Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rather than posting his own thread, a theist poster chose to rudely attempt to hijack an existing one with an unrelated post. So I thought I'd help him out by starting the thread he was too spineless to start himself. His point (paraphrased) was:
The response is painfully simple. While his point was technically true, it doesn't mean atheism doesn't remain a superior assertion over any theistic one.
[b]
Since no one can know the unknowable, theism remains entirely incoherent, by definition.
So, until a theist exists who can demonstrate God, rather than simply making excuses why this can't be accomplished, ANY other assertion -- including the atheist one -- remains decidedly more plausible.
Thoughts? Disagreements?
I would only know there is no God if there was no universe. And above all no big bang. There may well be a God. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" answer that, only then it would be settled.
If I were to insert invisible pink dragons in place of god that same poster would say that such a claim is ridiculous because there's no evidence for it. A lot of theists like to make an exemption for god because their claims aren't based on science or sound reasoning. The truth is that atheists can be confident god doesn't exist because there has never been any evidence providing proof that such an entity exists. Theists do the same thing for all other claims unsubstantiated by evidence.
There may well be a God. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" answer that, only then it would be settled.
Making an argument from ignorance and inserting "God" as the default placeholder is simply is poor reasoning. Steven Hawking might reasonably answer this question by saying that, "Nothing is inherently unstable". At any rate, the best answer is simply we don't know and don't jump to unfounded conclusions. Perplexing question do not equal a god.
Why does lightning strike? The gods must be angry.
Why do people get sick? Evil demons.
Why does the volcano erupt? The gods are angry. Hey, let's throw the god a nice, juicy virgin.
etc...
etc...
etc...
Quote:
I would only know there is no God if there was no universe.
You almost certainly would know nothing if there was no universe.
When we introduce the idea of an unknowable, we introduce a kind of event-horizon (but unlike the one around singularities it applies both ways -- nothing can cross it form either side).
Not really. Your description is accurate. He just does such drive by strafing with some regularity. However even when his points have been truely decimated and debunked - he just waits some days and picks a new thread and trots out the exact same debunked points again.
The best we can do in such cases is merely address it each and every time is shows up - to ensure no one is fooled by the errors and falsehoods found in the texts.
Thanks, monumentus. It is very gratifying to find people here are so willing to circle-of-the-wagons around the newbie .
I would only know there is no God if there was no universe. And above all no big bang
You are implying that some kind of thinking being was needed for the big bang to happen (and thus the universe). That's definitely an unproven assertion at this point in human knowledge, and to simply assert such a notion, as you do, is decidedly unjustified.
Quote:
There may well be a God. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" answer that, only then it would be settled.
Well, if you can produce some evidence that a "nothing" can even exist in the first place, I am happy to entertain such a question. At this point, however, your question is assuming the latter condition of "nothing" is a viable option.
it seems if anything has a chance of being "eternal" at all, that eternal thing has to include the concept we call "existence" itself, which, by definition negates any possibility that such a "nothing" could be possible other than as a fictional human concept. It is a violation of the definition of "nothing", for example, to insist your eternal god exists along side it, or within it, or outside this "nothing," is it not? So tell me how can "nothing" ever describe the state of everything in either a theistic or atheistic view? Is not this question merely ill-formed?
You are implying that some kind of thinking being was needed for the big bang to happen (and thus the universe). That's definitely an unproven assertion at this point in human knowledge, and to simply assert such a notion, as you do, is decidedly unjustified.
Well, if you can produce some evidence that a "nothing" can even exist in the first place, I am happy to entertain such a question. At this point, however, your question is assuming the latter condition of "nothing" is a viable option.
it seems if anything has a chance of being "eternal" at all, that eternal thing has to include the concept we call "existence" itself, which, by definition negates any possibility that such a "nothing" could be possible other than as a fictional human concept. It is a violation of the definition of "nothing", for example, to insist your eternal god exists along side it, or within it, or outside this "nothing," is it not? So tell me how can "nothing" ever describe the state of everything in either a theistic or atheistic view? Is not this question merely ill-formed?
I'm not saying there is a god. All I did was pose a question that really no one knows, not even Sir Hawking. And it is justified, because its been pondering humans for tens of thousands of years. "Thinking" not really, maybe. God, The traditional God or of one we have no concept of?
Obviously, it appears, nothing exists because we know something exists, but why? Einstein thought the universe was infinite, but using his equations it was found that it is finite. Soon after the big bang theory came along causing a big uproar and appeared to give creationist ammo. Now it seems popular belief is the big bang derived from------------------------nothing. That is why I posed the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" because I have no idea. But the answer could be very complex or it might be the simplest of all equations, which often times is the right answer.
I'm not saying there is a god. All I did was pose a question that really know one knows, not even Sir Hawking. And it is justified, because its been pondering humans for tens of thousands of years. "Thinking" not really, maybe. God, The traditional God or of one we have no concept of?
Obviously, it appears, nothing exists because we know something exists, but why? Einstein thought the universe was infinite, but using his equations it was found that it is finite. Soon after the big bang theory came along causing a big uproar and appeared to give creationist ammo. Now it seems popular belief is the big bang derived from------------------------nothing. That is why I posed the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" because I have no idea. But the answer could be very complex or it might be the simplest of all equations, which often times is the right answer.
These are questions we can't answer and maybe never will. 'We don't know' would be fine and an end of the matter were it not that the god believers leap in as though this was an admission that God mustha dunnit.
This is obviously nonsense, but it doesn't seem that way to the believers- we know exactly how they think.
'God's existence is Fact until you disprove His existence'. That is not the way it works, but you just cannot get theists out of this mindset. I cannot tell you how often I have seen a theiopologetic argument beginning
"Let us begin from the premise that God exists..." I respond with 'Why should we?'
'Why shouldn't we?'
'Because there is no evidence for it.'
'Yes there is - if not God, who made everything then, Eh?'
And if you then say 'We don't know'. They really believe they have proven that God exists..
I'm not saying there is a god. All I did was pose a question that really no one knows, not even Sir Hawking. And it is justified, because its been pondering humans for tens of thousands of years. "Thinking" not really, maybe. God, The traditional God or of one we have no concept of?
Actually, I don't think it is all that justified. I brought this up in another thread, but I'll reiterate it here in short form, if I can.
There are a lot of things a rational adult does not believe in and, in fact, would categorically deny the existence of. Santa Clause is one such example as would be the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.
And those rational adults aren't sitting around saying "no one really knows" if there's an Easter Bunny or not, so the concept is valid. No, they simply say, "There is no such thing as the Easter Bunny."
While sure, we can wax philosophical on this matter and claim there could be an Easter Bunny out there somewhere; we could throw around the claim that an infinite universe would make the existence of an Easter Bunny a certainty. But in our day-to-day lives, our day-to-day thinking, we are not afraid to patently reject the idea that the Easter Bunny exists and he is hopping along laying colored eggs and hiding baskets of candy for children to find.
And while there is no more evidence for God than there is the Easter Bunny, many people seem almost afraid and timid to actually say there is no god. Few people can patently reject the existence of god in the same way we can so easily reject the Easter Bunny.
People caught in this limbo called "agnosticism" should really ask themselves why they sit on the fence about the existence of gods but not about other "unknowable" things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
Obviously, it appears, nothing exists because we know something exists, but why? Einstein thought the universe was infinite, but using his equations it was found that it is finite. Soon after the big bang theory came along causing a big uproar and appeared to give creationist ammo. Now it seems popular belief is the big bang derived from------------------------nothing. That is why I posed the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" because I have no idea. But the answer could be very complex or it might be the simplest of all equations, which often times is the right answer.
Does there have to be a "why?" There has to be a "how," certainly. But a "why" presupposes a purpose, and a purpose can only exist if there is a mind behind it all. And there's just no reason to think there is; not knowing the answer to something is not a good enough reason to start considering deities and supernatural creatures and things that are unknowable and always will be.
Claiming that there is - or might be - a god is simply explaining one unknown with another unknown.
Actually, I don't think it is all that justified. I brought this up in another thread, but I'll reiterate it here in short form, if I can.
There are a lot of things a rational adult does not believe in and, in fact, would categorically deny the existence of. Santa Clause is one such example as would be the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny.
And those rational adults aren't sitting around saying "no one really knows" if there's an Easter Bunny or not, so the concept is valid. No, they simply say, "There is no such thing as the Easter Bunny."
While sure, we can wax philosophical on this matter and claim there could be an Easter Bunny out there somewhere; we could throw around the claim that an infinite universe would make the existence of an Easter Bunny a certainty. But in our day-to-day lives, our day-to-day thinking, we are not afraid to patently reject the idea that the Easter Bunny exists and he is hopping along laying colored eggs and hiding baskets of candy for children to find.
And while there is no more evidence for God than there is the Easter Bunny, many people seem almost afraid and timid to actually say there is no god. Few people can patently reject the existence of god in the same way we can so easily reject the Easter Bunny.
People caught in this limbo called "agnosticism" should really ask themselves why they sit on the fence about the existence of gods but not about other "unknowable" things.
Does there have to be a "why?" There has to be a "how," certainly. But a "why" presupposes a purpose, and a purpose can only exist if there is a mind behind it all. And there's just no reason to think there is; not knowing the answer to something is not a good enough reason to start considering deities and supernatural creatures and things that are unknowable and always will be.
Claiming that there is - or might be - a god is simply explaining one unknown with another unknown.
To equate the easter bunny and Santa Clause as akin to God is not a good comparison. Most know those are fictional. But God? Not so fast. Whether God exists or not, the perception of a god is ingrained in every culture on earth, be it relatively new or ancient. This concept built cities, empires and universities and cultures. So, to dismiss or equate god as the tooth fairy is not fair. I don't mean that God exists but that mankind seems to be hardwired for it, and perhaps for a reason we just have not grasped yet. It could be man's desire for answers and God fit nicely. It could be man's desires for power etc. But for sure its much more complex, I believe, than the face of a hardwired god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
