Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 05:50PM

Jakkass wrote: »

My word, you've just defined the creation!

"an event which occurs in spite of a seemingly insurmountable statistical improbability".

10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 is considered a statistical improbability. Yet it happened.

Natural = frequently observable.

If this isn't frequently observable it can be described as supernatural. The same is the case for miracles.

I'm afraid that is just wrong Jakkass. So very very wrong. Infrequent =/= impossible. Just because something happens infrequently does not mean it is a supernatural event. At all.

And however unlikely it might be that the universe was created without a higher being, the existence of a higher being is much more unlikely and the existence of the christian god is even more unlikely again

philologos · 05-04-2009 05:51PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And however unlikely it might be that the universe was created without a higher being, the existence of a higher being is much more unlikely

Sam, you're more intelligent than this. Give a reason.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 05:55PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, you're more intelligent than this. Give a reason.

Because such a being, by its very definition, defies the laws of physics and that is impossible. The creation of the universe by other means does not necessarily break these laws.

Therefore we are left with the unlikely in one hand and the impossible in the other. I choose the unlikely

pablomakaveli · 05-04-2009 05:56PM

I wonder if i started worshipping and praying to the carton of milk in the fridge would the atheists object. "There are no facts to support the carton of milks divinity" they'd say. Facts schmacts.

It's my milk and i'll worship it if i want.

Borneo Fnctn · 05-04-2009 05:57PM

I just wish that religious people could find out that they were wrong when they die.

philologos · 05-04-2009 05:58PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because such a being, by its very definition, defies the laws of physics and that is impossible. The creation of the universe by other means does not necessarily break these laws.

Therefore we are left with the unlikely in one hand and the impossible in the other. I choose the unlikely

Sam, you do realise that this would only be the case if God was a part of the universe. I don't think any Christian claims that.

How could God be a part of the universe if the universe is indeed His creation.

Also, you claim that the laws of physics don't allow for the existence of God. However if God is the creator of the universe, God is also the author of the rules of how the universe operates. Such as the laws of physics, biology, chemistry and so on.

It's not a convincing argument against God's existence.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 06:00PM

jackpalance wrote: »

I just wish that religious people could find out that they were wrong when they die.

I've thought that so many times

I wish they could exist for just a few seconds after death, just long enough to realise they're going nowhere so they could say to themselves "aw crap!"

We can but dream......

Terry · 05-04-2009 06:00PM

Biggins wrote: »

All of the above can be summarised as:
I actually need to just get a life
I need all the the above and more to validate my life because I can't do it for myself with my own actions.
...and O' - I probably need to get laid more often!

As to the original OP -
Just repeat the following to the old out of date ageing hags:

Attack the post, not the poster.

My name is URL · 05-04-2009 06:04PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because such a being, by its very definition, defies the laws of physics and that is impossible. The creation of the universe by other means does not necessarily break these laws.

To be fair.. The theory that's most widely accepted for the creation of the Universe is to do with Membrane Theory (or M-Theory), and how two membranes collided which caused the "Big Bang".

For that theory to work, it requires 11 dimensions (which was also theorized). How much faith can we really place in these theories when other theories are needed to support them?

Dudess · 05-04-2009 06:06PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Okay, I didn't actually read any of this.

Why post that you didn't read something? Oh yeah... to sneer at Jakkass.

Biggins wrote: »

All of the above can be summarised as:
I actually need to just get a life
I need all the the above and more to validate my life because I can't do it for myself with my own actions.
...and O' - I probably need to get laid more often!

Or maybe he just has a strong faith - how great it must be for you that you can look down on him.

towel401 wrote: »

this is like atheist forum #2 now. cause their freakin heads are too big to all fit in the first one

There's nothing wrong with simply engaging in discussion - the atheists who are doing the most sneering here aren't actually contributing to it.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I wonder if i started worshipping and praying to the carton of milk in the fridge would the atheists object. "There are no facts to support the carton of milks divinity" they'd say. Facts schmacts.

It's my milk and i'll worship it if i want.

That's pretty much an acknowledgement that god may not exist and believing in him is something one chooses to do.

MagicMarker · 05-04-2009 06:09PM

Dudess wrote: »

Why post that you didn't read something? Oh yeah... to sneer at Jakkass.

No, just to point out that it's way too long, and that I'm way too lazy to read it. Not that I would anyway.

pablomakaveli · 05-04-2009 06:09PM

Upward Spiral wrote: »

To be fair.. The theory that's most widely accepted for the creation of the Universe is to do with Membrane Theory (or M-Theory), and how two membranes collided which caused the "Big Bang".

For that theory to work, it requires 11 dimensions (which was also theorized). How much faith can we really place in these theories when other theories are needed to support them?

Another theory is that the universe expands and contracts repeatedly. But they're just that, theories. We'll probably never know the answer.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 06:09PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, you do realise that this would only be the case if God was a part of the universe. I don't think any Christian claims that.

How could God be a part of the universe if the universe is indeed His creation.

Also, you claim that the laws of physics don't allow for the existence of God. However if God is the creator of the universe, God is also the author of the rules of how the universe operates. Such as the laws of physics, biology, chemistry and so on.

It's not a convincing argument against God's existence.

I believe that the simplest solution is usually the most likely. It is entirely likely that there is some mechanism that we don't yet understand that can create matter from non-matter. Science makes new discoveries every day and such a discovery is not beyond the realms of possibility.

However, the existence of a divine being breaks the known laws of nature. It is also the most complex possible solution to the problem of where the universe began because such a being is infinitely complex. It also suffers from the problem of what created god and if he can come from nothing, why is it so hard to believe that matter can come from nothing?

Also, the existence of a creator does not come anywhere near to proving the Christian God, which is the whole point

So, again, we have one solution that does not break the laws of nature and another one that does. In any other area of inquiry, if I was given one solution that fit with the laws of nature and another one that didn't, I would choose the former and I don't see why the creation of the universe should be any different.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 06:11PM

Upward Spiral wrote: »

To be fair.. The theory that's most widely accepted for the creation of the Universe is to do with Membrane Theory (or M-Theory), and how two membranes collided which caused the "Big Bang".

For that theory to work, it requires 11 dimensions (which was also theorized). How much faith can we really place in these theories when other theories are needed to support them?

We can put a lot more faith in them than we can in the bible because these theories have the whole of modern human knowledge to support them and the bible has some bronze age desert dwellers

javaboy · 05-04-2009 06:12PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, just to point out that it's way too long, and that I'm way too lazy to read it. Not that I would anyway.

Stop trolling.

pablomakaveli · 05-04-2009 06:16PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We can put a lot more faith in them than we can in the bible because these theories have the whole of modern human knowledge to support them and the bible has some bronze age desert dwellers

Georges Lemaitre the guy who proposed the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 06:17PM

Being honest, I'm actually not completely against the idea of come form of creator. It is extremely unlikely but we don't know enough about the universe to prove it conclusively. However, there is a massive insurmountable gap between that and going to mass on Sundays because of a 2000 year old book. All I'm really interested in is arguments for Christianity over all the other thousands of religions which seem just as valid to me

philologos · 05-04-2009 06:17PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I believe that the simplest solution is usually the most likely. It is entirely likely that there is some mechanism that we don't yet understand that can create matter from non-matter. Science makes new discoveries every day and such a discovery is not beyond the realms of possibility.

The simplest solution? Occams Razor doesn't work with this one. The earth isn't simplex for a start, and even if it was simplex trying to explain how the world created itself in an entirely naturalistic process is nothing but ridiculous given the odds of it actually having come into fruition. We should be more willing to explore whether or not there was an external cause to the Creation of the world. As Upward Spiral has said the ideas in physics are already suggesting causation, however by a somewhat different means. God isn't an impossibility and certainly is far from having being ruled out yet. As such I think it's somewhat absurd to dismiss God's existence off the cuff when there is very much room for argument on the issue. I think Dudess opinion earlier on in the thread concerning agnosticism is a lot more pragmatic than the view that you and other atheists hold. She doesn't move from one belief to another, but rather remains open to both possibilities (Yes atheism is a belief that God doesn't exist).

Sam Vimes wrote: »

However, the existence of a divine being breaks the known laws of nature. It is also the most complex possible solution to the problem of where the universe began because such a being is infinitely complex. It also suffers from the problem of what created god and if he can come from nothing, why is it so hard to believe that matter can come from nothing?

You've completely ignored the point that this isn't what Christians belief.

If God is indeed the author of the universe, and all that is contained within it. The Creator cannot be a part of the Creation. As such the Creator is not subject to the laws of the Creation. Even then you say that God violates the laws of nature, then again, I don't believe the Creation to be a natural event given the probability of it having occurred. Of course a supernatural being isn't going to be natural, because guess what? It isn't natural. God is not of nature, but separate from it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, the existence of a creator does not come anywhere near to proving the Christian God, which is the whole point

If you come to the conclusion that a God exists, that'll be quite a lot of progress, and then we can move onto the case for Christianity. Baby steps :pac:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So, again, we have one solution that does not break the laws of nature and another one that does. In any other area of inquiry, if I was given a solution that fit with the laws of nature and another one that didn't, I would choose the former and I don't see why the creation of the universe should be any different.

The difference here is that you reject the existence of the supernatural. I don't. Infact I consider a supernatural cause necessary for the creation of the world given the probability of it having occurred wihtout a supernatural entity behind it.

My name is URL · 05-04-2009 06:20PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We can put a lot more faith in them than we can in the bible because these theories have the whole of modern human knowledge to support them and the bible has some bronze age desert dwellers

Theories are theories, no matter what context they're used in.. be it religion or science. Until solid proof is provided for either....

pablomakaveli wrote: »

.... Another theory is that the universe expands and contracts repeatedly. But they're just that, theories. We'll probably never know the answer.

That's a very depressing scenario really. Even though there's no chance of understanding it in our lifetime, the fact that humanity may never realize the reasons behind life is troubling, to me at least.

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 06:20PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Georges Lemaitre the guy who proposed the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.

Yeah there are lots of christian scientists. IMO they have the ability to section off their logical minds from their spiritual minds. One can never underestimate the human desire to believe

Sam Vimes · 05-04-2009 06:26PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The simplest solution? Occams Razor doesn't work with this one. The earth isn't simplex for a start, and even if it was simplex trying to explain how the world created itself in an entirely naturalistic process is nothing but ridiculous given the odds of it actually having come into fruition.

Already explained multiple times, you just keep ignoring me

Jakkass wrote: »

You've completely ignored the point that this isn't what Christians belief.

If God is indeed the author of the universe, and all that is contained within it. The Creator cannot be a part of the Creation. As such the Creator is not subject to the laws of the Creation. Even then you say that God violates the laws of nature, then again, I don't believe the Creation to be a natural event given the probability of it having occurred. Of course a supernatural being isn't going to be natural, because guess what? It isn't natural. God is not of nature, but separate from it.

But that doesn't make any sense. You find it completely impossible that the universe came from nothing but you consider it a practical certainty that a being -that didn't have to be created- did it all. You're just highlighting that the existence of a higher power requires breaking the laws of nature because the laws of nature do not allow for not being subject to them. Which again leads me to believe the more likely solution

Jakkass wrote: »

If you come to the conclusion that a God exists, that'll be quite a lot of progress, and then we can move onto the case for Christianity. Baby steps :pac:

God=/=creator. All I care about in this debate is arguments for christianity which you continually dodge, most recently with claims that you've already answered me- you haven't

MagicMarker · 05-04-2009 06:27PM

To all the true believers, if I said I knew a girl who is a virgin, but is pregnant, would you believe me?

If I told you I could walk on water, would you believe me?

javaboy · 05-04-2009 06:28PM

Get back on topic please. This is not the place to debate the existence of God.

SV · 05-04-2009 06:30PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

To all the true believers, if I said I knew a girl who is a virgin, but is pregnant, would you believe me?

If I told you I could walk on water, would you believe me?

It only counts if it was wrote in an ancient book.

So if you write it now, they're sure to believe it in, oh say, 2000 years?