Now before you all jump me with insults and venom, hear me out...
I know i've gotten on the nerves of a couple of atheists on this site and for that, I'm truly sorry. It's not really the impression I was trying to make. I'm just a guy who loves a good lively argument and I may have been "trying too hard". Truth is, as much as most of you may not believe, I both do enjoy and learn from my interactions with atheists on this site. In fact, that is my main reason for this thread.
Now to the point: judging from the interactions i've had here, i think a lot of you guys feel that concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics do not apply beyond the universe. My question is, if that's the case, why do you guys use earthly science as a basis for accepting or entertaining the idea of a source?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@ reedemption
Time is one discipline scientists are attempting to come to grips with and reach a better understanding. In evaluating"time", one other discipline that has a lot in common with 'time" is thermodynamics. And that is what a lot of scientists are examining in order to better understand what time is. Although I do not have advanced theoretical training, I get it.
But what the fuck does that have to do with whether a god exists or not?
In the academic world (which I have a passing fancy) these deep questions are examined, they know a heck of a lot more than anyone in this forum, theist or atheist. If they ran across any scientific evidence in their calculations for any deity, it would shake the foundations of the scientific community, and everyone would be immediately aware of such a major revelation.
So reedemption, unless you possess a PhD in particle physics or some similar discipline, just why the fuck are you attempting to prove a god in this forum?
If you can prove via scientific arguments for a god, go to the world of physics, debate with those better equipped to discuss such a subject, and collect your Nobel prize.
And if you can not do that, I am not interested in your games.
reedemption, you are conflating atheists requesting evidence and advanced theoretical concepts. Using your tactics will never win me over in this forum. But if you sway the scientific community to accept your propositions, I will be the first to fly to your home, shake your hand and offer the most sincere apology possible.
Reedemption: RE: "Now to the point: judging from the interactions i've had here, My question is, if that's the case, why do you guys use earthly science as a basis for accepting or entertaining the idea of a source?"
1. WTF - THE CONCEPTS DO NOT BELONG IN AN ATHEIST FORUM.. GO DEBATE COSMOLOGY. ATHEISTS ARE PEOPLE THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR GODS. NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID HAS ANYTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THIS FORUM.
2. RE: "I think a lot of you guys feel that concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics do not apply beyond the universe."
BEYOND THE UNIVERSE????? WHAT IN THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING BEYOND THE UNIVERSE? WHERE IS YOUR NOBEL PRIZE?
re: "My question is, if that's the case, why do you guys use earthly science as a basis for accepting or entertaining the idea of a source?"
YOU GOT SOMETHING BETTER? LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT IT. WHY DON'T YOU WRITE A BOOK. EARTHLY SCIENCE TAKES BULLSHIT OUT OF YOUR BRAIN AND TESTS IT. YOU CAN RATIONALIZE AND JUSTIFY ANYTHING IN A WARPED BRAIN. THE FLAT EARTHER'S DO IT, THE ALIEN ABDUCTEES DO IT, AND YOU ARE DOING IT AS WELL. YOU DON'T GET TO IMAGINE SHIT INTO EXISTENCE. IT'S JUST THAT FRIGGING SIMPLE. NOW GO CHAT ON A PHYSICS FORUM OR SAY SOMETHING THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.
@cognostic
Good post.
These posts have put me in mind of some of the Youtube videos from the crackpot fringe which have titles like; "Mysteries which science can't explain." The implicit assumption is that science should have an explanation for everything, which of course is nonsense. Worse, that it is a failure of science if it does not have an explanation of any specific question. Also nonsense . Imo all that such claims show is an ignorance of science--
Within the same ignorant mindset are some of the questions in this thread. Attempts to conflate atheism with with a broad variety of metaphysical and life positions.
Atheism is a lack of the existence of god(s). Period. It neither infers nor implies anything else.
Atheism is not a club nor a philosophy. Hence if I speak of my moral values., philosophical positions, political leanings, economic ideas or opinions on issues de jour, such as climate change, I AM NOT "SPEAKING AS AN ATHEIST" I am speaking only for myself.Period.
NOR does any atheist necessarily speak for me. Because this is a common interest forum, one tends to come across people with similar views. So far I have never come across anyone who shares. ALL of my views, nor I theirs. Not even close.
As for what do I want? A good start would to not be asked fatuous questions which show in the asking a complete misunderstanding, of atheism as I see it, I can't speak for other atheists .
@reedemption: "Now to the point: judging from the interactions i've had here, i think a lot of you guys feel that concepts like logic, entropy and thermodynamics do not apply beyond the universe. My question is, if that's the case, why do you guys use earthly science as a basis for accepting or entertaining the idea of a source?"
Seeking clarification: Can you explain how logic, entropy, and thermodynamics" apply beyond the Universe? Can you explain "beyond the Universe" in a way we can debate?
@Chimp 3: "Can you explain "beyond the Universe" in a way we can debate?"
You know, you just walk to the edge and then take one more step. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..... Not sure what your going to get for an answer from reedemption but I know it will be a load of crap. You wanna borrow my shovel?
@Reed Re: OP - "Ok, Atheists. What do you want?"
Oh, wow! Cool! It IS getting close to Christmas, so I supoose getting my wish-list sent out is a pretty good idea. Damn nice of you, Reed. Okay, so, in no particular order, here is what I want...
* An official Little Orphan Annie Secret Society decoder pin
* An inflatable donkey and a kiddie pool filled with lime jello (No questions asked)
* A two-tone Ricky Ricardo jacket and an autographed picture of Andy Devine
* A "Jesus Loves Me" dart board (the white Anglo Saxon Jesus variety)
* An ACME road runner trap
* A Wile E. Coyote tunnel painting set
* An Illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator
* A Poptart-flavored Eggo Waffle
Alrighty then. I think that about covers it. Look, I will understand if you can't get the space modulator. (I hear the government restrictions are making it difficult to obtain those now.) But the rest should be fairly straightforward. Again, mighty swell of you to do this, Reed. You're a pal!
(Now to go read the other responses...)
Tin, your post reminds me of a great song by one of my all-time favorite bands:
https://youtu.be/Fgjfi1DU1mQ
@ Cyber and TM
Well I think this song beats all....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI02_UJ1C6I
@Reed
Oh! One more thing. I almost forgot...
I WANNA ROCK!...
https://youtu.be/F4LYes4fH4Y
First of all, since logic is an abstract construct, it doesn't actually need a physical universe for its rules to apply. All that it needs is the existence of propositions with truth-values, and these are abstract entities. So on this basis alone, you think wrong.
As for the application of entropy and thermodynamics beyond the observable universe, this, again, is an active research topic in the field of cosmological physics, and as a corollary, the details thereof are questions remaining to be answered by said research. As an example of the sort of research being conducted, I point you to this paper, which covers the analysis of thermodynamics in a particular braneworld setup, and this paper, which covers a more general examination of the operation of thermodynamic laws in braneworld physical setups. Now if you can understand the contents of those papers, you're doing pretty well, because those papers are describing cutting edge cosmological physics research, which takes us well into the realm of branches of mathematics that are understood by, at best, less than 1% of the population. Tell me, can you handle the Ricci calculus in 26 dimensions? No? Neither can most of the posters here. Which is why we leave the requisite questions to those who can, and rely upon their expertise to answer them.
@reedemption...
Start by addressing this
https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/dishonesty-reedemptio...
I'm fairly sure not one atheist on this site has made any definitive claims to know what is possible and what is not possible, outside of the temporal condition of the physical universe we currently observe.
You're using the theists old one trick pony again, an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
If you want to understand the epistemological limits of our understanding of the origins of the universe, go to a scientific website that deals with those topics.
Pretending an "I don't know" answer from atheists is some sort of validation for your unevidenced superstitious beliefs is fallacious, and dishonest.
Because the idea of a source as theism would put forward, would imply that there is an outside to the universe.
It would have one consider the cosmos to be a vast glass box with some spiritual over lord watching and dictating from the outside.
Well, that is on you to meet the burden of proof.
Consider everything theism or prior to modern science has once answered in the past, i.e. the sun spins around earth, our planet is on a flat plane, global floods, miracles...……….
Every major claim by theism regarding reality, has been bent over by sciences motherly knee and spanked silly.
Personally I just dislike the language used in referring to an 'outside' of the universe.
Well, prove it.
@chimp3
You asked the right question. What we know is based strictly on our observations and experience of events, causes and effects within this present universe. Because of this, it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events and circumstances we find ourselves in relation to Him. Logic may apply to some extent, arithmetic may still be true to some extent. While we remain on earth however except by our experience, we don't have any other suitable means of getting to understanding of what we see as Truth.
@redemption
"You asked the right question. What we know is based strictly on our observations and experience of events, causes and effects within this present universe. Because of this, it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events and circumstances we find ourselves in relation to Him. Logic may apply to some extent, arithmetic may still be true to some extent. While we remain on earth however except by our experience, we don't have any other suitable means of getting to understanding of what we see as Truth."
If it is impossible to 'prove god' using any means, what should be our justification to believe such a being exists?
Obviously, personal testimony is completely unreliable, since it is subject to the fallibility of human senses and our mind's interpretation of them. And I'm sure you'd agree with this to some extent, since you reject the personal experiences people of other religions have with their gods, right?
So, if personal experiences can get you to the 'correct god', but get billions of other theists to the 'wrong god', then it is an unreliable method.
So, if what you say above is true, that your god cannot be proven using demonstrable evidence, and reasoned argument, I can only come to 2 conclusions:
1. Your god most likely does not exist
2. He is purposely remaining hidden from those of us that are familiar with: critical thinking, rational thought, the nature of GOOD evidence, the burden of proof.
Finally, all the lies and half truths fall away, and we're back to another religious apologists making completely unevidenced claims, based on the same anecdotal flim flam all apologists of all faths make.
They can't all be right, so what exactly can you demonstrate to make your anecdotal claim anymore compelling than Zeus or Apollo?
Even the dictionary definition of logic refutes that claim. Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, so arbitrarily limiting its validity to invoke an unevidenced deity from a bronze age superstition rather speaks for itself.
That experience alone is useless, unless we can demonstrate some objective evidence for it.
The sheer diversity of deities and religions humans have manufactured is ample testament to that. And it's impossible to believe one deity, or even one version of one deity, over another without using nothing but closed minded bias.
I'm often baffled that theists seem genuinely not to notice that deities humans create always reflect the time, geography and culture of the people creating them.
@Reedemption: The appeal to personal experience means nothing around here. If that is your criteria for believing something, you are also required to believe every stupid claim on the planet. Space aliens are real and they abduct trailer park women and impregnate them. Aliens built the pyramids. The earth is hollow and lizard people live in the core. Mermaids are real. Time travel is real and we have actual pictures of time travelers. Big Foot is alive and well and living in the forests around the world. If all you require is personal experience to believe in something, every frigging god on the planet is real. YOU HAVE NOT DISCOVERED A PATH TO KNOWLEDGE - INSTEAD - YOU ARE ABOUT AS IGNORANT AS A 5 YEAR OLD CHILD.
Logic applies to nothing. Logic without evidence is mental masturbation. There is no mathematical formula that has God for an answer.
RE: we don't have any other suitable means of getting to understanding of what we see as Truth.
You are out of your mind. WE HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. WE RIP THE STUPID IDEAS OUT OF YOUR HEAD AND WE TEST THEM AGAINST REALITY. WE MEASURE THEM. WE DO EXPERIMENTS. WE USE THEM TO PREDICT FUTURE EVENTS. AND THOSE STUPID IDEAS THAT DO NOT STAND AGAINST CRITICAL INQUIRY, EXPERIMENTATION AND EVALUATION ARE DISCARDED, THROWN AWAY, AND IGNORED - JUST LIKE YOUR INANE ASSERTIONS.
@chimp3
You asked the right question. What we know is based strictly on our observations and experience of events, causes and effects within this present universe. Because of this, it is impossible to prove God using any means. We can only know God when we experience Him through events and circumstances we find ourselves in relation to Him. Logic may apply to some extent, arithmetic may still be true to some extent. While we remain on earth however except by our experience, we don't have any other suitable means of getting to understanding of what we see as Truth.
@ Reedemption
So, we are finally back to "personal revelation". The last and only honest refuge of a theist.
Sorry Reedemption I don't take your word for it. I do not believe you, or the the god you say you experienced.
That is it. You have no evidence for your assertions.
Go home.
@reedemption
"What we know is based strictly on our observations and experience of events, causes and effects within this present universe. Because of this, it is impossible to prove God using any means."
So if your god can not be detected, what is the difference between your god and nothing?
If all the phenomena in the universe can be ascribed to explainable natural causes, what does your god do, where is your god, is it even acceptable to believe it exists?
One method in determining if one's statement carries any weight, just change one word to see it it still makes sense.
"Because of this, it is impossible to prove invisible farting unicorns using any means."
reedemption, does the above statement make sense, can it be accepted as anything but bunk? Because if you really think we can accept your claim that your god can not be proven, then you must accept the invisible farting unicorn thing too.
@reedemption: I did not ask you about god.
@Reedemption. You need to watch this video/
RELIGION MADE ME TALK LIKE AN IDIOT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr0O9aHW38&t=132s
That's true, but we can also infer upon the god hypothesis, what we understand of human nature.
Do humans make up myths in order to control behavior? Yes! (I.e. Santa with kids)
Do humans make up mythical deities to explain certain phenomena? Yes! (The Greek and roman gods, in regards to natural phenomena, such as thunder, earthquakes and so fourth.
Do humans tell lies in order to gain advantages? Yes!
Is it in our nature, our very biological make up, to do whatever necessary to gain resources and climb hierarchical structures? A resounding yes!
Now add to that... is there any causal link that is not explained by natural laws? So far, none! Not even close.
Is there any objective evidence of the supernatural? No.
This isn't rocket science...
@Calilasseia
@David Killens
@cranky47
Don't you think it's equally ridiculous to disprove God using logic, physics, chemistry etc? With these sciences, the best we can do in establishing facts is to project our present realities into the past or future so as to be able to make a meaning of our present realities. Thus, using my last sentence as basis:
1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause is impossible. This would mean either
a) Causes or effects don't exist (which by our experience is untrue)
b) Infinite regress of cause and effect is possible
c) We have a conflicting logic. An infinite regress of cause and effect is self contradictory because to take away the cause, no effect is possible or take away the effect and there is no cause. If there is no cause, others don't exist. Hence, unless the rule is broken at least once at the beginning with a First Cause can 1 and 2 hold.
If you feel another conclusion exists, be my guest.
@reedemption
"Don't you think it's equally ridiculous to disprove God using logic, physics, chemistry etc?"
Nice attempt at reversing the burden of proof. I don't have to do anything, you are the one making the god claim. I do not have to disprove anything, or offer any suggestions or opinion on how to it.
It all comes back to the claimant having to back up their assertions. I am not claiming a god does not exist, therefore I do not have to offer any proof on anything or method, or even if it is equally ridiculous to disprove God using logic, physics, chemistry etc.
edit: added "or opinion" second paragraph
@reedemption
Infinite regress.
I trashed that proposition, because as I was moving my finger to type in a letter, it moved half way to the keyboard in a set period of time. Then in half that preceding period of time, my finger moved half of what it did previously. Then in half that preceding period of time, my finger moved half of what it did previously. Then in half that preceding period of time, my finger moved half of what it did previously. Then .. darn it, my finger touched the key and a keystroke was entered and thus infinite regress is not valid as an argument.
How about when a photon in a super position of horizontal and vertical polarization is directed towards a filter that allows only vertical light to pass through, does the photon pass through or is the photon reflected?
There are no apparent hidden variables, so the outcome is a random choice.
@TheBlindWatchmaker
Right, I'm highly skeptical of postulate #1, essentially for the reason you gave.
@ reedemption
Its nice to see someone that understands the logic I have been presenting in the "Kalam" thread for about a week now. The conclusion I have come to realize is that they must accept the fact that contradictions can exist in order to believe an infinite regress is possible. As you have said, an infinite regress is contradictory by nature, and contradictions cannot exist. Just ask them to prove -- with empirical evidence -- that a square triangle exists at the same time and in the same form.
@reedemption
Why does logic need to disprove your belief? You can offer nothing to disprove, anymore than we can disprove invisible unicorns exist?
You're no yo yoing between unevidenced belief (by your own admission) and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to try and reverse the burden of proof. How an you trumpet logic then use known logical fallacies without ever acknowledging this?
This is rank dishonesty again, sorry.
You can demonstrate no evidence of a cause, offer no explanation of such a cause, and the leap from this assumption to your superstion's deity is is based on naught but blind faith in your experience being superior to all the other religious apologists who create deities in their thousands from Zeus to Jesus...
Again I ask, please demonstrate some objective evidence that the big bang was caused, then explain that cause accurately, based on objective evidence?
Then explain how a deity can exist forever, outside of time?
You have already stated definitively you can't do any of that, you're done reedemption. As usual your vapidxrhetoric has come to naught, and we have seen this identical nonsense peddled here innumerable times.
Pages