God doesn't seem to exist!

Post Reply New Topic

Why, thank you kindly

These debates about God are, if nothing else, both illuminating and entertaining, even though we often cover ground that has been covered countless times before.

Yes, I've often wondered how anyone can seriously take the proposition that something could create itself. In order for it to do so it would have to pre-exist itself in time, but you encounter a double problem when you try to ascribe this capacity to the universe itself, because not only is such a thing impossible from the purely naturalistic perspective of what it means for something to be the effect of a cause, but we are incessantly told by modern-day cosmologists that time itself did not exist "prior" (if that term even has any meaning absent the existence of time) the universe.

It just doesn't make any sense, on any level.

Thank you

I don't know why my other post above appeared twice. Very strange

No, I really do not think so. When people are in distress and they cry out to God, they really mean it. Why wouldn't they? Besides, when asked afterwards (ex. in documentaries I've seen about, for example, air crash investigations) they never deny they really did appeal to God for help. It isn't just "frustration", or "a figure of speech", although you can tell yourself this if it makes you feel better about your atheism

No, they don't actually. See: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-a ... -are-they/

Besides, when you say they do so 'for the hell of it', you are ascribing both agency and free will to an otherwise purposeless and blind process according to the naturalistic paradigm.

atheism is a religion like not playing tennis is a sport.

I'm sure it's not the first time you hear is, but it bears repeating: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dimissed without evidence.




No it isn't. Atheism answers the question "do you believe X?", and Agnosticism answers the question "do you know X?"

Also, there are two definitions of Agnosticism: one states that a thing isn't known, the other that the thing cannot be known. Neither of those pertain to belief.


[/quote]

True, but a question of degrees. "I met your friend Steve at the store yesterday" I might say, and you reply "That's absurd, Steve hates stores!". There are a few steps I could take to demonstrate that Steve was indeed at the store, and that I met him there, so an extraordinary claim of this particular magnitude being true organically brings with it evidence that is equally extraordinary. Now apply the same to "I met your friend Steve yesterday" -> "That's absurd, he was publicly executed three days ago.".

Yair, well, there's plenty of evidence to dismiss the claims of the Materialist/Atheist lobby but I guess what you're saying in a roundabout way is that evidence doesn't count.
Yes. The hard definition of Agnosticism is that one can't know anything but what you can touch, taste, smell, hear, see. Even then it is claimed that all such senses are completely relative and subjective. It boils down to an absurd proposition: The only thing you can know is that you can't know anything.

Atheism declares that it can/does know that no supreme being exists, summarily dismissing any evidence to the contrary. As such it falls squarely inside the faith, belief system, superstition, religion courtyard.

"It just doesn't make sense....." This is because you are not looking at the problem correctly. Take the origin of life for example, no one that I know of (except those who are intransigent in their belief that God created life) would ever suggest that life just happened, that life forms spontaneously erupted complete and functional. Lintar, I suggest you take a look at the latest advances in Origin of Life science, it is truly fascinating. Nearly all the required steps have been shown to be chemically and minerally possible, admittedly there is not as yet, one hypotheses that has all the components, but surely by this stage in our development of knowledge, people realise that not fully understanding something, does not equate to God did it. The basic ingredients are all there, lipids forming Amphiphile cell like structures, peptides and other molecules have been grown, RNA strands have been put together, plausible scenarios have been formulated and in some cases proven possible via experiment which show how delicate molecules can be formed and survive the primordial conditions. Precursors to RNA have been shown to be plausible and experiments are under way to see if this can be observed. The question of life is both a top down and bottom up problem. From what I have read it will likely be that metabolism comes first followed by simple forms of genetics leading first to RNAand then DNA. Rather than a spontaneous event, life most likely evolved through a number of steps from organic chemistry gradually becoming Biology. It really is looking more and more likely that the requirement for God in origins of life study is redundant.

Spare yourself and us, Arty. We already know that the "correct" way to look at the "problem" is via the assumptions of religious Materialism. However, some of us are constrained by observations of reality. That many organic molecules can be synthesised with cleverly contrived apparatus and input of energy does not indicate that any such processes can, or do, spontaneously occur outside of cleverly contrived apparatus and reaction conditions.

Fanciful speculations do not alter the natural laws.

And WHERE did THEY originate?
You know, them basic ingredients...
Not a god believer me, just wondering like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis got nothing to do with it. I'm not interested in the origins of life. And these days I only have a passing interest in the origins of the universe. This NEED TO KNOW has passed me by. Suppose I'm not that much of an OCD'er after all. Unlike so many...

I apologize if my earlier post was slightly rushed; I realized halfway through that I was late for work.

Very cute. Tell me, why do you not have to justify your rejection of the myriad of gods humankind have conjured up though the ages, but I have to justify my rejection of your particular ones claims, or accept him by default? If holy texts have any claim to be revealed truths, then there are much more impressive ones out there.


But just out of curiosity, what would this plethora of evidence be?




I'm glad I get to be told what my position is by someone in the opposite camp. Thank you. As for this quote; even if that were true, you realize, of course, that you're asking me to prove a negative? "Evidence to the contrary of "no supreme being exists""? Are you familiar with the term "null hypothesis"? It's what yours is not.


Not entirely. The point I was trying to make before was that an extraordinary event (we both know what I mean by that, don't be obtuse) that actually happened would indeed leave extraordinary evidence behind. A volcano eruption may be more common in some places than in others, but I don't think there's anywhere it would be considered an everyday occurence. Also, they tend to be hard to miss, and leave evidence of their happening behind. Snowfall can happen in the middle of summer. Not ordinary, and leaves evidence. Small animals falling from the sky? Extraordinary, leaves evidence, can be explained.



I'm sure that said cleverly contrived apparatus being cleverly contrived to contrive the conditions of ancient earth, under which said processes are "fancifully speculated" to have taken place, is entirely irrelevant?

Yes, I for one, understand what 'you' mean.

'Where did the ingredients for

life actually originate'.

It depends on who one asks.

Some years, Stephen Hawking credits

GOD and some years he credits nothing.

Einstein, back in 'the day'
credits EVERYTHING,
like Spinoza does too..

For now, some scientists suggest the answer is nothing.

For me that's like raising one's arms up in the air and just
giving up; or the height of material reductionism to the point of

NOTHING.

or

LOONY.

or

NOTHING=LOONY.

Who knows what the next theory will be:

The best answer according to science IS:

The answer
varies in distance
and space in the
'wheel chairs'
of
so-called
scientific
BRILLIANCE.

I FOR one am
not impressed
with NOTHING.

THAT'S; OMG, LOONY!

Dinosaurs would giggle
if they are alive and can
Giggle; that's loony; but
at least its worth a LAUGH..

SCIENCE can be LOONY; AS
the scientific method alone
is just a tool, with NO BRAIN.

You and Guzzle both quoted the answer I gave (from a wiki). What exactly is wrong with that answer?