Atheism: how can you be so sure?

steve-hosting36

Causality applies to most of the world around us, but we cannot extrapolate it's application beyond our experience. (ie: to the universe at large). While it also appears true that our universe had a beginning (the big bang) - we cannot assume that the universe is all that is.

Your theory is born of ignorance - a 'god of the gaps' theory as called.

kelly1

steve-hosting36 wrote: »

Causality applies to most of the world around us, but we cannot extrapolate it's application beyond our experience. (ie: to the universe at large). While it also appears true that our universe had a beginning (the big bang) - we cannot assume that the universe is all that is.

Within our universe matter/energy cannot created or destroyed and things don't happen without a cause. Are you suggesting this might not apply in other possible universes?

It's amazing the things people do to avoid God!

steve-hosting36

Why worry about 'avoiding' something that was arbitrarily 'created' by human minds to fill gaps in our knowledge?

What about without our universe? What about parts or features of our universe we don't understand yet (and the universe is rather large after all).

steve-hosting36

to paraphrase Stephen Hawking, asking what happened 'before' the big bang, is akin to asking what lies north of the north pole.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Within our universe matter/energy cannot created or destroyed and things don't happen without a cause. Are you suggesting this might not apply in other possible universes?

I think he is suggesting that it might not hold even in parts of our own universe, such as in a black hole.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's amazing the things people do to avoid God!

It really has nothing to do with God. You are stating that everything must have a cause. You then say God doesn't have to have a cause. That is contradictory. It is nonsense irrespective of God or not.

If you can imagine God without a cause then surely you can imagine other things, such as a super particle that forms a universe, as not having a cause and simply existing

It is amazing the logical leaps people will do to get their god into the equation.

steve-hosting36

kelly1 wrote: »

Within our universe matter/energy cannot created or destroyed and things don't happen without a cause. Are you suggesting this might not apply in other possible universes?

It's amazing the things people do to avoid God!

Another point of course is that your assumptions on matter/energy and cause/effect are based on Newtonian physics and thermodynamics, which describe pretty well the universe at a 'human' scale or level, but are rapidly and continuously being 'circumvented' by research and discoveries at the molecular or quantum level. Physics is full of examples of things happening without a direct cause.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

It's amazing the things people do to avoid God!

Well it seems to me that God is the one doing the avoiding.

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

I already admitted in post #201 that everything doesn't have to have a cause with God being the only being without a cause.

You see, this is no longer an argument based on logic, its a statement, nothing more. One you cannot support.

For example, the following is an argument:

1 - Nothing can exist without a cause.
2 - The universe exists.
3 - Therefore, something created the universe.

Now, this argument doesn't even address "God", and the premise of "nothing can exist without a cause" is fairly arbitrary, but at least its an argument that we can discuss the various points of and see where we agree and disagree and work it out.

What you're doing now is:

1 - Nothing except God can exist without a cause and God exists and he's the only exception to this rule and he created the universe.

It is the exact same thing as saying "This is the way things are because I say so". Unless you're willing to make more sense then the discussion ends before #2.

daveharnett

axer wrote: »

..aethiests could not possibly have any proof that there is no god... Thus in my mind they (christians etc & aethiests) are one and the same i.e. believing in something that lacks proof.

Most atheists wouldn't say with certainty that there definitely is no god.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.

In the absence of evidence in favour of god's existance, we will ASSUME that one does not exist.

Read about Russel's Teapot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

steve-hosting36

A-Theism is the absence of a belief in a 'god' - not a belief or system in itself.

Zillah

daveharnett wrote: »

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and so on.

I've heard this before. I disagree. Absence of evidence can definitely be taken as evidence of absence. For example, I don't see any vampires around here. In fact, there is a total absence of evidence for vampires altogether. I would take this absence of evidence as evidence for the absence of vampires.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, of course.

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

I've heard this before. I disagree. Absence of evidence can definitely be taken as evidence of absence.

Too bloody right. If you are looking to show that something intangible doesn't exist, then a complete lack of evidence that it does exist is pretty much all you have.

For example if someone were to claim an invisible table existed, you could verify this claim by placing a cheesecake on the table. If the cheesecake falls to the ground, that would be actual evidence of it's absence. However if the table was allegedly invisible and intangible, then all you could ever have would be an absence of evidence. (And a clearly mad person).

I guess it's tied in with the whole "can't prove something doesn't exist" notion, which as you say only precludes one from actually proving anything, rather than just supplying evidence to support that conclusion/belief.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

I've heard this before. I disagree. Absence of evidence can definitely be taken as evidence of absence. For example, I don't see any vampires around here. In fact, there is a total absence of evidence for vampires altogether. I would take this absence of evidence as evidence for the absence of vampires.

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, of course.

There is probably more 'evidence' to 'prove'the existence of vampires than God..

>_>

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

You see, this is no longer an argument based on logic, its a statement, nothing more. One you cannot support.

For example, the following is an argument:

1 - Nothing can exist without a cause.
2 - The universe exists.
3 - Therefore, something created the universe.

Now, this argument doesn't even address "God", and the premise of "nothing can exist without a cause" is fairly arbitrary, but at least its an argument that we can discuss the various points of and see where we agree and disagree and work it out.

I'd like to know then what is the general view on point 1, i.e. does the existence of everything depend on a cause? Certainly within our universe, effect only happens with a prior cause. Are people suggesting that things operate differently in other potential universes?

And why would people believe in universes (with different laws of physics) other than our own when there is no evidence for such? Do people believe universes pop into existence without a cause?

pH

kelly1 wrote: »

And why would people believe in universes (with different laws of physics) other than our own when there is no evidence for such? Do people believe universes pop into existence without a cause?

Do theists believe that Gods pop into existence without a cause?

kelly1

pH wrote: »

Do theists believe that Gods pop into existence without a cause?

Of course not. Is this a trick question?

My argument is that if you believe there is a law of cause and effect, it's illogical to conclude that there is an infinte chain of cause and effect. Am I the only one this think this is an absurd notion?

axer

kelly1 wrote: »

Of course not. Is this a trick question?

kelly1 wrote: »

I already admitted in post #201 that everything doesn't have to have a cause with God being the only being without a cause.

kelly1

axer wrote: »

Sorry, you've lost me. Where's the confusion?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Of course not. Is this a trick question?

My argument is that if you believe there is a law of cause and effect, it's illogical to conclude that there is an infinte chain of cause and effect. Am I the only one this think this is an absurd notion?

Why is it any more or less "absurd" than the concept of a super intelligent being that just exists some how, and has just always existed some how.

To answer your question, it isn't clear if causality is a property of the universe, or a larger property. So it is entirely possible and rather probable, that causality was "created" as part of the universe, and therefore the cause of the universe is a undefined concept, like (as someone else said) "north of the north pole"

axer

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry, you've lost me. Where's the confusion?

pH wrote: »

Do theists believe that Gods pop into existence without a cause?

kelly1 wrote: »

Of course not. Is this a trick question?

You seemed to imply that god popped into existence with a cause but i'll take it you didn't mean it that way.

kelly1 wrote: »

My argument is that if you believe there is a law of cause and effect, it's illogical to conclude that there is an infinte chain of cause and effect. Am I the only one this think this is an absurd notion?

It is absurd to conclude that it must have been (your) god that caused the creation of the universe without *any* proof whatsoever. How can you make that conclusion and rule out any other possibilities with out *any* proof to back it up? If you say that god just existed infinitely then how can you rule out the likes of infinite circular causation in that there has always been a infinite loop of cause and effect?

steve-hosting36

Kelly - haven't we been through this? Things happen without cause, as I said physics alone is full of such examples. 'Cause and effect' does not prove god created the universe, nor can we state everything that exists, comes into existence or happens requires a cause, nor can we state ever cause has an initiator.

Flamed Diving

steve-hosting36 wrote: »

physics alone is full of such examples.

Any examples?

steve-hosting36

A simple example is gas molecules - there is no external cause or force which causes a group of gas molecules to spread out by diffusion and yet they do.

steve-hosting36

To perhaps steer the discussion back on track - kelly - if you take a 'law' of cause and effect - where does self determinism, or free will come into it? Or (as would also be demanded if you were to accept an omniscient god) are we all doomed to follow whaever path is laid out for us regardless of the choices we make - ie: the universe and everything in it is one giant sequence of causes and effects.

kelly1

steve-hosting36 wrote: »

A simple example is gas molecules - there is no external cause or force which causes a group of gas molecules to spread out by diffusion and yet they do.

I seriously doubt that!

Dave147

kelly1 wrote: »

I seriously doubt that!

Are you freakin' serious?

Also, I don't know how someone can start a thread about 'Atheism' as in 'A-the-ism' and not be able to spell the word after spelling it correctly first, aethiest? Come on!

When I told someone (online) I was agnostic, and I don't believe in God. He told me I was going to burn in hell for not believing. I told him not to judge me because I have no faith, to which he told me it's ok because I am not chosen by 'our father'. Can anyone else see something wrong with this or is it just me? There's an awful lot of people who have faith, JUST to have faith.

So if I have not been chosen by God, then why does one of his followers try and make me believe.. Can I be un-not-chosen??

axer

Dave147 wrote: »

Also, I don't know how someone can start a thread about 'Atheism' as in 'A-the-ism' and not be able to spell the word after spelling it correctly first, aethiest? Come on!

This is how - you add an 'e' after the first 'A'. It really is that simple. I hope I didn't offend you.

Kelly1 - If you say that god just existed infinitely then how can you rule out the likes of circular causation in that there has always been a infinite loop of cause and effect?

steve-hosting36

kelly1 wrote: »

I seriously doubt that!

Perhaps you should simply google the fact? And that's a fairly simple example, without delving into quantum mechanics, which is even fuller of examples that break causality and in fact lots of our assumptions about how things 'should' work.

You also ignored my question about how determinism fits in a causal universe which was initiated by an omnipresent, omniscient god, who clearly knows the outcome of everything already.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

Why is it any more or less "absurd" than the concept of a super intelligent being that just exists some how, and has just always existed some how.

I find it less absurd that a super intelligent being just exists, than the notion that that super intelligent being exists and gives a damn about the length of earth peoples' skirts. *

* Except in third world countries

5uspect

Well there is a correlation between hemline length and economic crisis... maybe God is an Economist?