Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism: how can you be so sure?

1235

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭steve-hosting36


    Why does the fact that the universe had a beginning mean it had a beginner? Surely the most plausible option is that it simply exists, and came into existence, rather than attributing that event to a person/place/thing?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    If god is omnipotent and omniscient he is also infinitely complex. This makes his spontaneous appearance or existence far more unlikely than the universe simply coming into existence, which has a finite complexity.
    To quote Thomas Aquinas, "God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form"

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Nature_of_God
    You gotta love this line of reasoning: 'We don't know how the universe was created yet, therefore it must have been a creator'
    Don't you at least agree that the universe had a cause? Is science wrong is saying that the universe began with the big-bang?
    Why does the fact that the universe had a beginning mean it had a beginner? Surely the most plausible option is that it simply exists, and came into existence, rather than attributing that event to a person/place/thing?
    Do you see the conradiction in what you've just said? How can something "simply exist (eternally)" and "come into being"?? If the universe came into being, it must have been created.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭steve-hosting36


    To state that god is 'simple' within his/it's own definition is a tougher pill to swallow than his existence in the first place :)

    Things can 'come into being' without having been 'created' with intent.

    The belief that God created the universe and God just exists makes too many unproven assumptions, therefore using Occam's Razor one can "shave" off the unnecessary assumptions, leaving the universe just exists.

    Why attribute things we don't yet understand to a supernatural being?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Don't you at least agree that the universe had a cause? Is science wrong is saying that the universe began with the big-bang?

    Ok, what if science discovers why and how the universe began within your lifetime. What then? Where does God run to then?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I don't believe every last thing in our universe was created with a purpose in mind.
    That's not the causality argument, but the teleological argument, which shows up quite often in religious discussions -- the idea that everything must have a "purpose" of some kind, which assumes at some prior level, a conscious intention.

    It seems that a significant proportion of the population believe, incorrectly, that nothing happens without intention, including several christian posters. And that's interesting, since it suggests that the brain's intention-seeking mechanism has a tendency to overcompensate quite wildly, suggesting itself that the ability to monitor third party intentions is a very significant, but incompletely evolved, part of the mammalian brain.

    However, that discussion is off-topic at this point :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    robindch wrote: »
    However, that discussion is off-topic at this point :)
    Live that ever stopped anyone before. ;)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    So strictly speaking it's not true to say everything has a cause because God and only God breaks this rule. Does that make sense to you?
    Well, yes, I understand what you're doing as I've pointed out up above. You're saying that your assertion that everything must have a cause simply doesn't apply to your explanation (which happens to be the christian deity).

    You can certainly claim this if you want to, but you're putting yourself on very thin ice indeed when you won't let other people (like me) claim the same thing. Not a very fair debating technique, it must be said!
    kelly1 wrote: »
    but the universe did have a beginning which surely means something created it out of nothing. The alternative is that the universe is eternal which raises all kinds of problems. I'm not a physicist but wouldn't the laws of thermodynamics exclude the possibility of an eternal universe?
    No, they don't exclude it. The subject of thermodynamics is complex and difficult to understand and I'd hesitate to recommend using it in arguments if one hasn't studied it for some years.

    At the moment, physics doesn't claim to know or predict anything before a very short time following the big bang. There are various guesses and ideas, and even a few theories, around the place, but there's nothing there which suggests anything decisively one way or the other -- ie, whether there was a "cause" in the sense that we understand the word, or whether or not the the universe simply didn't derive from some earlier cycle, or even that causality or time existed. Physicists simply don't know, though they are working on it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Dades wrote: »
    The correct answer is we have no damned idea.

    Fair enough, I can understand that viewpoint.
    Dades wrote: »
    Probabilities does not come into it. Just because you phrase your question with two possible scenarios, does not make the probability of either 50/50, or anything at all.

    Yet again, you're answering a different question to the one asked...
    I didn't imply that they did, I just asked what you would base an assessment of probabilities on.

    If you think it's impossible to make such an assessment, fine, but ffs stop putting words in my mouth.
    Dades wrote: »
    The fact is we have a complete lack of any information on which to base a decision, therefore the question is best just left unanswered, and better still, unasked, outside of a philosophy forum.

    Here we go again... I wasn't disputing the availability or lack of information.

    If me asking questions trying to understand atheism from an agnostic's viewpoint disturbs you that much that you suggest I refrain from asking in a forum called atheism/agosticsm, well, apologies.

    Just a note of interest, they have a policy about people asking such questions on the Islam forum, maybe you should add it to the charter for this board to make such infractions less likely.
    Dades wrote: »
    And before you suggest it, just because there exists unanswerable questions, does not mean everyone should be agnostic. Certainly not in any practical sense, and definitely not in any useful one.

    Wow! Do you think you can see into the future? Try some anti psychotic medication and such delusions may cease.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Kelly1, you argument is flawed for one simple reason. You claim that the universe did not just come into being so you argue that god created it since nothing can come from nothing but in the same breath you for no logical reason assume that god breaks this rule.

    It seems to be me that you are arguing that god can come from nothing but the universe cannot just come from nothing. This is like creating your own rule to suit yourself instead of logic.

    Please explain.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    My question was also quite simple:

    Was the universe created by an omnipotent being or does it simply exist?
    What would you base your probabilities on?
    Dades wrote: »
    Just because you phrase your question with two possible scenarios, does not make the probability of either 50/50, or anything at all. The fact is we have a complete lack of any information on which to base a decision, therefore the question is best just left unanswered, and better still, unasked, outside of a philosophy forum.
    Yet again, you're answering a different question to the one asked...
    I didn't imply that they did, I just asked what you would base an assessment of probabilities on.

    If you think it's impossible to make such an assessment, fine, but ffs stop putting words in my mouth.
    Oh, I'm sorry - did I misread this post of yours?
    Was the universe created by and omnipotent being or does it simply exist?

    Personally, I'd rate the odds at about 50/50.

    Wow! Do you think you can see into the future? Try some anti psychotic medication and such delusions may cease.
    I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but you will leave me no choice if you continue your troll like behaviour. You're not being oppressed, you're being debated with. Adjust your attitude or begone.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Dades wrote: »
    Oh, I'm sorry - did I misread this post of yours?

    You misread the question in it, yes..

    In any case, I agree that regarding such an assessment as impossible is fair enough, maybe best to just leave it at that. :)
    Dades wrote: »
    I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but you will leave me no choice if you continue your troll like behavior.

    Okay, I can well understand how some of the posts might be considered toll like, I'll make an effort to tone it down. Debating with a few people who throw the same illogical argument at you repeatedly and try to drag you off in tangents is really very frustrating though, and in fairness where people did refrain from such tactics I kept the the replies courteous, whether I agreed with them or not.

    Apart from the use of ad hominem, the rest of the content was genuine and not intended to be troll like.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    You gotta love this line of reasoning: 'We don't know how the universe was created yet, therefore it must have been a creator'
    Reminds me of the Eddie Izzard segment in the Secret Policeman's Ball. Can't remember the exact words but a small extract goes along the lines of....."so we have the theory of evolution, it's a theory and it has a few problems, there are a number of holes. So we take those holes and fill them with fcuking magic......" Excellent performance if you can get your hands on it.

    MrP


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    maybe best to just leave it at that.
    Indeed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Dades wrote: »
    Indeed.

    Okay, apologies for my comment about delusions, that was OTT.

    However, suggesting that my question at best be asked in another forum if at all is also troll like.

    The phrase "double standards" comes to mind for no particular reason.

    Looks like it'll be exceptionally difficult to defend any point of view here in future because of this, thus I might as well be barred.

    Thanks for the debate and see ye in the next life! ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Seeya mate


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Looks like it'll be exceptionally difficult to defend any point of view here in future because of this, thus I might as well be barred.
    You keep fighting the powah. I'm not banning you just so you feel more oppressed.

    You've said you're leaving, so best of luck.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Okay, apologies for my comment about delusions, that was OTT.

    However, suggesting that my question at best be asked in another forum if at all is also troll like.

    The phrase "double standards" comes to mind for no particular reason.

    Looks like it'll be exceptionally difficult to defend any point of view here in future because of this, thus I might as well be barred.

    Thanks for the debate and see ye in the next life! ;)

    Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    To state that god is 'simple' within his/it's own definition is a tougher pill to swallow than his existence in the first place :)
    I'm out of my depth on this one but it intuitively it makes sense to me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
    Things can 'come into being' without having been 'created' with intent.
    How can something come from nothing unless it is created? Please explain.

    The alternative is that the universe came from a previous universe or is a one of many universes within a super universe and that the universe(s)/super universe has always existed in some shape or form.

    This is one for the philosophy forum but I would expect that something which changes, e.g. our universe, can't exist eternally. Science confirms that the universe had a beginning. Science can't answer the question as to what happened before the big bang so we have the hand the question over to theologians and philosophers.
    Why attribute things we don't yet understand to a supernatural being?
    I really don't see how it's possible that the universe has existed eternally. Wouldn't this imply that the universe would have reached a state of maximum entrophy and would be just some kind of big homogenous blob? Again I really don't know. I need to think about this a bit more. Or maybe not lest my brain fries :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I'm out of my depth on this one but it intuitively it makes sense to me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
    I am not particularly good at this stuff either, but I will give it a bash. I think you are talking about slightly different things here. Devine simplicity is not the same a scientific or real world simplicity. When Steve uses the term simple he is not talking about some christian god worshiping meaning of the word. He simply means simple. If you walk into a room and there is a laptop on a desk there are a number of things you can believe about how the laptop got there. You could believe that the last occupant of the room left it there, for example. You might also choose to believe that it magically appeared there. One of those options is simpler than the other. That someone left it there is a simpler explanation than it magically appeared. We already have the tools to explain how someone might leave it there, but we do not have the tools to explain how it was put there magically. Simple.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    How can something come from nothing unless it is created? Please explain.
    Who knows? We don’t know enough to give an intelligent answer to that. Brains much bigger than ours are working on it. Maybe we will find out eventually.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    The alternative is that the universe came from a previous universe or is a one of many universes within a super universe and that the universe(s)/super universe has always existed in some shape or form.
    Maybe. Who knows….
    kelly1 wrote: »
    This is one for the philosophy forum but I would expect that something which changes, e.g. our universe, can't exist eternally. Science confirms that the universe had a beginning. Science can't answer the question as to what happened before the big bang so we have the hand the question over to theologians and philosophers.
    Just because science can’t answer the question does not mean we have to give up and say it is magic. Why do we have to hand it over to theologians and philosophers? Are they better at physics or something? And seriously, theologians? Why would we ask them what happened before the big bang?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I really don't see how it's possible that the universe has existed eternally. Wouldn't this imply that the universe would have reached a state of maximum entrophy and would be just some kind of big homogenous blob? Again I really don't know. I need to think about this a bit more. Or maybe not lest my brain fries :)
    I expect that is why you, like most of us, are not theoretical physicists. We all have these questions. And they are really big questions. Personally I prefer to wait for science. I am comfortable with the thought that we don’t know everything. I am also comfortable with the thought that we may never know. I feel no urge to believe that some magical entity created it.

    MrP


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Science can't answer the question as to what happened before the big bang so we have the hand the question over to theologians and philosophers.
    Why don't they hammer out a cure for cancer while they're at it!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    How can something come from nothing unless it is created? Please explain.

    In quantum physics things come from nothing all the time. Of course it depends on how you define "nothing".
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Science can't answer the question as to what happened before the big bang so we have the hand the question over to theologians and philosophers.

    Theologians and philosophers can't answer it either. They simply guess with no way of finding out if they are right or not. That is exactly what science doesn't do, which is a good thing.

    And science can't answer the question now. It may in the future we don't know. It is as impossible to say it won't as it is to say it will.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I really don't see how it's possible that the universe has existed eternally.
    That is really irrelevant to whether or not it has or hasn't. Most people can't understand the nature of the universe, even the geniuses who are working on the problem.

    One of the first things to learn is that the universe is a lot weirder than humans can easily imagine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Science can't answer the question as to what happened before the big bang so we have the hand the question over to theologians and philosophers.

    Why?

    Jeez God of the gaps indeed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Okay, apologies for my comment about delusions, that was OTT.

    However, suggesting that my question at best be asked in another forum if at all is also troll like.

    The phrase "double standards" comes to mind for no particular reason.

    Looks like it'll be exceptionally difficult to defend any point of view here in future because of this, thus I might as well be barred.

    Thanks for the debate and see ye in the next life! ;)

    Can't win an argument? Scream conspiracy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Dades wrote: »
    You keep fighting the powah. I'm not banning you just so you feel more oppressed.

    You've said you're leaving, so best of luck.

    This is exactly my point...

    Just ignore my argument and make some remark about 'the powah' that also claims to know how I'm feeling.

    Yet if I bring up the point of possible delusions regarding said claims - bing bong you're gone.

    Just do the damn deed and follow your convictions for a change.

    As for the other posters' little snide remarks, ehm, right.

    Dave! You seem to be the only person here with a sense of humour, how do stand it? It was a pleasure debating with you, and best of luck!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    This is exactly my point...

    Just ignore my argument and make some remark about 'the powah' that also claims to know how I'm feeling.

    Yet if I bring up the point of possible delusions regarding said claims - bing bong you're gone.

    Just do the damn deed and follow your convictions for a change.

    As for the other posters' little snide remarks, ehm, right.

    Dave! You seem to be the only person here with a sense of humour, how do stand it? It was a pleasure debating with you, and best of luck!

    You've blotted your copybook here lad. Uber-pwnership on a cosmic scale.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    bing bong you're gone
    Nothing to see here anymore, people. Move along.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    kelly1 wrote: »
    How can something come from nothing unless it is created? Please explain.
    Then how can god exist? did god come from nothing or just exist? You say one thing but then allow yourself to apply a different rule to your god.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    axer wrote: »
    Then how can god exist? did god come from nothing or just exist? You say one thing but then allow yourself to apply a different rule to your god.
    I've been claiming all along the God is eternal which implies that He was never created. There is no infinite chain of gods, just one eternal God. The only position I've changed is that I went from saying everything has a cause to saying everything except God has a cause.

    BTW, it really bugs me when people say "your god". He's your God too!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I've been claiming all along the God is eternal which implies that He was never created. There is no infinite chain of gods, just one eternal God. The only position I've changed is that I went from saying everything has a cause to saying everything except God has a cause.

    BTW, it really bugs me when people say "your god". He's your God too!


    No, he is your god. Even if it exists, I want nothing to do with that malevolent prick. Now, I don't see how you can have a problem with the concept of an eternal universe, but not an eternal god. Why does the universe require creation?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    kelly1 wrote: »
    OK, I see what you mean. So strictly speaking it's not true to say everything has a cause because God and only God breaks this rule. Does that make sense to you?


    Ok, but the universe did have a beginning which surely means something created it out of nothing. The alternative is that the universe is eternal which raises all kinds of problems. I'm not a physicist but wouldn't the laws of thermodynamics exclude the possibility of an eternal universe?

    I think that it is very hard for a human being to comprehend a place completely devoid of anything, including time. This is why we try to understand it by applying the rules of our universe and what we see around us when attempting to get our heads around it. I mean, I have already done it in the first sentence, by calling it a "place". This is why I would be reluctant to say that the beginning of the universe must have had a cause. It is very hard to comprehend how something may have came from nothing, because being human we assume that everything has a cause.

    I think it may be similar to prehistoric man attempting to comprehend the stars.

    I don't understand it, nobody else does, all we can do is speculate. For you you to state with any certainty that there must have been a creator is in my mind a complete fallacy.

    I think what the argument boils down to is your Christian belief in a God, and that is a whole other matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    kelly1 wrote: »
    BTW, it really bugs me when people say "your god". He's your God too!
    What would you have us say? He is not my god. If he did, which I very much doubt, exist why would any sane person want anything to do with such a petty, narrow minded, evil, manipulating, two faced cnut?

    MrP


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jeez, people.

    That's a lot of vitriol for something you don't believe is real.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    it's easier to hate imaginary friends, they don't have feelings to hurt.

    --edit

    also, kelly1 much <3.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    kelly1 wrote: »

    BTW, it really bugs me when people say "your god". He's your God too!

    I find comments like that unbelievably condescending.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    robindch wrote: »
    Physicists simply don't know, though they are working on it.

    Higgs boson baby!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    This thread is still going?
    Oh. Your. God.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I've been claiming all along the God is eternal which implies that He was never created. There is no infinite chain of gods, just one eternal God. The only position I've changed is that I went from saying everything has a cause to saying everything except God has a cause.
    Exactly, you say God is the only exception to the rule without *any* proof whatsoever. How do you know this?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    BTW, it really bugs me when people say "your god". He's your God too!
    Nope, he is not. I don't have a god. It really bugs me when people assume their god is ruler of everyone. I have gone independent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Dades wrote: »
    That's a lot of vitriol for something you don't believe is real.

    I think its more a chance to express incredulity to a believer that they could actually love/respect/obey the malefic tyrant presented in the Bible. The vitriol is unfairly being placed at the feet of an imaginary entity rather than those who adore him.

    Sycophants. I wonder if so many people would profess love for God if he wasn't almighty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I've been claiming all along the God is eternal which implies that He was never created. There is no infinite chain of gods, just one eternal God. The only position I've changed is that I went from saying everything has a cause to saying everything except God has a cause.

    Then everything doesn't have a cause. And if your god doesn't need a cause then surely there are other things that don't need a cause. I mean if something as complex as an emotional intelligence can exist without needing a cause, then anything can exist without needing a cause
    kelly1 wrote: »
    BTW, it really bugs me when people say "your god". He's your God too!

    Well he is your god. There are plenty of other gods out there that are a lot different to your one.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Then everything doesn't have a cause. And if your god doesn't need a cause then surely there are other things that don't need a cause. I mean if something as complex as an emotional intelligence can exist without needing a cause, then anything can exist without needing a cause
    I already admitted in post #201 that everything doesn't have to have a cause with God being the only being without a cause.

    What do you mean by emotional intelligence can exist without needing a cause?

    Can you give any example of something that happens in this universe without a cause?

    I asked a question earlier about an universe that exists eternally. Does anyone here think this is possible? What would the implications be? What would prevent things grinding to a halt? Isn't the inflation of our own universe accelerating?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭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).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭steve-hosting36


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭steve-hosting36


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


  • Advertisement
Advertisement