Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I know but you don't need the physical evidence for that to believe it, using deductive reasoning and logical argument you could just know it without having to see any evidence. Lol it doesn't take Einstein to figure that one out.
True, but the person claiming they have a great grandmother also has the advantage of possibly being able to prove it. And the ability to prove we all have mothers and fathers going back many many generations. A claim I have a great x4 grandmother is not just supported by deductive reasoning and logic.
Which makes this a very different argument then for a particular "god" idea. There is no "supporting" evidence for the various religion god concepts. Like there is supporting evidence for the claim that I have a great x4 grandmother. I can ask my mother about my birth, my wife and I can decide to have a kid, powerful pieces of evidence that I have a great grandmother supporting that I had a great x4 grandmother.
If we really wanted to play with this, there are people out there that have 2 mothers, (one mother that supplied the egg, another mother that carried the fertilized egg to term in her womb.) And their will be people out there that have 3 grandmothers, and 4 is possible.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@quantummechanist
"I know but you don't need the physical evidence for that to believe it, using deductive reasoning and logical argument you could just know it without having to see any evidence."
Here is a logical argument....
A god is the most powerful entity in the universe, created it and has complete control. This god desires worship, had prophets, been around for millennium, yet plays hide-and-seek. Why has this god not just revealed itself to all?
And .. you can argue anything into existence. But that does not mean that it is actually real.
Yes but you implied it was not possible to demonstrate physical empirical evidence for the existence of a great great great great grandmother.
My existence is definitive empirical evidence for her existence, I'd have thought that was axiomatic. You do know how humans reproduce don't you?
I think the type and amount of evidence should be commensurate with the likelihood of the assertion. In other words, no, a word salad is insufficient for providing evidence of the supernatural.
^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^
I have biology, genetics, pictures, court records, maybe relevant documents to support my ancestors. For your god you have absolutely zero.
"Do you agree that logical explanations can be definitive answers?"
No that's not how logic works, Something that is irrational is unlikely to be true, and something that is rational is therefore far more likely to be true, but it need not be definitive.
"you have no physical proof that your great great great great grandmother exists,"
She axiomatically does not exist, as she would need to be implausibly old to still exist.
"but logically and deductively you know that she did exist?"
Well the most compelling physical evidence is my own existence, so I have no idea why you think physical evidence doesn't exist as it does, and it is definitive. Also we need not rely on logic or deductive reasoning anyway. Accurate records have been kept for births and deaths in the UK for quite some time. There could be other types of objective evidence of course, depending on who she was. Most importantly no one is claiming anything approaching supernatural causation for her existence, and that is a deal breaker. Like most religious apologetics your analogy is very poorly reasoned.
Randomhero1982,
How do you know the universe created itself. Evidence please.
Alternately, how do you know the universe always existed. Evidence please.
You guys talk as if you have all the answers, but clearly you don't.
Null Brain, I have combed this thread. You are making a vapid claim about a non-existent post. WIFGDH are talking about?
rmfr
"Randomhero1982,
How do you know the universe created itself. Evidence please.
Alternately, how do you know the universe always existed. Evidence please."
So that is two requests for you to evidence two separate claims you have made, and your response is....
"You guys talk as if you have all the answers, but clearly you don't."
You're lies are not even remotely subtle, you're a dishonest clown making claims he cannot evidence.
Special pleading is a logical fallacy in which you must make an exception to your own criteria.
IE, something can't come from nothing, except the god I want to believe in, who must therefore break the 'something can't come from nothing' rule, which means something can come from nothing.
And attempting to do a work around with 'always there' 'eternal' ect doesn't change this. If something can't come from nothing then your god can't either. Either abandon the idea that something can't come from nothing or accept that it can. You can't have it both ways.
You are stuck with it and there is no way out of it.
And the idea that physics or any other branch of science supports the idea of any god much less your god in particular is wrong.
Also as I say: every religion tries this same thing, the logical fallacy of something from nothing 'except my god', and then concludes of course that this means "their" god must be real, not your god of course, only "their" god.
If a god is exempt from requiring a beginning, then maybe other things may also be exempt.
Does that make you think a bit more?
Sorry, no.
Pondering whether the cosmic microwave background has 'bruises" is the kind of stuff that stirs my synaptic activity.
blinknight,
1. I didn't say that something can't come from nothing. I asked for his evidence, and evidence is his criteria, not mine. Apparently, given the lack of evidence, you engage in "special pleading". Since I didn't say something can't come from nothing, there is nothing to abandon. Again, Where is the "evidence"? You guys always ask for "evidence" for the perspective of others, but decline to provide "evidence" for you own views.
2. "Logical fallacy": a) the conclusion, when using linear logic relies on the veracity of the premise. so even if one's logic is perfect, the premise and conclusion may be false. b) If one gives up linear reasoning, one can get reciprocal reasoning employed by the coherence theory of veracity. But even if a system of beliefs is coherent, the opposite is also coherent.
c) that means that logic, in either its linear, or reciprocal form, provides no guarantee of veracity. both forms still rely on faith/belief.
You seem to have an abiding faith in logic. Me too, but I am aware it provides no guarantee.
3. What I am stuck with is seeking your evidence so that I may consider it. For example, did the universe always exist, or did it create itself? Those are your options. Evidence please. "Evidence" is *your* criteria. And "special pleading" you offer doesn't get you out of it. In the absence of "evidence" for your view, other people may believe what they want to believe.
4. And what do you guys mean by "evidence" anyway? In an example above in this thread some have offered youtube videos as "evidence". Right. Anyone can find a video that suits their preconcieved ideas. Another implied "evidence" what you hear form other people. You guys have a lot of work to do before you come up with a viable criterion for truth.
"I genuinely cannot see whats funny."
What, ever? OK, well your lack of an apostrophe in the that sentence is pretty goddamn hilarious, if that helps at all.
"I genuinely cannot see whats funny. God has no beginning, what i'm saying is how can something that is proposed by scientists to have had a beginning (which is consistent with the laws of physics), how can that thing not have had a cause. That's why I go right back to the origin of the universe to explain why there must be a God."
You've explained nothing, merely pointed at a gap in our knowledge of how the universe originated, and inserted your deity into that gap. Now can you guess what that type of fallacious argument is called?
"the explanation of God is that he had no beginning and isn't bound by the laws of physics therefore it palpably makes sense"
Does explanation mean something different to Muslims? All you've done there is make a bare assertion. I could as easily say "the explanation of the universe is that it had no beginning, and isn't bound by the laws of physics therefore it palpably makes sense" It just changed it's form see. Since we're just making shit up, that's your nonsense kicked firmly into the gutter.
Check-fucking-mate, matey...and I didn't need to make up a BS religion, or persecute anyone, how d'you like them fucking apples.
Of course that is correct, it did come from something, but it is fallacious and unscientific to propose God did it.
You know that without causally proving that, or evidencing it, you are simply playing the god of the gaps fallacious card.
Who knows what was pre big bang? M Branes are something being investigated last time I read a journey, along with big bounce cosmology.
Still the evidence would suggest something within the universe was the initial cause and not some deity.
M- theory (as its name suggests) is a theory in physics, my argument proposes that there was a "time" before anything literally existed, so unless we assume that matter and hence the laws of physics always existed , then something other than physics must of been the cause.
@quantummechanist
"my argument proposes that there was a "time" before anything literally existed"
Do you understand that failed logic? If there was something before what you define as the beginning, then the "beginning" was not a beginning, just a point in time.
You must understand that if there is nothing, then time is part of that nothing. There would not be any time.
And that something is a God! FALLACY! This IS the GOD OF THE GAPS fallacy. It is an argument from ignorance. "I don't know therefore God." NO! You do not get to imagine a magical being into existence.
"my argument proposes that there was a "time" before anything literally existed, "
You don't know what literally means do you? Mohammed on a bike that's funny as fuck fair play.
---------------------------------------------------------
please, explain this God of gaps thing, i genuinely don't understand
we are all here to learn and inform please tell me.
God of the gaps is a term that describes a group of arguments for god's case that relies on the gaps of scientific knowledge today.
Basically a: "science does not know everything" like: what happened before the big bang, is space "infinite?" so religious apologist will base their arguments for their particular god idea in these "gaps" of scientific knowledge. Arguments not based on evidence, but lack of scientific finding/evidence to the contrary, and then try to insert their particular god idea (with no evidence) into these "openings" or "holes" in scientific finding.
It also highlights the fact, that 1000's of years ago human scientific knowledge was much more limited then it is today. People assigned lightning and thunder as "gods" anger. And later they were able to explain and understand this phenomenon as natural and how it works, no "god" explanation needed. The same with people sneezing, and thinking they need to dispel the bad spirits, as they did not understand tiny invisible to the naked eye and the bodies immune response is what is actually occuring.
Science has answered a lot of questions that used to be in the domain of: "because god." Now the field is much smaller, more like small pockets and "gaps" in human scientific understanding. Stuff we all take for granted today.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Of course that is true I firmly believe that science does answer most of our questions since the absolute beginning of the universe, but logically it can't explain itself before its existence itself had occurred to put it in simple terms before anything existed even elementary particles( quarks and leptons) before the big bang and before whatever caused that was. this God of the gaps thing seems to me to be a way of filling the gaps of a part of science we haven't yet understood. we do know with absolute certainty as i have mentioned before the universe had a beginning before the big bang had occurred, my point is that before science existed, (because it undoubtedly did have a beginning) science couldn't explain itself. so the "God of the gaps" argument is irrelevant in this case
@quantummechanist
Uh, no. We do not know that for absolute certainty, there is no consensus whatsoever on that conclusion, because we have no way to verify that, no way to test for it, everything that is observable spawned from the big bang, so we cannot, (at least with current tech,) observe what happened before the big bang.
Even you cannot make that claim with absolute certainty, without being foolish, making such a powerful broad claim with zero evidence is a fool's errand.
I do agree the human concept of science did have a beginning, roughly around the time people began to more concisely define the term "science" whenever that was in whichever language the concept started in.
This is a god of the gaps argument because, saying: there has to be a beginning, and something (your particular god idea) had to start it" is an argument that occurs outside of what is known in science (or anything else that relies on real, tangible evidence.)
You are not arguing: see?? lightning! That proves my god idea! Because even you know well what causes lightning, how it works and why it happens. An argument for god saying "lightning proves my god" would not be a god of the gaps argument because it is not a gap in scientific knowledge and understanding based on real testable, repeatable evidence.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
You do not get to assert an existence "Before Anything Existed." There is no such time or place that you can actually point to. We do not know that the universe had a beginning with "CERTAINTY." It may be an alteration of energy, mass and form just as when we die. What we do know about the origin of the universe is that "WE DON'T KNOW." That's why we have various hypothesis attempting to explain it. "The Steady State Theory" "The Plasma Theory." "Eternal Inflation Multiverse" "Oscillating Universe" "Digital Simulation" "Flat Hologram." Science builds models and models explain facts. WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING. NO CERTAINTY AT ALL/ YOU ARE WRONG.
Not even the BIG BANG theory gets you to a beginning. The Big Bang theory only gets you to the beginning of the expansion of the universe. Anything asserted before that is done so on speculation at this point.
SCIENCE COULDN'T EXPLAIN ITSELF???
This makes absolutely no sense at all. What do you think science is? It is not a noun. It is not a thing. It is a method of inquiry developed over thousands of years that is based on the observable and factual world around us. Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
When you say "It can't explain itself" are you asserting that we can not explain why we do this? We do it because it works. We do it because it has put men on the moon, cured diseases, given us cell phones and computers and made our lives better. Isn't that explanation enough? What in the hell are you talking about "science can not explain itself." That makes as much sense as saying "A rock can not explain itself."
Science explains itself as the systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses based on testing results.
Of course it can, if i said wrong I do apologise, I said it cannot explain itself before its actual existence, and yes it did has a beginning.
Pages