that there is a creator of some sort.

--For reference, an infinite regress is something very hard to wrap your mind around.

---

Its infinity. What is infinity? Infinity is a constant "something". Is infinity impossible? No. Actually, through reason, we know that it is only possible, because since there is no such thing as nothing, there always most be a constant something which is again: Infinity.--

So, if Infinity is possible, is infinite regress possible? Yes, but again, if you believe in an infinite regress (at least in this context) you are also acknowledging that there is some sort of a godly creator. Therefore, God is real in one form or another, and your atheism is refuted.

---

No it isn't, and your logic is totally flawed. You can not have an infinite regression.