Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[daandaan]

Sword, have you ever, at all, even once in your life, backed up a single thing you've ever said with any form of supporting evidence, at all?

He sure has, "God did it".

AND I JUST LEARNED HE PRAYS TO ETERNITY.......

[Sword of Christ]

Sword, have you ever, at all, even once in your life, backed up a single thing you've ever said with any form of supporting evidence, at all?

Yes but there is no evidence for God you would accept because you can't prove God with science. Science has nothing to say about this. But you can use scientific data to support the concept of a universe created for life, fine tuning and so on. Without the other kinds of evidence you are going to end up with some kind of deism however, but it's a start. You can also use philosophical evidence to demonstrate the rationality of an uncaused cause of things that are caused. But again all you're going to do is reject it all because you just want to believe what you want to believe. It's easier to sit there and ask for evidence you perfectly well know doesn't exist and can't exist.

Even if some great beared cunt appeared up in the sky and claimed to be God we still wouldn't know if he was really God or not. As Star Trek V demonstrates.





So do you see that what you're asking for is pointless?

[Esquilax]

Yes but there is no evidence for God you would accept because you can't prove God with science. Science has nothing to say about this.

Two things: yes you can, if god interacts with the physical world at all, and if he doesn't then why should anyone give a crap?

Secondly, as I've explained to you multiple times now, scientific indications aren't the only type of evidence that I would accept. The trouble is- and I suspect that this is the reason you're ignoring me on this so consistently- is that you don't have any other type of evidence either.

But you can use scientific data to support the concept of a universe created for life, fine tuning and so on.

You've been told how this isn't so. You're just lying, now. Why do you intentionally sin, if you're a christian?

Yes so without the other kinds of evidence you are going to end up with some kind of deism but that's a start. You can also use philosophical evidence to demonstrate the rationality of an uncaused cause of things that are caused.

The uncaused cause argument is simply special pleading, and you know it. Besides, even if one were to accept it, you still haven't provided a justification for why that uncaused thing must be your god, and not simply the universe itself.

Beyond simply asserting that it is and claiming that it just makes sense, I mean. Surprisingly, I don't find your incredulity incredibly convincing.

But again all you're going to do is reject it all because you just want to believe what you want to believe. It's easier to sit there and ask for evidence perfectly well know doesn't exist and can't exist.

Bullshit. This is just pathetic, Sword: instead of just answering my questions, you just reinterpret my motivations so that you don't have to feel bad about how spectacularly you're failing to support your position. I could do that to, with the same level of evidence as you have, but I don't, because I'm not a fucking child.

Just admit it: you don't have anything. Be honest for once.

[Bob Kelso]

You weren't born with the atheism as a concept or any other concept either. Later in life you decided to become an atheist.

Atheism is a philosophy and you learned it and now you adhere to it. You weren't born with it.

Not the point SoC.
Babies are born without the ability to know the concepts of religion or the ability to reject said claims. Since atheism is the lack of belief in a god, their lack of belief (or in this case the inability to do so) makes them atheist in nature.

You're making the error of extending this to God when God didn't explain these natural processes he only created them.

More claims of creation without any proof, I'm going to print this sentence just so I can have the physical action of throwing it out.

If you think you can make an informed educated choice the moment you're born it's safe to say you are wrong.

Again, the argument was not for educated decisions being made at birth pertaining to religion or anything else for that matter. That's just ridiculous, and you're being asinine by continuing the thought that this is what was meant.

You still have a philosophy regarding religion and the true nature of the world, the meaning of life the universe and everything. You weren't born with this belief you learned it later, or at any rate perhaps you picked it up by a kind of osmosis.

Once again, we are not born with any beliefs. De facto atheist.

If you want to convince someone of something you don't just state your own opinion as fact.

This is singularly, the most hypocritical thing I've seen you post. You constantly try to convince others by giving your opinion, granted you back them up with pseudo facts and mystical nonsense but that makes it worse. Not better.

I carefully explained how you were not born as an atheist. Unless you want to say a cow or a pig is an atheist and that you have the exact same reasoning capacity of them?

If you would like, yes, in the same way that babies are born without the ability to reason or the ability to believe in concepts, cows, pigs, ducks and all other types of animals are de facto atheists. Sure, it's a stretch and rather silly but you went there, and the mind of a baby is quite like that of an animals at birth; no coherent thoughts, purely instinctual for a short time etc.. Animals cannot make judgements about these things, but humans can once they are older and therein lies the difference.
This line of thought does not in fact equate any adult atheist's ability to reason, capacity for intelligence or their humanity to that of an animals. As much as I'm sure you'd love to make that comparison.
If some philosopher, or psychologist or what have you, wants to (or has) come up with a proper definition for this state of mind where belief systems cannot be decided upon due to the inability to do so then so be it and if it's an acceptable and rightly neutral definition of what I would like to call an innocently unbiased mind then that's what this state would become.
Until such a time I, and evidently many others, will continue to refer to it as atheism by definition, for lack of a more specific term.

[diego]

theistic science answer: god ate my baby's diaper and he farted for 6 days and out came the universe. this would explain the presence of a lot of gas out there in the universe and the earth full of shitheads like SavedByGraceThruFaith. how's that for proof?

[Sword of Christ]

Two things: yes you can, if god interacts with the physical world at all, and if he doesn't then why should anyone give a crap?

It depends what you mean by "interact" you likely don't mean the gifts of the Holy Spirit. So you want to prove say the resurrection of Christ happened, how are going to do that? Build a time machine? Clearly no you can't prove it happened you take it on faith that it happened. Not necessarily blind faith as it is reasonable to suppose that the Jesus Movement within Judaism was based on something profound that happened to someone. If you mean miracles and supernatural events that still happen today then alright we don't have concrete proof they may or may not happen we don't know for sure. Would it be nice to have more evidence of the supernatural? Well yes but if we did it would just become of a part of the world as we understand it. If we had evidence for say ghosts we would likely be able to study them and explain what they are.

Asking for scientific evidence of God himself is pointless, asking for evidence of miracles that happened thousands of years ago is pointless and asking for evidence of miracles today isn't that relevant. If you're interested you can take a look at the supernatural claims made in recent years there is quite a lot there to go at. Some of it if you're not looking to dismiss them right away are interesting, these are things that could be real they may not be we don't know, that's just how it is. Chances are no-one here will see or experience anything like that (in this lifetime) even if they are real events.

Secondly, as I've explained to you multiple times now, scientific indications aren't the only type of evidence that I would accept.

I gave you scientific indications in the fine tuning of the universe. I also covered the physiological results of prayer at one point. But it's miracles you seem to want for which I can't give you anything concrete. I can just point you to these books that cover the subject.





And you can decide to believe they're validity or not. Even if we had concrete evidence of something our science couldn't explain it still wouldn't be evidence for God as there could be some other explanation for it.

The trouble is- and I suspect that this is the reason you're ignoring me on this so consistently- is that you don't have any other type of evidence either.

I keep saying there isn't the kind of evidence you demand but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It doesn't mean these things can't or don't happen. Yes perhaps they're ultra rare events that tend to happen at particularly key moments of history, at least the larger scale events such as the resurrection.

You've been told how this isn't so. You're just lying, now. Why do you intentionally sin, if you're a christian?

To me you're looking at good evidence of contingency in the universe, a universe purpose made to develop life and you're screwing your face up at it. I'm not lying when I say I find this to be compelling. Though I'm not starting with your assumption that it was all "coincidental" as all this will do is demonstrate to you how massive a coincidence it was not that there was any design/intention involved.

The uncaused cause argument is simply special pleading, and you know it.

The universe has no cause/caused itself and is the way it is because it made itself that way for particular reason is the alternative. It makes less sense to me anyway, I like things that have an explanation. God is an integral part of the explanation itself not the thing that needs to be explained in the first place. You either have an explanation, in this case it would be God or you don't have an explanation. The ultimate explanation of everything that exists is God you don't need an explanation of the explanation it isn't necessary and it isn't special pleading.

Besides, even if one were to accept it, you still haven't provided a justification for why that uncaused thing must be your god, and not simply the universe itself.

Something can't be the cause of itself! God didn't cause himself because he wasn't caused. You see? A nicely done job there.

Beyond simply asserting that it is and claiming that it just makes sense, I mean. Surprisingly, I don't find your incredulity incredibly convincing.

I'm not just claiming I'm explaining how God makes more sense than the alternative you would suggest. An alternative you yourself can't prove either you take it on belief. Belief is belief it isn't the same thing as knowing for a fact. A belief in God is a called faith, a belief in a lot of things is called faith and I'm sure you yourself have faith in something/someone. Faith means to place your trust in something or someone and it doesn't have to be blind or irrational faith. Or faith against overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Bullshit. This is just pathetic, Sword: instead of just answering my questions, you just reinterpret my motivations so that you don't have to feel bad about how spectacularly you're failing to support your position. I could do that to, with the same level of evidence as you have, but I don't, because I'm not a fucking child.

I'm supporting my position just fine here. I don't see you supporting your position particularly beyond "prove it for certain or it ain't real" obviously I can't do that. I'd be world famous by now if I could. You have unrealistic expectations.

Just admit it: you don't have anything. Be honest for once.

I have quite a lot here just not what you're asking for. Not being able to provide absolute certain evidence of the kind you want is not good evidence against the existence of God or a good argument in defense of atheism.

[daandaan]

[quote='Sword of Christ' pid='527371' dateline='1382128998']


But you can use scientific data to support the concept of a universe created for life, fine tuning and so on.


like the fact that just 0,45 % of the earth is suited for life??

[Sword of Christ]

like the fact that just 0,45 % of the earth is suited for life??

If life could live anywhere in any conditions and could develop out of anything then the universe wouldn't have to be finely tuned for it would it? The fact that life can only exist within a very narrow margin of the universe only serves to make the point. But everything in the universe functioned as one collective whole to produce the conditions within it that would be suitable for life and this was an extensive complex process that took billions of years. That a colossal coincidental chance there.

[daandaan]

like the fact that just 0,45 % of the earth is suited for life??

If life could live anywhere in any conditions and could develop out of anything then the universe wouldn't have to be finely tuned for it would it? The fact that life can only exist within a very narrow margin of the universe only serves to make the point. But everything in the universe functioned as one collective whole to produce the conditions within it that would be suitable for life and this was an extensive complex process that took billions of years. That a colossal coincidental chance there.

The fact that life can only exist within a very narrow margin of the universe just serves to destroy ur point ..

now, while u r praying to eternity ...dont u think ur god will be mad at u comparing him with it and admitting u are and praying to false gods??

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I was born with no concept or belief in any sort of deity.

You weren't born with the atheism as a concept or any other concept either. Later in life you decided to become an atheist.

Wrong x4.

I was born lacking any sort of concept or belief in a god. True, the term 'atheism' was something I had no concept of either, but neither was English, or a Londoner, and yet I was and am both. Your point is rendered moot.

I was born a de facto atheist. You are incorrect.

Atheism is a philosophy and you learned it and now you adhere to it. You weren't born with it.

Wrong x5.

Atheism is demonstrably not a philosophy, it is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

I am continually making choices, continually evaluating claims on a myriad of gods, continually finding them wanting. Pragmatism, look it up.

There is only one God. There are of course different interpretations of this God. We don't have to worry about polytheism as we can say science disproved or discounted the need for the old pagan gods in the natural world. You're making the error of extending this to God when God didn't explain these natural processes he only created them.

Fallacy of proof by assertion.

No evidence for your claim, dismissed.

I do not seek to judge the choices of others...unlike some people in this conversation.

If you can't judge choice you won't be able to make an informed choice yourself. Though yes you have judged the belief in God and came to the conclusion that he doesn't exist. But what you did is dismiss him like you did Zeus I'd say that's a mistake because they aren't the same kind of thing.

Fallacy of proof by assertion.

No evidence of your claim, dismissed.

For the record, I can judge choice quite aptly, actually. I just don't proclaim ignorance as knowledge, and further, insinuate that it makes me a better person than others who don't adhere to my position.

Wrong again.

If you think you can make an informed educated choice the moment you're born it's safe to say you are wrong.

Wrong x6.

Cite exactly where I've said I made an "informed educated choice the moment [i was] born" using thee exact thread, page number, post number, and of course, the text in question.

Atheism being a default (lack of belief, lack of concept) indicates the exact opposite of an informed decision on a claim. You're right that I made a decision on claims as they were presented and I was able to conceptualise them, but that doesn't change the fact that lacking any sort of concept of whatever A god is is the default.

I lack any sort of concept of a 'god'. I've never heard a coherent definition that I can conceptualise or agree with since day 0 of my life till now.

Perhaps you should do some research? Don't just accept the first philosophy or belief that comes along you have to put some effort into rejecting/not accepting the existence of God.

The idea of a 'god' is something that doesn't bother me at all.

You're making the (incorrect) presumption that I've not rejected other peoples beliefs based on research. I do it continually every time someone presented something to me as fact but which has no evidence to support it.

Like you're doing now, of course.

You are wrong for the third time in this one post.

But you have demonstrated that you don't know very much about theology or philosophy regarding God or religion so you don't to say that with much authority. I'm sure you have read the God Delusion but that's like the blind leading the blind, you have to look at the other side of the argument as well. You can then make a fully informed choice, if it's still atheism after all that then ok.

Wrong x7.

I know everything about the theology/philosophy of a proponent as it is presented to me.

What demolishes your argument is the question 'what's a god?' You forget (or ignore) that I have no concept of what ad god or gods look like, what they do,how they act, in essence, what they are.

It's up to people like you to convince me/us (atheists, believers of other religions to which there are many and which you dismissed based on nothing, probably a lack of understanding of their theology and philosophy) that you are right.

That we think you are wrong, and not just philosophically wrong, but demonstrably wrong, is your fault, not ours.

It is laughable that you would equate me stating a fact that I lacked a belief or concept of any sort of deity when I was born to it being a dogma/doctrine. This is nonsensical and I can only assume you've taken leave of your senses.

You weren't capable of making an informed choice when you were born it is different to how you are now. It something to take seriously either way don't just accept whatever you're told.

Ok, I'm not accepting what you're telling me. Thanks (Also SEE: above regarding why you're wrong calling atheism a philosophy).

I have no religious faith. You don't believe me?

You still have a philosophy regarding religion and the true nature of the world, the meaning of life the universe and everything. You weren't born with this belief you learned it later, or at any rate perhaps you picked it up by a kind of osmosis.

Wrong x8.

Did you just equate religion to belief/faith? Oh dear oh dear.

It's true, I've rejected many claims (such as yours) because of their lacklustre pursuit of 'truth' and the fact these claims have nothing to back them up.

Doesn't change the fact I was born an atheist, and so were you. You weren't born with a belief, or a concept in a god. You were born lacking all of that.

It doesn't matter one bit, doesn't change the fact that I am correct, and you are not

If you want to convince someone of something you don't just state your own opinion as fact. You give reasons for your statements like I have done here. I carefully explained how you were not born as an atheist. Unless you want to say a cow or a pig is an atheist and that you have the exact same reasoning capacity of them?

Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. I know that convincing you of anything is futile, but that's not the point of debate, is it? The wider audience is watching.

But please, SOC, continue to ignore everything posted back to you and retort with fallacies and assertions of facts. I'm sure the lurkers are having a fun times reading them.