I'm an Atheist Skeptic

[Brian37]

So, if you call yourself a rational atheist, why do you think atheism is rational? 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.

ähhhhmmm actualy no.
The experiments and work conducted in Cern with the large Hydron colider have also the purpose to determine what happened before the big bang.
So, well, I see nothing wrong with taking something unknown and saying "god was it" as a personal statement, but it shouldnt be a universal statement or rule which would then hinder further investigation of the unknown.
I admit that I dont know what happened before the big bang - but this doesnt hinder me to find out more about that unknown.

And Herzlichst Willkommen to das Forum.

Science is STILL trying to figure out if all this came from something or nothing. BUT even Steven Hawkins and MOST OF THE 99% of scientists at his level, say that a cogintion IS NOT required as a starting point.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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.

Saying "I dont know" is perfectly reasonable and entirely logical when one doesn't.

Conversely, fervently saying "I believe it is this" when really you have no idea or evidence to back it up is the definition of an illogical & irrational thought process (not to mention supremely arrogant).

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So, if you call yourself a rational atheist, why do you think atheism is rational? 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.

--Lets stop for a second, and define God. This will make the rest of our conversation much easier if we define Him. By definition, he is omnipresent (present in all places and times), omnipotent (having unlimited power) , and omniscient (having all knowledge). There. Now we can continue without much confusion.--

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.

Another way of looking at this is by saying that, since the universe is everything, then the creator of the universe must have unlimited power (omnipotence), must be outside of time (omnipresence), and must know everything to create everything (omniscience). Sounds a lot like the criteria for God that I listed above, right?

I want you to answer this one question to me: If you don't believe that a Creator created the Universe, then how did the universe come about into existence?

*http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/11/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-empty-space.html

Hey listen, don't listen to the naysayers.

The average atheist here is about as smart as a sack of hammers.

I'd say you're in the top 5%. You can put forward a coherent theory regarding the origin of the universe. And I respect that. It's about time we brought some intelligence to the atheist movement, and people like you, who bring quality objections are the start.

In response to your theory, I'd like to posit my thoughts:

I'd like to point out that if there is an infinite regress, that does not necessitate the existence of a creator. There is no necessary relationship between the two propositions, either of identity or causality. Ie, there can be an infinite regress without God, and there can be a God without infinite regress.

What say you?

[Aractus]

Science is STILL trying to figure out if all this came from something or nothing. BUT even Steven Hawkins and MOST OF THE 99% of scientists at his level, say that a cogintion IS NOT required as a starting point.

Please don't pull imaginary figures out of your arse. Hawking has theories that many scientists agree with, and he had other ideas considered extreme by most scientists. Your assertion makes it sound as if all the top cosmologists in the world think in one direction - they do not. Hawking essentially relies on string theory being absolute truth to be able to assert that an expanding universe inevitably creates matter from nothing. Einstein would turn in his grave if he heard Hawking's explanation for the beginning of the universe.

"Most of the 99%"? that doesn't even make sense - do you mean "most of the scientists at his level" or "99% of the scientists at his level"?

Most scientists don't know anything about String Theory, so how do you claim that so many of them not just accept it as the Gospel truth but also accept the theory that Hawking puts forward about the origin of the universe? Only a relatively small number of physicists study it to begin with. String theory is not falsifiable, so plenty of scientists dismiss it outright as pseudoscience.

[Annik]

To be fair, Einstein would've probably made Newton shift in the dirt. And Einstein was wrong about stuff, too.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh FFS, string theory -is- falsifiable, the more damning criticisms of it have everything to do with the ways in which it may be falsified. Speaking of falsification, the proposition which you argued around but not against was that the crushing majority of scientists do not support a model which requires cognition. All that would be required for you to falsify this would be to present an adequate number of scientists who do (and this would entail presenting that model that requires cognition as well). Of course, what any person agrees with isn't necessarily representative of what may be called scientific, and so this model with cognition as a requirement would either stand or fall on it's own merits, and not the consensus of those that propose (or oppose) it. Laying this aside, the top comologists of the world may swing many ways, but do they swing the way of cognition Daniel? Is there any observational or experimental evidence that establishes cognition as a requirement, has the notion of cognition as requirement made any successful predictions? If the answer to these questions is no (and it is) then how surprising would it be if the majority of scientists did not support it? Not very, in my estimation.