New Athiest Needs Help

[Rampant.A.I.]

[quote='Rampant.A.I.' pid='683077' dateline='1402097806']

Are you reading a different definition of "Infinite chain of events" than everyone else?

No think about it. Each part of the infinite chain requires a cause. Within the infinite chain, you will have infinite chains that have infinite chains that are the cause of other infinite chains. Still all those infinite chains still require a cause.[/quote]

The chain is infinitely long.

]It can be said a chain of effects is an effect. Therefore an infinite chain of effects is also an effect. Therefore it would require a cause as well.

Yes, somewhere back that way toward infinity. Start walking, let me know when you reach the cause.

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='683098' dateline='1402100143']
[quote='Rampant.A.I.' pid='683077' dateline='1402097806']How so?

There is no way to know it otherwise.

Why not?

It would at best a good guess based on what we observed so far.

Opinion.

But to know for certain that things can't just pop out of nothing as ontological fact of reality,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Not so. You're also assuming physics was identical to what we observe now. Planck time isn't even close to what we observe now, and that was back in the universes infancy. Why would physics prior to the universe be the same as now?

Can an "event" or "cause" make sense as coherent concepts in the absence of matter, space, and time?

such that, if you saw something appear in the sky and fall down, you would not assume nothing caused it to come into being but in fact know for certain it has a cause, then it requires to be given that in an absolute way.

You're still assuming linear causality at the quantum level.









If quantum physics made sense at a common sense level, we'd all be quantum physicists, and construction workers would hold doctorate degrees.

[Lek]

A logical person - when confronted with the sheer number of conflicting claims of various religions - would first look at the claim and eliminate those whose story includes things that do not agree with known reality - and the bible contains enough of that to be a comic book - not of use.

Scientists are logical and they don't eliminate claims that disagree with known reality. The fact that people have been recognizing and worshiping a higher supernatural being since the beginning of known human history shows that we have recognized his existence all along.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Assuming that everything evolves from Nothing the question is: why did Nothing exist? Is it possible to have a state that is neither Pure Nothing or Something? We know what Something is but we don't know what Pure Nothing is. Is Pure Nothing really Something? How did Pure Nothing come into existence?

Think about oxygen on Earth. When the planet was being formed there was no oxygen. Then over the course of time we have our current atmosphere. We can explain where the oxygen came from but it wasn't that long ago that people didn't have a clue, even if they could ask the question.

So now we are smart enough to ask the question without accepting the answer that "God did it".

[Brian37]

QM really does not have an objection to something or nothing overlapping at the same time. Much the same way hurricanes could not exist prior to our planet. Instead of looking at QM as an either/or proposition, which is what unfortunately theism does, look at it as countless variables and conditions at play.

So it is more of "depends", not "either/or".

---

A logical person - when confronted with the sheer number of conflicting claims of various religions - would first look at the claim and eliminate those whose story includes things that do not agree with known reality - and the bible contains enough of that to be a comic book - not of use.

Scientists are logical and they don't eliminate claims that disagree with known reality. The fact that people have been recognizing and worshiping a higher supernatural being since the beginning of known human history shows that we have recognized his existence all along.

No, the fact that a majority of human beings have believed and do believe as a majority does not prove any god existing, all it proves is that humans are intellectually lazy most of the time and prefer a placebo over reality.

For the same reason if you really desperately want to believe that ink blot is a butterfly you will believe it. Most humans at one time also falsely believed the sun rotated around the earth.

The fact that humans concoct sugar pill thinking does not make the bullshit they concoct true.

[Rampant.A.I.]

A logical person - when confronted with the sheer number of conflicting claims of various religions - would first look at the claim and eliminate those whose story includes things that do not agree with known reality - and the bible contains enough of that to be a comic book - not of use.

Scientists are logical and they don't eliminate claims that disagree with known reality. The fact that people have been recognizing and worshiping a higher supernatural being since the beginning of known human history shows that we have recognized his existence all along.

It shows people have an innate need to believe in something that isn't necessarily there.

In 2006, during a symposium in Istanbul, Herman van Praag, a professor of biological psychiatry, taking his lead from the 95 percent of believers in the United States, tried to convince me that atheism was an “anomaly.” “That depends on who you compare yourself to,” I replied. In 1996 a poll of American scientists revealed that only 39 percent were believers, a much smaller percentage than the national average. Only 7 percent of the country’s top scientists (defined for this poll as the members of the National Academy of Sciences) professed a belief in God, while almost no Nobel laureates are religious.
...
Moreover, meta-analysis has shown a correlation among atheism, education, and IQ. So there are striking differences within populations, and it’s clear that degree of atheism is linked to intelligence, education, academic achievement, and a positive interest in natural science.

---

Scientists also differ per discipline: Biologists are less prone to believe in God and the hereafter than physicists. So it isn’t surprising that the vast majority (78 percent) of eminent evolutionary biologists polled called themselves materialists (meaning that they believe physical matter to be the only reality). Almost three quarters (72 percent) of them regarded religion as a social phenomenon that had evolved along with Homo sapiens. They saw it as part of evolution, rather than conflicting with it.
It does indeed seem that religion must have afforded an evolutionary advantage. Receptiveness to religion is determined by spirituality, which is 50 percent genetically determined, as twin studies have shown. Spirituality is a characteristic that everyone has to a degree, even if they don’t belong to a church. Religion is the local shape given to our spiritual feelings. The decision to be religious or not certainly isn’t “free.” The surroundings in which we grow up cause the parental religion to be imprinted in our brain circuitries during early development, in a similar way to our native language.

---

Chemical messengers like serotonin affect the extent to which we are spiritual: The number of serotonin receptors in the brain corresponds to scores for spirituality. And substances that affect serotonin, like LSD, mescaline (from the peyote cactus), and psilocybin (from magic mushrooms) can generate mystical and spiritual experiences. Spiritual experiences can also be induced with substances that affect the brain’s opiate system.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/in...ligion.htm

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/04/this_is_...of_belief/

PS: arguments ad populum are fallacious.

[Violet]

It's just religious wordplay and nonsense. Using their own logic if "something can't come from nothing" then they need to explain where their "originator" came from.

"God is eternal and beyond space and time" is a copout.

Nothing too is eternal and beyond space and time. Such a being must necessarily come from nothing and to something, lest they to nothing come.

---

So since we have established that there is no such thing as infinite that means the universe had a beginning there are 4 logical answers for the beginning of the universe seen and unseen;

1) the universe was created via nothing
2) the universe created itself
3) the universe was created by something which was also created
4) the universe was created by something UNCREATED

Alternately, it could be that 'the universe' was never created. Perhaps it was, is, and always shall be: regardless of time and space, unconcerned with the commonplace... for matter doesn't spark it's interest.

---

OP, allow me to introduce you to the most powerful question we have in refuting theists: How do you know?

Same way you do. Same way anyone does: I perceive stuff, start noticing patterns, and finally it hits me: Twinkies taste awful. That then gets put in that weird little knowledge base that is my brain. Not that I am right about it going anywhere... but I believe it does.

Therein: I know it does, however strongly (as per evidence).

How does he know the universe could not have come from nothing? How does he know that there couldn't be an infinite chain of creators, and so on? Hell, more importantly, how does he know he's encompassed every possible solution to this issue?

He's a fool, just as are the rest of us.

Knowledge is demonstrated and not just asserted, so he's going to need to bring some evidence to bear, which he doesn't have. Nobody does, but the difference is that as an atheist I'm more comfortable just leaving that question at the "I don't know" stage and letting the evidence fall where it may. If someone else wants to assert things about something they can't possibly know about, then they'd better get all their shit together before they start spouting off assertions.

Knowledge is also asserted, and not demonstrated. I've never seen a 'real' human brain, I've only been told we have one. Maybe I believe it, maybe I do not... if I crack open a human head, I probably know that that one had one, but really... it could be my consciousness putting something there that isn't (and yet still is). It's experienced no differently for me whether it is, is, or is.

One can know anything. One is 'correct' rarely, and only ever in part.

How does he know? The answer is that he doesn't, and his shell game relies upon you not figuring that out to work. Don't fall prey to the false dichotomy he's trying to introduce.

'The more I know: the more I don't.'

---

Let them know that our understanding of cause and effect breaks down when time does not exist. Yes, everything must come from something, something that preceded it. How can one thing come before something else if time literally doesn't exist?

The truth is that the "everything must come from something" principle is a temporal observation that isn't applicable when t = 0.

Try reasoning in a place where logic is in flux.

Oh sorry, we're already in one

[Violet]

The problem is that it's almost impossible to to imagine what true "Nothing" is and what its properties are. That's because we live in a sea of "Something". However, it should be obvious that "Nothing" really exists and that it is the source of Everything. We should know that because the visible building block of the Universe is hydrogen, which evolves from "Nothing". Once "Nothing" creates hydrogen all things become possible. The hydrogen clumps together into giant balls and then ignites in a nuclear reaction to form stars, which create the heavy elements and real material.

Don't be silly... nothing is everything.

---

Sorry - but that is NOT a complete list of the possible ways the Universe came to be - it is a religious creation.

The problem is that the 4 assume there was NOTHING when the Universe came to be - which is something claimed but NOT established.

The Big Bang is established. But then, so is gravity.

* Violet laughs.

---

Why does the op think time is "older" than matter or energy? What evidence does he have to support that?

What is energy that is not vibrating?

Nothing.

---

Yes. But it would have a supernatural explanation, not a natural one.

What's the difference?

[ska88]

I don't know if I can help here but here is what I think.

Are yo sure that someday you are going to die? I think everyone knows that he must die at "the end". Why do you think we have this convention?

Do you think that someone or something can live forever?

I think the same thing goes for the world.. there must be an end.

to know for sure.. we can wait and see

may be after death !! who knows.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The Big Bang Theory is a Catholic theory of creation. It's as silly as the Genesis theory.

[Violet]

Mmhm. That mans mind makes me want to lick things.

Like brain matter? Do leave me some, yeah?

---

The Big Bang Theory is a Catholic theory of creation. It's as silly as the Genesis theory.

So silly that some peeps got a Nobel Prize for it. Yup. Silly.

---

I don't know if I can help here but here is what I think.

Are yo sure that someday you are going to die? I think everyone knows that he must die at "the end". Why do you think we have this convention?

Yes, you're going to die.

Do you think that someone or something can live forever?

No. Forever is a very long time... life is a construct of change. One cannot not change over an eternity of living... therefore one cannot live forever.

I think the same thing goes for the world.. there must be an end.

to know for sure.. we can wait and see

This world will long outlive you. We won't be waiting with you for long.

may be after death !! who knows.

Try the dead.