Why atheism is almost certainly true.
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.
@Dan define God.
I'm a deist so I don't have the conventional theist view of God.
God is the creator of the universe. I can't give you much more of a definition than that, because there is little we know about him. He maybe them for example.
We can't attribute powers like Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence to God, because we have no evidence that God has these powers. All we know is he was powerful enough to create the universe.
"God is the creator of the universe. I can't give you much more of a definition than that, because there is little we know about him."
You know absolutely nothing from that about what you choose to call god. All you've offered there is a bare unevidenced claim.
"All we know is he was powerful enough to create the universe."
You need to change the word we to I, and the word know to believe before that sentence ceases to be risible hubris.
Dan: So you believe in something that you know nothing about, that you can not attribute any powers to and even though you know nothing about it or any powers that it may or may not have, you assert that it is a WHO, the creator of the universe and male. (And for some reason you think this is not frigging crazy.)
@Dan
We been over this before, is is very misleading and confusing to say "god is creator of the universe." And then follow it up with with know nothing about HIM. and then state we do not know it's attributes eithir, take away the 3 O's and you step even further away from the commonly accepted definition of god.
You just made the god concept infinitely broad and "washed out" in meaning, to the point it is near meaningless. It is almost like saying: "I believe in purple." it is a near meangliness statement that at best creates confusion.
You would be much better off saying: "I believe there was something before the big bang." And then follow up that with "I am an atheist." That would actually define your current thoughts on the actual subject at hand much better.
It is also interesting you feel a need to share your particular special abnormal definition of god here on an atheist board. If you simply stated: "I believe in the possibility that there was possibly something before the big bang but I know nothing about it, you will likely find a lot more agrees and maybe even make a few atheist friends here, as that is actually fairly similar to where, at least this particular atheist stands; I too think their is a possibility of something that preceded the big bang, I just accurately do not describe the possible something we know about as any sort of "god/him."
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ 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. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
So he created the universe from nothing and existed in nothing?
Does he have a body and brain? Is God immaterial (made of no matter, no energy, incorporeal)? Your definition of God sounds like the definition of an alien almost.
Well the universe appears to be eternal outside time yet also designed. I guess that must make God eternal outside of time too. What was the universe made from, it could be:
1. In the beginning there was God and he made the universe from himself
2. In the beginning there was God and some matter and he made the universe from matter
3. In the beginning there was God and he created the universe from nothing
No 1 is Occam's Razor. No 3 is not possible.
I think God is material. He would be quite alien to us.
WTF are you talking about DAN?
What makes you think you can say anything about anything outside of time if there is such a thing. "The universe appears to be eternal outside of time." You seem to be high on peyote.
In the beginning there was God. (Insert Occam's Razor Here for all three of your inane examples.) The God hypothesis is not only unnecessary but it is the least possible of all possible things you could possibly blindly stick at the beginning of the universe. "Magic done it. A flying magical being who can waggle his fingers and create a universe." This is just moronic.
FYI: You do not understand Occam's Razor.
Time must have a start, else an actual infinity of seconds has past which is impossible.
Or imagine an eternal being; he would have no start in time so could never exist. Being is possible we therefore conclude Eternal is not (imagine if your moment of birth was removed somehow, would you still exist?). So time must have a start.
If time has a start then:
1. Assume only now exists (Presentism)
2. So before the start of time there was nothing
3. But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
4. So more than only now exists
5. IE Eternalism is true
That is in agreement with Einstein's work. You doubt that?
We then consider the fact that the only place in the universe you can get enough matter/energy for the big bang is the big crunch. So time must be a circle, with the big bang / big crunch coinciding.
That's such an Occam's Razor design for the universe. Put yourself in God's shoes, you want to build a universe, this is the obvious design to use. It's the only workable design that supports life after death. So I think it's likely that the universe is designed. Especially when you take into account all the other evidence for fine-tuning of the universe.
@ Dan
And you called me a "stupid person"?
rmfr
DAN: "Time must have a start, else an actual infinity of seconds has past which is impossible."
NO - Please prove your assertion. You are confusing our universal time with the cosmos. You can say nothing at all about anything at all outside of our universe.
"IMAGINE" is your operative word. YOU ARE NOT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL. YOU ARE "IMAGINING AND THEN DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM YOUR IMAGINATIONS." STOP!!!!!!!
1. Assume only now exists (Presentism)
2. So before the start of time there was nothing *how in the fuck do you get to #2. YOU CAN SAY NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING "BEFORE TIME." YOU CAN NOT PROVE THERE IS ANYTHING CALLED NOTHING. IF NOTHING EXISTED AT ALL WE WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE A PART OF IT. If there is nothing it must include everything else it is not actually nothing but a place where things exist. YOU MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL.
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND OCCAM'S RAZOR. You have already demonstrated that.
Occam's Razors "design for the universe/" WTF??? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND?
Well I already proved infinity does not exist. So negative infinity does not exist. And negative infinity is exactly like eternity:
{ ..., -4, -3, -2, -1 }
{ ..., 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 }
Nether have a start. IE they are partially defined. IE not defined. Neither are logically possible HENCE time must have a start.
@ Dan
Actually, you have not proven infinity does not exist.
Additionally, if you believe in eternal and eternity, then you also believe in infinity. What do you think eternal and eternity mean?
"HENCE time must have a start" And only you believe that horse hoowhee. In actuality, "time" does not even exist. "Time" is a concept created by man in which to measure the passage of events/occurrences. Just like that other one who claims DNA is a code.
rmfr
Eternal has two meanings dude:
- Eternal in time. Requires Actual Infinity. Impossible.
- Eternal outside time. Does not require infinity. This is what the universe is (and God is if he exists)
@ Dan
And I already told you are completely wrong in those definitions. "Time" itself does not exist. It is a concept created by man for our understanding. The true definition of "eternal/eternity":
And since "time" is only a concept and does not truly exist, there is no such thing as "outside of time."
You are beginning to look so dense that a neutron star appears light and fluffy by comparison (Thanks Tin-Man).
rmfr
Time is fundamental to the universe. The speed of light speed limit (speed = distance / TIME) is obeyed by every particle in the universe and exists independently of change. To be a normally functioning universe, a speed limit is required. Else it's possible to accelerate objects to infinite velocity and thus straight out of the universe. So time is not emergent; it is fundamental to the universe.
If reality is somehow a simulation, the this argument relates to ‘base reality’ time rather than system time.
@ Dan
TIME is NOT fundamental to the universe. It is a concept us humans conceived in order to better the universe. If you truly THINK CRITICALLY about it. You just might get it.
As for a speed limit being required, we are not totally sure that light speed is a limit. All we know for sure is that you cannot go AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. However, we could go faster. All the equations and formulas say we can go slower than the speed of light, we can go faster than the speed of light, we just cannot go AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT. And it would still be a normally functioning universe.
Time is an emergent concept created by humans. And to be honest with you, there is nothing "fundamental" about the universe. The universe just is. It is us humans who apply these "fundamental" properties to the universe for us to better understand it.
And why are you getting into the Matrix? What's that about?
rmfr
@Dan
"Eternal outside time."
If you do not have time, then you have nothing. And an eternity is not nothing.
I see another raft of claims, no attempt to demonstrate any objectife evidence for any of them though.
Hitchens's razor duly applied - slash. In the bin they go with all your other unevidenced assumptions.
If the universe is eternal then it needs no creator / wouldn't have one.
1. If he made the universe from himself then he existed in nothing. There's no evidence of nothing however so no evidence a God could have existed in nothing. If he is material are you suggesting he has a brain? Brains didn't come about until after the Big Bang and evolution, they evolved on planets. Something with a brain couldn't have created a universe. It would follow that something material without an intelligent brain created the universe.
2. So there was an infinite universe made of matter and an infinite God (if there was matter I would consider that to be a type of universe.) But how can something material with a brain be infinite? From what we understand about brains they only last a little over a hundred+ years. This goes against our scientific background knowledge.
3. Might be possible but extremely unlikely imo.
Yes I agree an eternal universe does not need a creator. The problem is that the eternal universe looks designed. So that leave a puzzle. The only way to square the two seems to be some sort of timeless creator. It sounds unlikely, but like Sherlock Holmes said, 'Once you've eliminated the probable, whats left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth'.
1. Can't get something from nothing and so something must of existed eternally. Plus the universe looks designed. Equals God existed eternally. God would dwell in base reality by so definition he would be material. We may not be material if the simulation hypothesis is correct. I think we can say he has a mind but not a brain. Really the problem is 'why is there something rather than nothing?'. There should be nothing logically. Something logic defying has happened. And it all looks designed.
2. Infinity does not exist. The universe is finite. God is finite.
3. Agreed.
@ Dan
You still have yet to provide any evidence to back this claim. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, please.
rmfr
In Dan's case you just don't need the EVI
@ Cog
"In Dan's case you just don't need the EVI"
And that the damn truth. LOL
rmfr
It looks designed (the universe)? What about it looks designed?
1) If God has no brain how can he be a higher intelligence? To be intelligent plus create really complex things like universes you'd need an advanced memory, advanced eyesight etc etc these things come from the brain. Saying God is a higher intelligence without a brain contradicts science and makes it look as though God doesn't exist. The mind likely comes from the brain because all other parts of reality come from the brain like memory, sight, hearing, etc, so it follows the mind does. Where does his mind exist? Is his mind immaterial? As the universe is here it makes sense, like Brian Cox says, that it is infinite/there is an infinite series of infinite universes. It what way does it look designed?
2. Aren't eternal and infinity the same thing? So nothing produced God. But like with anything - say Santa Claus - what evidence do you have for nothing?
V.S.
---------------------------------------------
Why can't you type more than a few sentences without contradicting yourself?
There are two meanings of the world eternal:
- Eternal in time. This is impossible because it requires actual infinity.
- Eternal outside of time. This is what the universe and God is.
@Dan
Anything that exists outside of time (or is not a function of time) can not change. Clearly the universe changes, and presumably god changes. So you just moved from one contradiction to another.
If you existed outside of time and were intelligent wouldn't you be frozen and unable to do anything?
@Strong Atheist
Right, because to do anything requires a change, and change requires time.
Pages