Atheists what is your proof?

[science man]

Beyond inflationary cosmology? P-Branes? There are plenty "atheistic" explanations - though I would simply call them "scientific" - they are as valid to the theist as they are the atheist.

Such as what? the one Alex said?

Do you think that atheists claim the theory of evolution applies to other than living organisms?

An atheistic explanation for the birth of the universe might be a random quantum fluctuation triggering off 10e-33 seconds of hyperinflation, followed by 13.7 billion years of slower expansion.

Nothing to do with evolution, so I fail to see your point.

I'm not a physics major yet so I don't understand scientifically what that means, but I do understand the rough idea of it and think it's ridiculous. what are the other explanations?

 

[AlexG]

Although if something exists beyond the realm of physical existence, there can't be evidence for it either. That doesn't mean it is any less real, it's just not part of our reality. It's as much a philosophical point as any, but a legitimate point nonetheless.

Spoken like a true liberal arts major.

Physical reality is what there is. There is no unphysical reality.

 

[AlexG]

Such as what? the one Alex said?


I'm not a physics major yet so I don't understand scientifically what that means, but I do understand the rough idea of it and think it's ridiculous. what are the other explanations?

Yes, it's obvious you know nothing about physics, and so I would question your use of the word 'yet'.

So you think that The Big Magician In The Sky is less ridiculous?

 

[gmilam]

Spoken like a true liberal arts major.

Physical reality is what there is. There is no unphysical reality.

Not to mention that I've met a fair number of people who have claimed to have deep "spiritual" experiences after ingesting various "mind-altering" substances... Which, obviously, must be a chemical/physical reaction in their brain.

Which leads me to suspect that most, if not all, "spiritual" experiences must be rooted in the physical realm of the brain.

 

[SolusCado]

If God acts at all to change this world, those actions take place in time. Even a God who's existence is largely "out of time" (a non-sensical concept, but I will indulge you), his effects must be measurable. If he alters things via a kind of butterfly effect, in which he simply alters a quantum event in a non-detectable way, the power of his actions must therefore be limited. There is only so much one can change in this manner. That makes him less than omnipotent.

You're still not getting it. The very nature of "alterations" involve a point-in-time change. "Creation" encompasses all of time, so any "changes" are simply part of the initial creation; i.e. no change at all.

 

[SolusCado]

Spoken like a true liberal arts major.

Physical reality is what there is. There is no unphysical reality.

Ah, but that is the premise of religion - that there is in fact a spritual reality not part of our physical reality. If you are going to discuss the likelihood of a God, you have to accept that premise as part of the discussion. It would be like trying to discuss the color of the sky without acknowledging the existence of the sky.

 

[science man]

Yes, it's obvious you know nothing about physics, and so I would question your use of the word 'yet'.

So you think that The Big Magician In The Sky is less ridiculous?

fine I'll return when I know the physics to understand the argument scientifically.
Goodbye for now.

 

[spidergoat]

That implies a clockwork (deterministic) universe, which we now know isn't the case. What this means is that given the same initial conditions, the conditions you are suggesting God set in motion, the outcome cannot be predicted. Set it all in motion again and it will come out differently. That means he didn't know humans would be the result of his actions.

 

[AlexG]

Ah, but that is the premise of religion - that there is in fact a spritual reality not part of our physical reality. If you are going to discuss the likelihood of a God, you have to accept that premise as part of the discussion. It would be like trying to discuss the color of the sky without acknowledging the existence of the sky.

Then it follows that by failing to accept the existence of any non-physical reality (an oxymoron if I ever heard one), I am failing to accept the existence of god.

 

[SolusCado]

That implies a clockwork (deterministic) universe, which we now know isn't the case. What this means is that given the same initial conditions, the conditions you are suggesting God set in motion, the outcome cannot be predicted. Set it all in motion again and it will come out differently. That means he didn't know humans would be the result of his actions.

Your mind is still restricted to a flow of time that is NOT the case. Read up on Einstein/Minkowski spacetime, time cones, relativity, etc.

 

[SolusCado]

Then it follows that by failing to accept the existence of any non-physical reality (an oxymoron if I ever heard one), I am failing to accept the existence of god.

Yes, of course. This probably applies to 99.9% of atheists. Hell, I would say it is the crux of the disagreement with atheists and theists.

And incidentally, if I could not accept a non-physical reality I too would not accept the idea of God.

 

[glaucon]

So why do you assert there is no evidence for God?

Because none has been discovered.

I want to know how you know there is no evidence.

I never said I know that. You seriously need to learn to read.

If I say; "there is no moose behind this door", then there must
be some reason why I say it.

Of course.

Relevance??

But yet it does.

No; it does not.

And that is all that is being used to deny existence.

Incorrect.

Hence modern atheism is built on a lie.

ibid

Only if that part claims to know that God exists.

True.

Yet claiming to know, and claiming to believe, is lumped in
the same basket.

Not by me (obviously).

Another dishonest tactic.

Incorrect again.
As noted above, it is the rational course to take.

 

[spidergoat]

Your mind is still restricted to a flow of time that is NOT the case. Read up on Einstein/Minkowski spacetime, time cones, relativity, etc.

None of which supports magical thinking. Modern physics supports the atheist position.

 

[Pinwheel]

My proof is in my other coat.

 

[SolusCado]

None of which supports magical thinking. Modern physics supports the atheist position.

Dude, don't drop into rhetoric now. You're almost there. We were just starting to get somewhere. Look back at what we were talking about last - a deterministic universe, quantum indeterminacy, and Einstein/Minkowski spacetime. Now, whether you like it or not, spacetime (and special relativity) reveal a universe in which the future already exists, along with the past and the present. There is no change. There is no unfolding of time. There is no deterministic universe. That very notion is rooted in a Newtonian understanding of time (even though it encompasses an Einsteinian understanding of space). Now, I'm going through this subject with jpappl right now over at "What is your belief regarding the existence of "God"?". If you would like to understand what I am talking about, I encourage you to engage in that thread as well. If you DON'T want to understand what I am talking about, and prefer to just hide behind rhetoric, be my guest.

 

[spidergoat]

I think you are the one that sank into rhetoric through a vague reference to advanced physics. If God is not in our reference frame, then he can't affect events in it. If he is and does, then there is a difference between a frame with or without him, making the premise at least theoretically testable.

 

[SolusCado]

I think you are the one that sank into rhetoric through a vague reference to advanced physics. If God is not in our reference frame, then he can't affect events in it. If he is and does, then there is a difference between a frame with or without him, making the premise at least theoretically testable.

Again, I refer you to that other thread. Jpappl and I are already well into this subject. It was not my intention to provide a vague reference to anything; it is a subject matter with which I truly thought most atheists on this forum would already be familiar.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yes.

Excellent. In this case a refutation is that the act of creating means there are two notable moments of difference. Before the creation and after the creation. God could not have created space-time as it requires time to have two or more moments.

Well done! You are my new favorite contributor to these forums. This is so much better than trying to exploit semantics just to "win" an argument.

I would submit that it doesn't need to be in your mind to be the truth. Truth = Reality.

I would have to ask two questions about this:

1) If Truth = Reality then why have two different words?
2) If Truth = Reality then the opposite of Truth is non-Reality. What qualifies as non-reality?

Yeah, close enough. I tend to think of evidence in terms of the scientific method, so any demonstration to support and idea is how I would phrase it.

I am a-ok with that.

As in, atheism is the refusal to accept that theism matches reality? Hmm... I'm not sure if I would agree with that. I tend to think of a-belief as anti-belief... to believe the opposite.

One way to better understand this is you hear a rumor that you really care about. You don't know if it's true or not true. You are not likely going to believe it or disbelieve it. More than likely you will neither believe or disbelieve (i.e. suspend judgment) until there is more info.

I think that definition actually applies to the word insanity.

Hahahaha. You would be surprised how much immutable belief any person really has... which could also mean everyone is technically insane .

Yes, the latter - but, to use the definitions above, it is a gap belief. As the bounds change based on scientific understanding, so too does my position for God. "He" is always "out of bounds"., regardless of what those bounds may be.

That would ultimately lead to the position that there is some super-entity outside of reality that has zero interaction with it. It becomes rather silly at that point. The more details / interactions you take away from it, the less effective it becomes.

 

[SolusCado]

Excellent. In this case a refutation is that the act of creating means there are two notable moments of difference. Before the creation and after the creation. God could not have created space-time as it requires time to have two or more moments.

You are simply applying your (and mine) limited comprehension to a dimension where it doesn't apply.

I would have to ask two questions about this:

1) If Truth = Reality then why have two different words?

I don't know - why do we have synonyms at all?

2) If Truth = Reality then the opposite of Truth is non-Reality. What qualifies as non-reality?

In that anything that isn't true isn't real, I would agree. So, in that respect, "non-reality" is imagination, lies, etc. Things that aren't real.

One way to better understand this is you hear a rumor that you really care about. You don't know if it's true or not true. You are not likely going to believe it or disbelieve it. More than likely you will neither believe or disbelieve (i.e. suspend judgment) until there is more info.

aka Agnostisicm.

Hahahaha. You would be surprised how much immutable belief any person really has... which could also mean everyone is technically insane .

I don't actually disagree with that. How do any one of us KNOW that any one of the next of us is actually real? How do I know I'm real? Is it by virtue of my consciousness? What if I am a brain in a jar?

That would ultimately lead to the position that there is some super-entity outside of reality that has zero interaction with it. It becomes rather silly at that point. The more details / interactions you take away from it, the less effective it becomes.

Only in a sense. I have been trying to describe to both jpappl and spidergoat the manner in which time is integrated into our universe, and it is such that the very term "interact" loses meaning when talking about God. He created the entirety of time, past/present/future in "an instant" so any "interaction" is simply part of the initial creation. Regarding the question of effectiveness, I would have to ask you what that means? (To be "effective" indicates having an effect on something - what is that something we are talking about here?)

 

[Jan Ardena]

glaucon,

So why do you assert there is no evidence for God?

Because none has been discovered.

You're wasting time

I want to know how you know there is no evidence.

I never said I know that. You seriously need to learn to read.

You must know what would constitute evidence of God, if you assert
no evidence has been discovered.

If I say; "there is no moose behind this door", then there must
be some reason why I say it.

Relevance??

So what is the reason behind the assertion 'no evidence has been discovered', if you have no idea of what would constitute evidence?

As noted above, it is the rational course to take.

What is this "rational course" based on, if it has no idea of what the evidence
would be?

Isn't this "rational course" nothing but personal belief?


jan.