Is Atheism a Viable Worldview?

[Keramac]

Hey guys, back from my unofficial hiatus :P. So, what do you think, is atheism a viable worldview?

[moses2792796]

Some forms are intellectually valid, but most aren't. Same with religious worldviews.

[underdawg]

I am sure Atheism is just as viable as any other belief. I see nothing wrong with having any sort of personal belief, I just think that group beliefs "religion" is a bit screwy.

[Scorpion]

Interesting question. Given that most of the world's political structure includes religion, or recognition of religion but banishment of religious practice, I am going to say that atheism would limit ones global perspective.

Agnosticism would seem a much better alternative then atheism in that it allows for the possibility of a divine being without demanding recognition of that being.

[Labrocca]

Define "worldview".

[Buck Laser]

The problems begin to arise with militant atheists--or theists, for that matter. We're currently enjoying a crop of more or less militant atheist authors--Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitches, and many others. But there are also a great many who represent militant theism, from our own televangelists to militant Islam. Militancy, not belief or non-belief, is the danger.

[tony mitra]

Interseting comments, Buck Laser.

I have read Chis Hitchens' book "Good is not Great: How religion poisons everything". Nonetheless, I cannot quite see him as a militant athiest. In fact, I consider this man Chris Hitchens to be an odd ball that defies classification. I remember him making a statement of support to Mr. Bush for invading Iraq, (presumably because he considered Saddam to be the evil face of militant Islamism, which I think is wrong). I think he made an outrageous comment to the effect that Mr. Bush, God believing or not, has served the cause of secularism by invading Iraq and that his contribution to secularism has been more than a bunch of so called athiests or talking liberals and such.

Again, I completely disagree with his view that removing Saddam was good for secularism - quite the contrary. But is he militaristic and hard core athiest? After reading that book, I got a feeling he hates God less, and hates promoters of God Inc. more.

I have also read "The selfish gene" of Richard Dawkins, and am off and on reading another book of his "The God Delution". I have some of his other writings on evolutionary biology and on science. As a scientist, I like his work. As a speaker (I have heard him speak) I like this clear reasoning. As his athiesm, I have concluded that he, just like Hitchens, dislikes institutionalization of religion, and what humans have made out of religious turf wars, much more than he dislikes the basic concept of spirituality, or man's emotional duty to another man and the environment. Again, somehow I cannot think of him as a militant.

But then, that could be just my own perspective clouding my thinking. I usually do not think of suicide bombers as militant islam either. I somehow end up thinking of them as heavily indoctrinated youngsters being sent out as fodder, to die for someone else's agenda. And as so why such youngsters get so indoctrinated and why their surrounding environment encourages it or fails to discourage it - thats a whole different issue.

Good topic anyhow.

I think, some form of athiesm, or perhaps a religion-less spiritualism, or a milder form of all-inclusive religion, might be the primary view sometime in the future for the average world. But how far into the future is very hard to guess. Perhaps a hundred years? It would also depend on what happens in the course of that century.

Cheers.

[Buck Laser]

I think, some form of athiesm, or perhaps a religion-less spiritualism, or a milder form of all-inclusive religion, might be the primary view sometime in the future for the average world. But how far into the future is very hard to guess. Perhaps a hundred years? It would also depend on what happens in the course of that century.

Cheers.

Wow! What a lot of food for thought there, Tony. I can think of a hundred things I'd like to say on several of the points you cover, but for now, I'll just respond to the final paragraph.

I have a hard time getting my mind around the idea of an atheistic spiritualism, although I get an inkling of what you say. Spiritualism and mysticism are very closely linked in my mind. I've been interested in mysticism for a very long time, since there does seem to be a mystical experience that cuts straight across all the Abrahamic faiths: a Muslim, Christian, or Jewish mystic can find common ground in their religious experience very quickly, where dogma almost always separates less mystically oriented believers. The reason I can't see that experience in an atheistic context is that the mystical experience is an overwhelming awareness of the presence of God. Of course, you could call it the "wholly other," as some have done, but in my thinking about it, I still wind up thinking "God."

I have to say that my mystical experiences have only come a time or two in my life, so I'm not any kind of personal expert on it. For me, music has been the overwhelming vehicle for the experience.

[tony mitra]

Interesting observation indeed.

There is a song composed by Tagore from eastern part of India almost a hundred years ago that comes to mind. I like that kind of songs and often listen to them, having been born in that region.

It does not translate very well in English, but I shall try briefly.

“Save my soul, or pardon my sins
or help me in my distress - should never be my prayers to You.

Whatever troubles befall me, are mine to address
and I hope I shall have the strength to bear them without wincing.

It is only when I am joyous, without any need,
and with a wish to share my fortunes with others,
that I should seek You out, my ultimate friend.�

This is surely a lousy translation - but it proves a few points. First, it never addresses God in name, or in any flavor, denying it a Hindu or Christian or Muslim or any hue. Next, it seem to be promoting a spiritual platform that almost attempts to redefine God and his relationship with man or the universe. It seems to state, without spelling it out in that many words, that God cannot be influenced into favoring you just because you are praying and begging. This is the same as saying “God helps those that help themselves�. So in that sense, he considers God to be supremely incorruptible, almost inert, when it comes to saving you from anything. Same time, the song seems to claim God to be his ultimate friend, rather than creator or savior.

Different people interpret these things differently. To a scientifically inclined mind, this “non interfering� God could very well be just a scientific principle, the original principle that created the universe. One could almost call it the first principle. You could not ask such a principle, or a mathematical theorem, to do you a favor. It could do no such thing. It could provide the ultimate truth, and by its very nature it would be incorruptible by your wishes, or prayers.

But you could, if you tried hard enough, use that principle and others like it, to solve your and your neighbors problems, by applying the knowledge to your life, by perhaps creating a new machine, or a new way of treating a decease, or finding a better way of planting crop, or even devising a better ways to harmonize your society or resolving a conflict. Thus, while you could not beg it to favor you, you could use it as a friend, to help you solve your problems, provided you tried hard enough to make it your friend (ie you learn the principle, discover it or decipher it).

Sooo, there have been folks throughout the ages who have asked such questions, looking up at the sky, or pondering it in their study, or sitting cross legged on the peak of a mountain and such. Many of them have ended up finding an answer that satisfied them. Sometimes such an answer convinces others, sometimes it does not.

And here we are - either discussing it politely over a forum, or busy killing each other because we happen to think of God differently.

Don't get me wrong. I am not here to badmouth religous believers or nonbelievers. My statement is merely to point out that faith systems could perhaps be expression of human interpretation of the unknown, and that this interpretation is not universally common not because the system does not exist, and not because there are contradictory systems fighting one another, but because this difference is essentially caused by the interpreter himself/herself through influence of his or her individual and unique perspective.

Cheers.

[Buck Laser]

Tony, I'm gonna have to think about it awhile before I respond. My thinker is thinked out for tonight.

[David Hume]

I'm in agreement with Buck. It's the militancy of anything that chagrins me most. Though I find atheism to be much more defensible than any religious dogma, I personally could care less if others are practitioners of any dogma of their choice. It's when they begin intruding into the public sphere & attempting to force me, by legislation, to adhere to their views, that I begin to take exception.

Our Constitution is secular. Not a single mention of god. And the Founders were clear on their intent of a separation between things secular and religious when it came to governance.

[Danoz]

Define "worldview".


http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3A+worldview&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

Sorry, I'm a cheeky bastard :P

Personally I believe that athiesm is a perfectly good world view, provided it doesn't move into the domain of overt dogmatism.

[Jaaaman]

I am a Christian so I do not see 'atheism' as a viable world view.

Mr. Sullivan can kiss my ass.

[Elrathin]

Christians are some of the most closed minded people.

[David Hume]

Yeah, would Jesus say, "kiss my ass?"

Jaaaman, WWJD?

[preservanation]

Hey, Mr Hume,
this may be an assumption, but, have you ever been to Beloit?
Just want to cure my curiosity.
Thanx

[DavoT]

Some forms are intellectually valid, but most aren't. Same with religious worldviews.


Atheism is the only intellectually valid worldview.
The basis of ALL religious worldviews are lies, ie, there's no evidence/proof of the existence of any form of God{whatever that is}, as such, all truthseekers should reject God/religious dogma and devote themselves to philosophy.

Agnosticism is also invalid.

[Elrathin]

Atheism is the only intellectually valid worldview.
The basis of ALL religious worldviews are lies, ie, there's no evidence/proof of the existence of any form of God{whatever that is}, as such, all truthseekers should reject God/religious dogma and devote themselves to philosophy.

Agnosticism is also invalid.


Absence of evidence does not mean something doesn't exist. For instance if I lived on a farm somewhere with no connection to the outside world, just because I have never seen or been to China, does that mean China doesn't exist?

Just because there is no solid evidence that would justify a religion to be fact or true does not mean they are necessarily wrong.

[DavoT]

Absence of evidence does not mean something doesn't exist. For instance if I lived on a farm somewhere with no connection to the outside world, just because I have never seen or been to China, does that mean China doesn't exist?

Just because there is no solid evidence that would justify a religion to be fact or true does not mean they are necessarily wrong.


We both know China exist's because we have evidence of it's existence....this does not apply to God, as God is actually undefined{even if religious folk might assign certain traits to it}, IOW, God can NEVER be proven, as there's nothing to investigate, no way to conduct a viable experiment.

[Elrathin]

We both know China exist's because we have evidence of it's existence..

If I am living on a farm without any outside information, I don't know if it exists or not. Again, just because I don't personally have information of its existance doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


..this does not apply to God, as God is actually undefined{even if religious folk might assign certain traits to it}, IOW, God can NEVER be proven, as there's nothing to investigate, no way to conduct a viable experiment.


God cannot be disproved either from what I said above.

[preservanation]

Yeah, would Jesus say, "kiss my ass?"

Yes he would and did and that is why he died for us all.
Kiss my ass.

[DavoT]

If I am living on a farm without any outside information, I don't know if it exists or not. Again, just because I don't personally have information of its existance doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

God cannot be disproved either from what I said above.


So your argument in favour of God's existence revolves around the mindset of an isolated idiot?
The problem here is that God is undefined....ie, it{whatever it is} cannot be the subject of investigation as there's nothing to investigate.

The mindless can speculate till the cows come home, but until God is subject to rational verification{physically defined}, there's no reason for a rational person to assume it's existence{whatever and where "it" might be}.

If I make a claim that there's a cow on the moon, at least it's subject to investigation.....but how do I investigate something undefined....IOW, what is God and where is it?

[moses2792796]

Some forms are intellectually valid, but most aren't. Same with religious worldviews.


Atheism is the only intellectually valid worldview.
The basis of ALL religious worldviews are lies, ie, there's no evidence/proof of the existence of any form of God{whatever that is}, as such, all truthseekers should reject God/religious dogma and devote themselves to philosophy.

Agnosticism is also invalid.


:sick:

Please rethink, there are no lies in scripture. Agnosticism has to be more valid than atheism, because it allows for the portion of reality which remains unknown, which is denied by atheism.

[DavoT]

Please rethink, there are no lies in scripture. Agnosticism has to be more valid than atheism, because it allows for the portion of reality which remains unknown, which is denied by atheism.


The reason atheism is the only valid position is because there's no evidence for the existence of God, nor is there any reason to assume the existence of such a being/thing,.....furthermore, God is undefined and not subject to proof, IOW, I can't even attempt to disprove it/him....I repeat, God is undefined, so what exactly am I supposed to disprove?

God originated in the minds of primitive men, but with today's advanced science and philosophy, we can dispense with all that.

Being that God is undefined, it's totally pointless being agnostic and it's philosophically unsound, ie, what's an agnostic waiting on, the emergence of an unknown, undefined being/thing?.....on what evidence do they base this?

[moses2792796]

Agnostic just means that you accept that you don't actually know everything and that essentially, anything is possible.

Onto God, your comment about primitive men is a common mistake in assuming that the human race has progressed in the historical period, while materially, humans are more advanced now, the knowledge of the transcendent has been in decline since early classical history.

God, while undefined, is only so because the principle of God goes beyond human understanding, it is simply too great for the human brain to comprehend in full. This concept is frightening for many and causes them to reject religion, because it necessarily means that they are not the centre of the world, something quite alien to many people.

God, as best humans can understand him/it, transcends physicality, it is that which is unmanifested and the source of all existence. The principle exists regardless of whether physical reality manifests or not. It resolves any oppositions in form into an integral whole with each part being a necessary contributor to the whole.

God is all, and all is God, but God is more than the sum of its parts, because it essentially, it is their cause.

All of these claims are self-evident when considered for long enough and are backed up by scipture in varying forms.

[David Hume]

Some forms are intellectually valid, but most aren't. Same with religious worldviews.


Atheism is the only intellectually valid worldview.
The basis of ALL religious worldviews are lies, ie, there's no evidence/proof of the existence of any form of God{whatever that is}, as such, all truthseekers should reject God/religious dogma and devote themselves to philosophy.

Agnosticism is also invalid.


:sick:

Please rethink, there are no lies in scripture. Agnosticism has to be more valid than atheism, because it allows for the portion of reality which remains unknown, which is denied by atheism.


Much of the OT was plagiarized from older sources. Same too of the Gospels. Paul's letters were likely the work of a charlatan.

No lies in scripture? :thumbsup:[hr]
Agnostic just means that you accept that you don't actually know everything and that essentially, anything is possible.

Onto God, your comment about primitive men is a common mistake in assuming that the human race has progressed in the historical period, while materially, humans are more advanced now, the knowledge of the transcendent has been in decline since early classical history.

God, while undefined, is only so because the principle of God goes beyond human understanding, it is simply too great for the human brain to comprehend in full. This concept is frightening for many and causes them to reject religion, because it necessarily means that they are not the centre of the world, something quite alien to many people.

God, as best humans can understand him/it, transcends physicality, it is that which is unmanifested and the source of all existence. The principle exists regardless of whether physical reality manifests or not. It resolves any oppositions in form into an integral whole with each part being a necessary contributor to the whole.

God is all, and all is God, but God is more than the sum of its parts, because it essentially, it is their cause.

All of these claims are self-evident when considered for long enough and are backed up by scipture in varying forms.


No atheist I know assumes he or she is the center of anything. In fact, all atheists I know are quite secure in our insignificance and are all too aware of how minute we are when compared with the cosmos.

When you use scripture as your basis of truth, your "truth" quickly becomes nothing but mythology. I could go on ad nauseum & ad absurdum showing how various Biblical myths are simply lifted from the myths of much older religions, but I know that wouldn't so much as crack the thick shell surrounding the fear & loathing that's been instilled in you via "revealed religion."

You'll simply have to come to larger truths on your own or not at all. As for me, I don't reject religion because I'm fearful of the immensity of the transcendent. I reject religion because it's absurd, irrational, and extensively unreasonable.

[DavoT]

Agnostic just means that you accept that you don't actually know everything and that essentially, anything is possible.

God, while undefined, is only so because the principle of God goes beyond human understanding, it is simply too great for the human brain to comprehend in full.


IOW, you're making God up.
I can't stop people from being irrational, all I'm doing is pointing out that there's no evidence of God's existence{and you've effectively just confirmed this}....ie, you not only don't know, but according to you, one can't know{it's beyond human understanding}.

People have the ability to speculate/fantasize over all sorts of things, but proving something to be true requires evidence, and you've just admitted that evidence is irrelevant because God is some transcendent being/thing and obviously not subject to rational scrutiny.

It's silly being agnostic because there's never been any evidence of God's existence in the first place, also, the idea that God is possible opens one to an infinite regress, ie, who made God.....as such, it's not only best to become a fully blown atheist, it's also a logically secure position to adopt.

[moses2792796]

All I said is you cannot fully comprehend God. Think about this, if you have enough faith to believe there is a reality independant of the Self, you already have faith in God, like it or not.

[DavoT]

All I said is you cannot fully comprehend God. Think about this, if you have enough faith to believe there is a reality independant of the Self, you already have faith in God, like it or not.


Humans are a part of reality{something we know}......so I can't see how I have faith in something I don't/can't know.

Remember, I'm proving that there's no evidence for God's existence{all a rational person requires}.....OTOH, you're suggesting that I do/should have faith in something I can't know........dang, that almost sounds like something a mental patient might spout:sick:

[moses2792796]

No no you miss my point, you can't know the certainty of existence outside of your mind, because your senses aren't necessarily providing you with accurate information, the Matrix is an obvious example of this. To beleive in the reality of reality you must have faith, God and reality, aren't so different when you think about it.

God is that which transcends physicality, and this is undeniable from a truly logical perspective.

[Elrathin]

Please rethink, there are no lies in scripture.


Please, everyone's religion says there are no lies in their respective scripture. You can't all be right, otherwise everyone's scriptures for their religion would be the exact same. They are not.

If you want to believe there are no lies in your scripture that is fine, but please don't try to push it as fact when I can poke holes in your statement by the very fact they were physically written by man and as such ALWAYS have the ability to have man's bias in them.

[DavoT]

No no you miss my point, you can't know the certainty of existence outside of your mind, because your senses aren't necessarily providing you with accurate information, the Matrix is an obvious example of this.
God is that which transcends physicality, and this is undeniable from a truly logical perspective.


The senses{in conjunction with consciousness} are the way in which we acquire knowledge, verifiable knowledge.....so certainty rests with what our senses+science/logic can prove.

When you describe God as unknowable/transcendent......... logic/science/experiment and proof have left the building, IOW, it's your opinion that God{undefined} exists somewhere in some form.....you clearly haven't offered anything that looks or sounds like proof.

There's no evidence of a supernatural world/realm, and no evidence that God is on earth, so where the hell is he, lol.

This is your problem....you're trying to splice God into philosophical terms, but your starting point is pure guesswork, IOW, you've disqualified yourself from logical discourse, even if you've been fairly polite whilst discussing this topic:shock:

[moses2792796]

But it's not guesswork you see. The fact that physical reality ever manifested proves the existence of the God principle, if you believe in the reality of reality you have to believe in God. Reality is not purely matter, assuming this denies all true knowledge, and is the primary reason for the corruption of modern society.

I recommend reading up on the Traditionalist school founded by Rene Guenon.[hr]

Please rethink, there are no lies in scripture.


Please, everyone's religion says there are no lies in their respective scripture. You can't all be right, otherwise everyone's scriptures for their religion would be the exact same. They are not.

If you want to believe there are no lies in your scripture that is fine, but please don't try to push it as fact when I can poke holes in your statement by the very fact they were physically written by man and as such ALWAYS have the ability to have man's bias in them.


There are no lies in any of the scriptures with some exceptions dur mainly to the age of their creation. While many may seem to oppose eachother in form, it is central to all religion that these outward oppositions are resolved in the highest transcendent principle.

Once again I quote Frithjof Schuon for backup

"Dogmatism reveals itself not only by its inability to conceive the inward or implicit illimitability of the symbol, the universality that resolves all outward oppositions, but also by its inability to recognise, when faced with two apparently contradictory truths, the inward connection they both affirm."

The Transcendent Unity of Religions.

[Deadshot]

But it's not guesswork you see. The fact that physical reality ever manifested proves the existence of the God principle, if you believe in the reality of reality you have to believe in God. Reality is not purely matter, assuming this denies all true knowledge, and is the primary reason for the corruption of modern society.

I recommend reading up on the Traditionalist school founded by Rene Guenon.


And moses your faith is unshakable, ergo you see the light that others do not. Many need more then simple faith, they need logic and facts. God could provide them, since anything is in his/her power, but does not.

hence the problem at hand.

[moses2792796]

I disagree in that, I believe that from a purely logical perspective, the fact of existence does actually prove God's existence and that this cannot be refuted. I am yet to hear one solid argument against it except that we cannot know that what our senses perceive is reality, but that's where we need faith.

Edit: Logic is probably not a good word to use here as it implies something limited to the individual, hence why philosophy is so easily corrupted. In the metaphysical realm we need Intellectual Intuition for lack of a better term.

[Elrathin]

There are no lies in any of the scriptures with some exceptions dur mainly to the age of their creation. While many may seem to oppose eachother in form, it is central to all religion that these outward oppositions are resolved in the highest transcendent principle.

They are resolved? Now you are guessing. Sorry but there are DISTINCT differences in scriptures for different religions and no they are not the same, therefore they are not all true and without lies.


Once again I quote Frithjof Schuon for backup

"Dogmatism reveals itself not only by its inability to conceive the inward or implicit illimitability of the symbol, the universality that resolves all outward oppositions, but also by its inability to recognise, when faced with two apparently contradictory truths, the inward connection they both affirm."

The Transcendent Unity of Religions.



This is not backup, it's philosophy. Much like I only exist and you all are a dream type of philosophy. That isn't proof, nor does it back up that scriptures don't lie.

[Deadshot]

I disagree in that, I believe that from a purely logical perspective, the fact of existence does actually prove God's existence and that this cannot be refuted. I am yet to hear one solid argument against it except that we cannot know that what our senses perceive is reality, but that's where we need faith.

Edit: Logic is probably not a good word to use here as it implies something limited to the individual, hence why philosophy is so easily corrupted. In the metaphysical realm we need Intellectual Intuition for lack of a better term.


But moses, God has the ability to come down, at any time, in front of CNN, FAUX NEWS, the BBC and tune every radio and T.V. to his/her voice and visage and say "Howdy Y'all, I'm real. Here's a miracle to prove it." And it could be a simple miracle, such as repairing the Ozone layer or allowing every one to speak and write ONE language.

That has yet to happen. moses maybe you are on a different plane of thought and faith then myself. I don't know. I know that I question my faith for many reasons and the logic of faith or Intellectual Intuition does not come into play for MANY religions and religious people.

One quick example. In the Catholic church, before Vactican II, if my wife were in labor and the doctor came up to me and said "We can only save one, the child or your wife." I was supposed to answer, as a good Catholic, "The Child." After Vatican II that "rule" was changed.

When man interferes and interprets the word of God, logic AND Intellectual Intuition fail. Because one man's logic is another's insanity...

[DavoT]

But it's not guesswork you see. The fact that physical reality ever manifested proves the existence of the God principle,
I recommend reading up on the Traditionalist school founded by Rene Guenon.

Not in my view....I'm with the Objectivists on this one, ie, all we can say about the universe is that it must be eternal.....no other explanation is plausible, thus we eliminate the need for a creator, and we don't violate any logical fallacies in the process.

Your own view exposes you to an infinite regress aka "it explains nuthin!!"

The universe is infinite in size, so regardless of what science may tell us about the form of matter here or there, the universe has always existed.

It sounds like you're appealing to plato/kant with your view on "the reality of reality".....trouble is, both of these men were inspired and intellectually corrupted by religious dogma.

FWIW, I'm a supporter of Objectivist epistemology, but I don't think I qualify as an Objectivist{as odd as that may sound}.......so by and large, I've rejected most of traditional philosophy as nothing but "talk about talk"......and I strongly suspect this will apply to ole mate Rene Guenon.

People can disregard reality as much as they want, but at some point, reality will bite.....respect for reality and a genuine philosophical/scientific enquiry into reality are the hallmarks of a rational mind......however, at this stage, you're offering this thread nothing but sheer guesswork.

You've failed to provide a convincing argument for God's existence, in fact, you've ruled out the possibility of proving God exists when you agreed he/it is undefinable.....also, if you are speculating about the existence of another realm, you've yet to provide any proof of it's existence, and I'm certain you won't be able to provide a single quantifiable fact.

[Elrathin]

I'm with the Objectivists on this one, ie, all we can say about the universe is that it must be eternal.....no other explanation is plausible, thus we eliminate the need for a creator, and we don't violate any logical fallacies in the process.

Um so it is your unprovable position that the universe is eternal and has always existed? How is that anymore plausible than there is a God or Gods?


The universe is infinite in size, so regardless of what science may tell us about the form of matter here or there, the universe has always existed.

Proof? What proof do you have of this that it is INFINITE?


You've failed to provide a convincing argument for God's existence, in fact, you've ruled out the possibility of proving God exists when you agreed he/it is undefinable.

And as so far you have failed to provide a convincing argument that the universe has always existed and is infinite in size (i.e. an uncountable reference).

[DavoT]

Um so it is your unprovable position that the universe is eternal and has always existed? How is that anymore plausible than there is a God or Gods?


No, it's actually a factually secure statement, ie, "the universe has always existed" cannot be contradicted, nor have I violated any logical fallacies by making the statement, now compare that to any God view you've ever heard.

For you to contradict me, you'd actually have to provide proof of the universes creation.....hopefully you're not going to dump something relating to the big bang on us.

Btw, could you direct me to the boundary of the universe, say on the east side...?

[Elrathin]

No, it's actually a factually secure statement, ie, "the universe has always existed" cannot be contradicted, nor have I violated any logical fallacies by making the statement, now compare that to any God view you've ever heard.

Then prove it. Show me the facts that support it. So far all you have given is your position (opinion) on the matter.


For you to contradict me, you'd actually have to provide proof of the universes creation.....hopefully you're not going to dump something relating to the big bang on us.

Btw, could you direct me to the boundary of the universe, say on the east side...?


Can you show me where the proof is that it is infinite. I can no more prove that it is infinite than you can it isn't.

As for the big bang there is more information on that than your theory, or do you care to show us some proof?

[Deadshot]

El, you're just coming to a place that both sides continually bump heads.

Faith is not logical. Logic has no room for faith. But we are being that hope, for example, though it isn't logical. If we were soley logic one wouldn't marry for love, but for financial gain or better genetics.

Faith will never out think logic, and logic will never have the fortitude and heart to destroy faith.

This arguement is doomed to failure because each side cannot be proven right without the other abandoning thier foothold of either faith or logic.

[Elrathin]

This arguement is doomed to failure because each side cannot be proven right without the other abandoning thier foothold of either faith or logic.[/color]


That's kinda my point. Neither side can be proven right or wrong. The simple fact is that when an absolute view is taken (there IS a god or there IS NO god) there is faith involved because it can't be proven either way.

An atheist has faith there is no god. Now they can claim that faith is logical all they want, but it cannot be proven factual.

DavoT has faith that the universe is infinite and that it has always existed, but his stance is no more factual than that of someone claiming there is a god or that the universe has a beginning and is not infinite.

It is just interesting how people claim a faith to be fact over someone else no matter what side they are on.

I am a skeptic. I am skeptical of anyone, atheist or a follower of a religion, to claim to know the absolute. Always have and always will.

[Deadshot]

I agree, though I will add this little caveat.

As we learn more, through scientific advances, faith will begin to lose more ground. Just as it has since the time of Galileo.

Though I consider myself a believer in God, it's easier to see the logic of the other side.

[DavoT]

DavoT has faith that the universe is infinite and that it has always existed, but his stance is no more factual than that of someone claiming there is a god or that the universe has a beginning and is not infinite.


If you believe the universe to be finite, it must have a starting point and also some dimensions{otherwise it's infinite in size}......so are you able to quantify the exact age/size of the universe?

I think you expect me to provide mathematical/scientific proof....but that's not going to happen because the answer is philosophical in nature.

I know of no scientific proof for the origin of the universe, and can't find an accurate measure of the universe......also, what do you think is beyond the boundaries of the universe?
I'm certain* the universe is eternal because there's no other plausible explanation.

*Certainty is having no reason to doubt.

[Elrathin]

I think you expect me to provide mathematical/scientific proof....but that's not going to happen because the answer is philosophical in nature.

If you can only prove it philosophically than there is no FACT as you have claimed it. It is by your faith you believe this.

If I am correct and there is a starting point (i.e. some big bang), then yes the universe can be quantifiable measured. In fact that is what science has been trying to do.

The difference is that I BELIEVE the universe has a starting point whereas you claim it FACT that it doesn't.

Neither of our theories can be proven right or wrong at this time. That is the point I have been trying to say. You cannot call a philosophic concept fact as you have been trying to do.

You have FAITH you are correct and in that I won't deny it. But FAITH is not FACT. And no, I am not saying my theory on the universe or "supernatural" entity(ies) is FACT either.


I know of no scientific proof for the origin of the universe, and can't find an accurate measure of the universe......also, what do you think is beyond the boundaries of the universe?
I'm certain* the universe is eternal because there's no other plausible explanation.

There is scientific proof that is being investigated, the problem is you choose not to believe that, it is your choice. The scientific theory (notice I said theory and not fact or law) is that there was a big bang.

As to what is beyond, that is something that is still being looked at even today in the scientific community.


*Certainty is having no reason to doubt.


And I have no certainty in your theory, therefore I doubt it.

[DavoT]

If I am correct and there is a starting point (i.e. some big bang), then yes the universe can be quantifiable measured.


So you believe something can come from nothing.....or did God do it?

[Elrathin]

So you believe something can come from nothing.....or did God do it?


What does my belief have to do with you claiming an unprovable event is fact? Remember, I never claimed anything was fact from my end. You did however.

[DavoT]

So you believe something can come from nothing.....or did God do it?


What does my belief have to do with you claiming an unprovable event is fact?


I'm trying to highlight that this discussion is largely philosophical in nature, ie, we make deductions based on a variety of factors{we don't exclude science, but science isn't going to give us the answers to these questions as it's beyond it's scope}........so would you mind answering whether YOU believe something can come from nothing, or did God start the big bang off...?

Btw, the universe being eternal is not an event of any form....nothing physically happened, because the universe has always existed.

[Elrathin]

I'm trying to highlight that this discussion is largely philosophical in nature, ie, we make deductions based on a variety of factors{we don't exclude science, but science isn't going to give us the answers to these questions as it's beyond it's scope}.


Ok this all first started because you claimed your theories were fact and that anyone else's idea of a god were not. Do you now admit that your theories are not FACT and are in fact opinion based on what you believe?

That is the whole point I have been trying to make is that someone that believes in god has no more a crazy notion than what you believe in with the universe being eternal or what I do with the Big Bang.

I am an agnostic. I tend to believe the universe began with a big bang, but I can no more explain where something came out of nothing than you can something being eternal without a start or end. As you said its all philosophical in nature, but neither of us can prove our theories or disprove the others.

[David Hume]

El, you're just coming to a place that both sides continually bump heads.

Faith is not logical. Logic has no room for faith. But we are being that hope, for example, though it isn't logical. If we were soley logic one wouldn't marry for love, but for financial gain or better genetics.

Faith will never out think logic, and logic will never have the fortitude and heart to destroy faith.

This arguement is doomed to failure because each side cannot be proven right without the other abandoning thier foothold of either faith or logic.


Being the logician here, this is why I married a hottie with big knockers & a bit of dough in the bank. ;)

[moses2792796]

But it's not guesswork you see. The fact that physical reality ever manifested proves the existence of the God principle,
I recommend reading up on the Traditionalist school founded by Rene Guenon.

Not in my view....I'm with the Objectivists on this one, ie, all we can say about the universe is that it must be eternal.....no other explanation is plausible, thus we eliminate the need for a creator, and we don't violate any logical fallacies in the process.

Your own view exposes you to an infinite regress aka "it explains nuthin!!"

The universe is infinite in size, so regardless of what science may tell us about the form of matter here or there, the universe has always existed.

It sounds like you're appealing to plato/kant with your view on "the reality of reality".....trouble is, both of these men were inspired and intellectually corrupted by religious dogma.

FWIW, I'm a supporter of Objectivist epistemology, but I don't think I qualify as an Objectivist{as odd as that may sound}.......so by and large, I've rejected most of traditional philosophy as nothing but "talk about talk"......and I strongly suspect this will apply to ole mate Rene Guenon.

People can disregard reality as much as they want, but at some point, reality will bite.....respect for reality and a genuine philosophical/scientific enquiry into reality are the hallmarks of a rational mind......however, at this stage, you're offering this thread nothing but sheer guesswork.

You've failed to provide a convincing argument for God's existence, in fact, you've ruled out the possibility of proving God exists when you agreed he/it is undefinable.....also, if you are speculating about the existence of another realm, you've yet to provide any proof of it's existence, and I'm certain you won't be able to provide a single quantifiable fact.


Does reality consist purely of matter? The answer has to be no, it is completely illogical to assume otherwise. You may want to re-examine the relationship between the Self and objective reality.

Paul the Baptist from www.corrupt.org provides a good explanation

"Is man just chemicals? or is the whole idea a diabolical misunderstanding of reality?

Let us first consider things from an epistemolgical perspective: Was your beginning when you were concieved or when you first became conscious? Your parents will say it was at your conception, because to them you are that which takes up a certain quantity of space. You are, to them, your body and its actions, from which they learn your character. It is the same visa versa; they are a certain confine of spacetime that makes them up. But from your own perspective you only began when you first became conscious. There was no knowing subject before this, there was no you and hence no world for you, because you were not there for it. You do not know and cannot know a material origin of yourself a priori. Only a posteriori can one say 'Look at these other humans, who are made in my image, they are formed in such and such a way. I thereby reckon my own origins to be similar."

Leaving the above discussion incomplete, I'll go on to another point (Why? Because I can. And you'd be a fascist bastard to stop me doing so! <safe in the knowledge of my universal human rights>):

Say one wants to stand up. It is willed and the body acts accordingly. The body is the objectification of one's will. In similar manner you think and a scanner can pick up neural activity. But why make the unfounded leap of saying those thoughts are in-themselves just electrons? Their physical representation consists of the electrons, but in no way does that allow one to say the thoughts are just that which makes up the representation of the thoughts. You start from the self and look outwards. In other words- existence as is, is. One can't claim an origin of the a priori from looking at the a posteriori.

Primarily you ARE."[hr]As I was showering just now, an excellent analogy came to me for the current argument. Being a devout Beethoven fan I'm going to use him as my example. Beethoven's 5th Symphony written in, whenever he wrote it, has remained untouched since its conception, this already proves some of the non-physical characteristics of the idea, but to make it more definate, rewind 2000 years, or any amount of time you like before the conception of our friend Ludwig. The 5th Symphony had never been heard, no one knew anything about it, but just the fact that it was written, which we now know, meant that the possibility of its existence was always there. It was an unmanifested principle, unknown to man.

Now transfer this same concept to the universe at large, before the big bang, the universe had not manifested, but the fact that it did meant that the unmanifested principle was always existent, otherwise the universe could never have been projected into becoming. God is the unmanifested principle that, when seen in this light, can be nothing other than certain. This non-physical side of existence cannot be denied because when assuming that reality is purely matter, it denies the existence of the principles by which that matter functions, while these principles may appear only to exist as thought, they are intertwined with that which is manifested, the manifested reality is dependant on the existence of the principle, but the unmanifested exists regardless of what is projected into the realm of becoming.

[DavoT]

I am an agnostic. I tend to believe the universe began with a big bang, but I can no more explain where something came out of nothing than you can something being eternal without a start or end. As you said its all philosophical in nature, but neither of us can prove our theories or disprove the others.


As I mentioned earlier, I'm an Objectivist of sorts.....and Objectivism views certainty as "having no cause to doubt"...Objectivism also considers truth to be "any coherent aspect of reality"......in both cases{certainty/truth} respect for logic is essential, as is the grounding of knowledge to reality itself, ie, reality is the bedrock of knowledge.

This obviously differs to the approach used by religious folk, ie, they claim to know something beyond human understanding, and also imply that mankind's access to the truth is automatically limited by God/supernatural's existence.....however, they fail to provide any proof whatsoever that either God or a supernatural realm exists, IOW, they use faith{the rejection of logic}.

The reason science will never find the answers to the origin of the universe is because the universe is not subject to measure....the universe is infinite in size{it had no starting point, thus it can have no dimensions}.

The big bang actually suggests something akin to "something coming from nothing"{granted the I think the big bang is a utter load of BS}.....so quite frankly, everyone with a respect for knowledge/logic needs to reject this religious notion, as something cannot come from nothing.

Now if the big bang suggests that it doesn't quiet squeeze itself into nothingness{singularity}, then it admits there must have been matter and energy pre-existing, and that the big bang was a transformation of a closed system, a system that already contained matter and energy in some form.

So Elrathin, when we examine the science, and science's scope, we're forced to conclude 'it doesn't have a clue"...IOW, we must seek out the skillset of philosophy for our answers.....and those answers aren't going to be supplied by any philosophy that views knowledge as "talk about talk".

You ask me how I know the universe is eternal, well, when I posit that it's eternal, I might shock and bewilder people, but I don't violate any logical fallacies, as such, I'm certain because I have no cause to doubt.[hr]
[Say one wants to stand up. It is willed and the body acts accordingly.

Moses.....what you're trying to get at here, is figuring out why things do what they do despite our knowing what their composition is....the answer is, things act according to their identity....identity=existence.

Why does light travel at it's unique speed, .....answer.....because that's it's nature, it's attributes and capabilities equate to it's identity and it's behaviour.

[DavoT]

I’m glad you guys all agree with me.

Let’s recap…..atheism isn’t just the most truthful belief system, it is the truth….now remember, we’re not omniscient, as such, the truth must be “any coherent aspect of reality’…..now of course, when I say that, I don’t just mean the truth is something that sounds good, it must be logical and factual.

Don’t forget that in the past, religious cleric’s claimed to have a conduit to God, yet when we consider how much nonsense was passed off as God’s word, it’s obvious that people never had any form of communication with God, and that the cleric’s were either liars or quiet delusional.

One more thing, the rejection of God/lies is naturally something any genuine truthseeker values, but apparently some people find it frightening/depressing believing we’re on earth all by ourselves…..the thing to remember is that we can’t survive on any other planet{not for the same duration as on earth}, so the idea that the earth suddenly becomes an insignificant and lonely planet is rather ungracious.

The whole purpose of studying philosophy is to empower yourself, not debase yourself…..there’s no downside to the truth….ignorance isn’t bliss, it’s dangerous.

[moses2792796]

Did you read the second part of my post? God is truth.

[DavoT]

God is truth.


LOL:clapper:

[JohnM81]

Hey guys, back from my unofficial hiatus :P. So, what do you think, is atheism a viable worldview?


What do you mean by "viable"?

[moses2792796]

God is truth.


LOL:clapper:


Then I assume you didn't bother to read my post.

[DavoT]

[
Then I assume you didn't bother to read my post.


I couldn't make sense of it.

[moses2792796]

The fact that the universe began existing meant that the possibility for the universe to exist was always real, this eternal principle of existence, the source of reality is what I call God. In other words, the unmanifest, I don't claim to have any knowledge of the nature of God beyond this.

[DavoT]

The fact that the universe began existing meant that the possibility for the universe to exist was always real, this eternal principle of existence, the source of reality is what I call God. In other words, the unmanifest, I don't claim to have any knowledge of the nature of God beyond this.


That sounds like some form of the anthropic principle......:dizzy:
So you're not a traditional religious person, ie, you're not a Christian for example, and you don't support any of the Holy books.....is this correct?

[Tsky]

Are there other examples in nature of something coming from nothing?

Let's say I'm walking down the street and I see a perfectly constructed house and there is no living person within 6000 miles of the house. How long do you think it would take for me to be committed to the nearest crazy house for insisting that the house must have gotten there by itself since there is no one else around?

Have scientist been able to stir up a bowl of Cheerios, dirt, clay, Reeses Pieces and water and create a human? Even if they could, I would still argue that they didn't create something from nothing.

Since when is it consistent with knowledge, reason and common sense to presume that the things we can't see don't exist?

I can't see the wind but I'm 100% sure it exists. But I can't see it. Can there be logical argument to dispute its existence?

[tony mitra]

The issues of matter and anti-matter could be used by a particle physicist to prove that something can come out of nothing.

Purists might argue that, stating anti-matter to be also a kind of matter, and that when they meet, things do not vanish as such, but convert to some kinds of energy and vice versa. Lab experiments seem to have confirmed existence of things like positrons and other items that cannot exist in this world normally, and they do not, but still can be created temporarily in a lab.

I do not claim these tests to be any proof of existence or non-existence of God. First of all, the very perception of what exactly is God, is not uniform around the world, except for one more or less unifying theme - i.e. God created some of the things, or everything.

That unifying theme might or might not be based on facts. It is normal for humans to question the existence, and origin, of things around them. In absense of rational answers, man invented God as the answer of many things in the past. God of Thunder, God of the skies, God of oceans, Rain God, Fertility God or Goddess. Some gave the planetary objects a Godly existences, since common sense of the time could not explain something floating high above the sky. Thus came the Moon God, and even Greek Gods such as Jupiter.

God, or some variant of Him or It, has been around almost ever since man started using his newly evolved brain to think things through, and every time he got confused and unable to find a rational answer.

Today, people have institutionalized and commercialized the business of God, with great wealth and power coming to a few, with vast control over thinking and lifestyle practices of millions of devotees and followers. Special professionals have self elected themselves as spokespersons for God, appearing in places of worships, stages, podiums and even regular TV shows. They pass judgment on everything, from how one might dress, eat, talk, pray, marry, divorce, live, die and generally pass the time in one's largely unappreciate state called existence.

And then there are political leaders that claim to know God's will, that a particular land was granted to them by God, or a particular people must face a particular destiny as the will of God, or that he got the go-ahead from God to invade another nation.

One might conclude that Gad has been used, re-used, over-used, hyper-used, and misused.

Meanwhile, I can honestly state here, that this post was typed by me through my own concious will, with absolutely no prompting of any kind from God, and that most all of my actions from the moment I was old enough to think this through, has been actions for which I take sole responsibility, including those actions that might appear inexplainable, leaving the involvement of God for others to use.

Cheers.

[Tsky]

And yet people's misuse of the concept of God in no way proves he doesn't exist, it only proves people misuse the concept of God.

Being disillusioned with people's behavior does not make God invalid.

God will still be here, stupid people or no stupid people.

It takes a large amount of brain power and capacity to read, rationalize and type ones thoughts on the internet and the brain we use to accomplish this is nothing short of a miracle. I am always astonished how people have no problem using these miraculous gifts to their advantage while at the same time paying no thought to the source of the gifts.

Wow.

[tony mitra]

And yet people's misuse of the concept of God in no way proves he doesn't exist, it only proves people misuse the concept of God.

Being disillusioned with people's behavior does not make God invalid.

God will still be here, stupid people or no stupid people.


Agree with you wholeheartedly, Tsky, except for the last sentence. Just like those things do not prove God's absense, they also do not prove His presence. That part, is left to individual perception.

If you think presence of brain power in humans, and absence of much of it in a cockroach, is proof of God's existence, I shall not argue with you. Every one is free to believe what he will.

To me, brain power of humans, or genetic survivability of cockroaches, is proof of a natural evolutionary process which is till in progress, and not of Godly intervension. Again, I allow you to think otherwise. Trust you might return the compliment.

Nice reading your thoughts though.

Cheers. :)

[Elrathin]

As I mentioned earlier, I'm an Objectivist of sorts.....and Objectivism views certainty as "having no cause to doubt"...Objectivism also considers truth to be "any coherent aspect of reality"......in both cases{certainty/truth} respect for logic is essential, as is the grounding of knowledge to reality itself, ie, reality is the bedrock of knowledge.


So because you think your choice has no doubt, you believe it as truth. I can buy that, however, it is not fact as you claimed earlier. I cannot change what you see is truth, but I can say that what you believe in is not fact.


This obviously differs to the approach used by religious folk, ie, they claim to know something beyond human understanding, and also imply that mankind's access to the truth is automatically limited by God/supernatural's existence.....however, they fail to provide any proof whatsoever that either God or a supernatural realm exists, IOW, they use faith{the rejection of logic}.

Not really they have the faith they are right and you have the faith you are right. You have subjective yourself to the belief that you are logical and they are not. The truth of that is very subjective and therefore, your truth is no more logical than theirs as you cannot provide proof.


The reason science will never find the answers to the origin of the universe is because the universe is not subject to measure....the universe is infinite in size{it had no starting point, thus it can have no dimensions}.

Ah but see that is where you are wrong. There are stars that have been recorded as going supernova and dissapearing. Therefore they had a beginning and an ending. Therefore so does the universe.


The big bang actually suggests something akin to "something coming from nothing"{granted the I think the big bang is a utter load of BS}.....so quite frankly, everyone with a respect for knowledge/logic needs to reject this religious notion, as something cannot come from nothing.

Actually the Big Bang suggests there was something to happen, yet they don't know what.


Now if the big bang suggests that it doesn't quiet squeeze itself into nothingness{singularity}, then it admits there must have been matter and energy pre-existing, and that the big bang was a transformation of a closed system, a system that already contained matter and energy in some form.

And that could be explained by a superior force that could be perceived as God. Maybe not the god others describe (or maybe not a god at all) but something.


So Elrathin, when we examine the science, and science's scope, we're forced to conclude 'it doesn't have a clue"...IOW, we must seek out the skillset of philosophy for our answers.....and those answers aren't going to be supplied by any philosophy that views knowledge as "talk about talk".

You ask me how I know the universe is eternal, well, when I posit that it's eternal, I might shock and bewilder people, but I don't violate any logical fallacies, as such, I'm certain because I have no cause to doubt.

Your theory sure in the hell breaks logical fallacy. How can something be eternal without beginning or end? As pointed out almost everything we know IN the universe has a beginning and end, why not the universe itself? It is not far fetched to think such a thing BASED ON EVIDENCE that bodies within the universe are not eternal and have a beginning and an end.

I'm sorry but your theories are no more logical than that of someone that believes in a god.

Again your THEORY is that the universe is eternal, to that I will say I disagree but I won't deny you think it is truth. But it is not FACT as you claim earlier on in this thread.

[moses2792796]

The fact that the universe began existing meant that the possibility for the universe to exist was always real, this eternal principle of existence, the source of reality is what I call God. In other words, the unmanifest, I don't claim to have any knowledge of the nature of God beyond this.


That sounds like some form of the anthropic principle......:dizzy:
So you're not a traditional religious person, ie, you're not a Christian for example, and you don't support any of the Holy books.....is this correct?


I support all the holy books, they all express the same principle I did, but they give the unmanifest a form, which is why God takes a personal role in these books. By expressing the principle humans tend to attribute more human aspects to God, so God in holy books is the first manifestation of the principle in the Self. For this reason I would say that man created God in his own image, and not vice versa, although instead of created we should say expressed, God coming before man, but the form of God, as in Christianity and Islam are human creations.

[Uncle]

Hey guys, back from my unofficial hiatus :P. So, what do you think, is atheism a viable worldview?

There are those who claim there is no God because they cannot perceive a power higher than themselves. They have a hatred for all that is Godly or God like. These people call themselves atheists and agnostics. They are a jealous and hate filled people with no consciousness of anything spiritual. Egotistically they believe themselves to be Gods and they worship at the alter of no-God. They have their own religion and at its center is themselves, their own ids. They never miss an opportunity to assault, insult and condemn religions, (and most often Christianity). A good percentage were raised as Catholics. Many were abused as children and can't comprehend why God wasn't there for them. A surprising number is homosexual or bisexual. They are, for the norm, good hard workers who excel in finance. But they are spiritually hollow and have empty hearts.

"....A Viable Worldview?" I think not.

[moses2792796]

^^You seem to be refering to a group of atheists, not all atheists are like this, and while I believe many of your assumptions are correct about certain people you don't really have a viable viewpoint to make such vast assumptions, as you probably can't comprehend the world from the perspective of a radical atheist, so saying they are hateful is little more than an insulting guess.

[Tsky]

And yet people's misuse of the concept of God in no way proves he doesn't exist, it only proves people misuse the concept of God.

Being disillusioned with people's behavior does not make God invalid.

God will still be here, stupid people or no stupid people.


Agree with you wholeheartedly, Tsky, except for the last sentence. Just like those things do not prove God's absense, they also do not prove His presence. That part, is left to individual perception.

If you think presence of brain power in humans, and absence of much of it in a cockroach, is proof of God's existence, I shall not argue with you. Every one is free to believe what he will.

To me, brain power of humans, or genetic survivability of cockroaches, is proof of a natural evolutionary process which is till in progress, and not of Godly intervension. Again, I allow you to think otherwise. Trust you might return the compliment.

Nice reading your thoughts though.

Cheers. :)


If you can prove to me that you and I evolved from cockroaches and both you, me and the cockroach are still evolving today, then you might have a point. Otherwise, it's just an opinion, not supported by science or history and gives me every reason to discredit and disregard your statement as an unproven hypothesis.

Thanks for the compliment, I'm enjoying my time here.

[Elrathin]

They have a hatred for all that is Godly or God like. These people call themselves atheists and agnostics. They are a jealous and hate filled people with no consciousness of anything spiritual. Egotistically they believe themselves to be Gods and they worship at the alter of no-God.


There is a big difference between atheists and agnostics. And also not all atheists are this way.

[DavoT]

All.

I don’t believe something can come from nothing, and there’s no scientific proof that contradicts this, as such, I immediately rule out the big bang or any hypothesis that even sounds like it.

I also rule out the idea of a creator, because I’d open myself to an infinite regress, and subsequently explain nothing…..therefore, the only logical view that can account for the universe’s existence is that it must have always existed in one form or another{matter and energy doing the tango}.

Btw, one cannot be an Objectivist and cock up it’s epistemology ,….. cause more than anything else, Objectivism is defined by it’s epistemology, that said, the universe being eternal is a logical deduction made by Rand/Peikoff,….. and being atheist is the inevitable outcome{neither Rand nor Peikoff originated this idea}.

I personally can’t see the value in defining God in an unorthodox manner whilst simultaneously justifying the content of the Holy books…..to me, if God as defined is illogical, then it follows that the value of the supporting dogma’s must be of questionable value/quality.

[moses2792796]

Even if the universe always existed, God can still be found through certain logical viewpoints, some people will never have the desire to experience the transcendent, I do, however and it gives me great joy to do so. My definition of God is not as unorthodox as you may think, the Hindus understood it, and I daresay many of the greater religious figures throughout history did as well. In recent times the understanding of these principles has been revived by Rene Guenon and his Traditionalist School.

[DavoT]

Even if the universe always existed, God can still be found through certain logical viewpoints, some people will never have the desire to experience the transcendent, I do, however and it gives me great joy to do so.


The trouble is Moses, the transcendent sounds good in theory, but in reality, it's not something we can consciously access{even if I grant you it's existence}.

It would seem to me that you went looking for God, got confronted by various powerful logical arguments, and had to find and shield him from those conclusions.

People don't like the idea of logic being the arbiter of truth{the universe being eternal for example}, but as I've said, it's the only logical conclusion.....naturally, this eliminates the need for a creator/higher power of any kind.

This also forces us to confront and formulate ethics from a philosophical POV, rather than buffer them with "God says, nuff said".

[moses2792796]

All people can find the transcendent if they have the will, it's simply a matter of perspective and dedication. I actually started down this path from quite the opposite place than you assumed, I was a strict atheist, to the point of hating religion, and then I was confronted by undeniable logic proving the existence of God, which then led me to realise that God was something entirely different than I had perviously thought, but no less important.

[DavoT]

All people can find the transcendent if they have the will, it's simply a matter of perspective and dedication.

Aren't we back to another undefined/undefinable term...?

When someone asks "why does the universe exist"......the actual answer is still " it's always existed".

When someone asks "why does gravity exist, or behave the way it does".....the answer is that it acts according to it's identity/existence.....that's the answer right their, there's no need to look over it's head.

[moses2792796]

When focusing on details this is true, but some people desire a different level of understanding that goes beyond multiplicity of form, scientists don't, that's why they are scientists, but the understanding that is gained from spirtuality is infallible, unlike science. You do not understand God, that much is clear, this is not a problem and not something to be ashamed of, but it is a mistake to attack people who do. It comes back to fear of the unknown, which if I am not mistaken, is a primary argument atheists use against religion. I always find it amusing how hypocritical the majority of atheists are, in that the arguments they use against religion are ones that they are generally guilty of also.

[Tsky]

When focusing on details this is true, but some people desire a different level of understanding that goes beyond multiplicity of form, scientists don't, that's why they are scientists, but the understanding that is gained from spirtuality is infallible, unlike science. You do not understand God, that much is clear, this is not a problem and not something to be ashamed of, but it is a mistake to attack people who do. It comes back to fear of the unknown, which if I am not mistaken, is a primary argument atheists use against religion. I always find it amusing how hypocritical the majority of atheists are, in that the arguments they use against religion are ones that they are generally guilty of also.


Good point.

Many atheists point out religious hypocrisy as their reason for not believing in God. Religious hypocrisy is no more a viable reason for not believe in God as fraud involving scientists is no reason to discredit the entire scientific community.

[David Hume]

Hypocrisy is why I reject organized religion.

God is evident from simply studying the true religion of the natural world. . .

[Elrathin]

Good point.

Many atheists point out religious hypocrisy as their reason for not believing in God. Religious hypocrisy is no more a viable reason for not believe in God as fraud involving scientists is no reason to discredit the entire scientific community.


No but religious hypocrisy is the main reason I am agnostic. I don't believe mankind has the ability to grasp what is out there so he makes up religion to try and account for his inabilities to comprehend what is really out there.

No religion on Earth has got it right IMO. They all have a pretty good start, but then they muddy it up with ridiculous texts and hypocritical laws.

[Tsky]

Hypocrisy is why I reject organized religion.

God is evident from simply studying the true religion of the natural world. . .


What is your God's name? Why does everything in nature have a name but not the one who created it? Does he expect anything from you? Why did he create you so differently than the animals? Why are you special? Does he care about you? How do you know? Why hasn’t he intervened in mankind’s affairs?

You hypothesize about why Jesus came. Don’t you want to know why you are here?

[David Hume]

Hypocrisy is why I reject organized religion.

God is evident from simply studying the true religion of the natural world. . .


What is your God's name? Why does everything in nature have a name but not the one who created it? Does he expect anything from you? Why did he create you so differently than the animals? Why are you special? Does he care about you? How do you know? Why hasn’t he intervened in mankind’s affairs?

You hypothesize about why Jesus came. Don’t you want to know why you are here?


I know why I'm here. My mom & dad had sex, a sperm united with an egg, voila! No mystery in that. . .sure doesn't take god to carry out basic biology. Just because our brains have evolved to the point to think abstract thoughts doesn't mean we're ultimately any more important than a speck of dust, which is, after all, what we become shortly after death. . .but mankind does have a bit of a superiority complex, doesn't it?

Guess they didn't teach about procreation at the religious school you attended.

[DavoT]

When focusing on details this is true, but some people desire a different level of understanding , but it is a mistake to attack people who do. find it amusing how hypocritical the majority of atheists are,


Actually, I haven't attacked anyone, nor have I used any ad hom.
It seems as though you don't like anyone seeking clarification/truth regarding your beliefs.....me, I'm open, and I've nothing to be ashamed of as I live according to my ethical principles.

You claim to have access to a higher plane, but I'm not able to access anything like it{certainly whilst conscious}.....you also aren't able to provide any details relating to God, supernatural....yet you have the hide to question my credibility.

All I've offered are the facts of the matter....OTOH, all you've offered is a vague account of why God exists.....sorry, but for such an important issue, we need a wee bit more than "I kinda think so, yeah".

If you're prepared to be so flippant when it comes to the big ticket items, it makes me wonder about your political ideology and your ethical codes.

Humans being what they are, no-one can force anyone to believe anything they choose not to, but I'm in the business of truth, and one accesses truth via science/philosophy only.....everything else is guesswork plain and simple.

Objectivism isn't just one of the best philosophies, it's "the" philosophy{I'm referring to it's epistemology}, so anyone really interested in truth should investigate it rather than just regurgitate the same ole same ole from centuries past, especially when the outcome is so predictable.

[moses2792796]

Keep working on your philosophy, it all leads to the same place. I have shown you the basic reasoning behind God, you can see what you want in that, but for now it looks as though you will stick to your natural sciences and other studies of the material world, this is fine, but dealing in material details without having understanding of their source simply isn't satisfying for some people.

[tony mitra]

I like that part of creation which involves a man doing things with a woman.
That's way cooler than debating about it, if y'all ask me.

It is also my perception, that this conflict originating from differences in belief in one kind of God against another has caused more bloodshed than any other, ever since man got civilized enough to invent God.

My guess is, in a hundred years, this obsession with one interpretation or another on God will have largely died out, with those still having belief in religion will engage in it from a distance, while the rest will have moved past the age of religion.

Cheers.

:innocent:

[DavoT]

but dealing in material details without having understanding of their source simply isn't satisfying for some people.


Knowledge of the material is knowledge of the source......for every question as to "why is it so", there's a scientific/logical answer....that said, I believe that it's absolute truth that the universe is eternal, but that hardly means we know everything about it's elements.

We use science and logic to further our investigation into the material world, so yes, there's still a degree of uncertainty regarding the constituents of the universe, but once Objectivist epistemology is properly understood, there's no doubt that the universe is eternal and without start/end/creator/s.

I contemplate about what might be out there, but I know for an absolute fact, that whatever is out there{complex life forms for ex}, they'll be a product of the laws of nature.

All material objects will conform to the laws of science, and any deviations will be subject to scientific scrutiny, and will merely increase our store of knowledge of the universe, rather than constitute evidence of a God.....that said, it's still possible we could lack scientific instruments acute enough to give us the full picture, but being that God/supernatural doesn't exist, the answer will still be scientific.

As far as being a truthseeker goes, it's critical that one understands objectivist epistemology, otherwise one can waste precious time considering and investigating stuff that just ain't there.

A persons "philosophy" shapes their higher level concepts, this is why it's important to not only study philosophy, but Objectivism.....any flaws in your epistemology will be magnified at the ideological level.

That said, whilst Objectivist epistemology in conjunction with Objective science, gives us both instruction and truth regarding the material world, ethics are a slightly different animal, even though they are objective in objectivist terms.[hr]
I like that part of creation which involves a man doing things with a woman.
That's way cooler than debating about it, if y'all ask me.


Funny Tony:evil:.....but FYI, I'm as cool as a cumcumber back here, and if we were face to face, I'd tell you the same thing in a calm and precise manner.:shock:

[moses2792796]

I have attempted to explain myself but it seems you are either unwilling to understand me or can't, I won't respond again anyway, if you are interested in the points I have made look into the metaphysics of the Vedas, Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon.

[DavoT]

I have attempted to explain myself but it seems you are either unwilling to understand me or can't, I won't respond again anyway, if you are interested in the points I have made look into the metaphysics of the Vedas, Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon.


The points you've made are a response to the pressure of modern science and philosophy....remember, you haven't provided any proof for the existence of a God in any form,.....actually you've just cranked out moses's view of the anthropic principle.

As for me looking up the group you've listed, well, if you're one of their representatives, what are they going to tell me that you already haven't?...and also, why do think that their reputations debunk my logical assertions....sounds like we're back in the dark ages.

Humans aren't omniscient, therefore there's no such thing as the "truth" being all knowledge that has ever existed and ever will...instead, we plant our feet on the ground{reality}, and recognize that apart from conceptualizing the universe and all that jazz with terms like "the totality", all humans can do is analyse, experiment and confirm aspects of reality.

The universe being eternal tells us nothing about it's contents in specific terms, we have to determine as much as we can via old fashioned science,.... although I'd like to stipulate that most of modern cosmology has been corrupted by Kant, subsequently, many of today's cosmologist's are talking shit, and taking liberty with mathematical inputs that presumably equate to pre-existing religious idea's.

Don't get me wrong, agnosticism is more honest than any form of theism, however, when we think long and hard, we're forced to conclude that the atheist's are right, and there's no reason to suspend belief pending an act from a non-existence being, IOW, WTF are the agnostics waiting on....:rolleyes:

Some people might feel that theism empowers them in a moralistic capacity, ie, I'm doing God's work.....but truth be told, you don't need God's permission to hand out bread to the hungry.

I'd like to finish with a quote from one of my favourite contemporary pop philosophers.....Paris Hilton...."Atheism, that's hot!!!"

[moses2792796]

Your cognitive dissonance is mildly amusing, nothing more, you fail to understand anything I've said thus far, unless I just didn't explain myself well enough, in which case get a copy of the "Transcendent Unity of Religions", you are interested in philosophy are you not? The Traditionalists are more engaging than most of the better known philosophers.

[DavoT]

God is the unmanifested principle that, when seen in this light, can be nothing other than certain. This non-physical side of existence cannot be denied because when assuming that reality is purely matter


I’m not denying the existence of the forces or the atomic world, but what I’m making plain and clear is that as far as explaining the function of matter at the atomic level, we use science…ie, science analyses and describes matter at all levels, however, when we ask something like “why is an ocean an ocean�, or “what is the purpose of an ocean�, the answers are related to it’s atomic, molecular and physical existence……we hardly need to invoke anything supernatural.

Now, once that’s understood, we can include any physical object{or force} in the universe, and recognize that our answers are going to be scientific/philosophical…..as I said before, light and gravity are what they are and do what they do because that’s their nature, IOW, we examine them as best we can, and our scientific knowledge of them enables us to understand what they are.

Of course, this isn’t what you believe, you’ve imbued matter with God like properties despite having no evidence, and subsequently no rational grounds for this belief, IOW, you’re a religious person, and irrationality is a necessary component of your dogma.

FYI, I’m only interested in Objectivism and Objective science….I reject every single philosophy past and present that isn’t Objectivism, I also reject non-empirical science, so naturally I’m not a big fan of modern cosmological theories that defy scientific evaluation, or in fact, make a mockery of what science is.

The problem most people face these days is that they simply haven’t studied philosophy and the philosophy of science hard enough….if they had, it would’ve led them to Objectivism.

[moses2792796]

In doing so you limit your knowledge to the point of ignorance, which you have already made clear. It is a clear failure to understand the limitations of science that have led to your attitude, and the materialistic attitude in general.

[DavoT]

In doing so you limit your knowledge to the point of ignorance, which you have already made clear. It is a clear failure to understand the limitations of science that have led to your attitude, and the materialistic attitude in general.


I'm well aware of the limitations of science.... philosophy and the philosophy of science are two of my favourite subjects, however, it's your vague account of "spirituality" that qualifies as ignorance.

I define spirituality as the nexus between man, nature and universe{no ghosts allowed}.

[piratemonkey]

That is the whole point I have been trying to make is that someone that believes in god has no more a crazy notion than what you believe in with the universe being eternal or what I do with the Big Bang.



Scientific worldviews are based upon observation and analysis of the known universe.

Religious worldviews are based upon faith.

Facts are provable to an independent observer. Faith is not.

I don't see your point as valid or logical. Faith and facts are not equivalent. Someone's faith that there exists a god is based upon NO evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be faith. Someone's scientific opinions (not beliefs) about the origin of the universe is based upon analysis of accumulated data.

To opine that those two worldviews are equally rational is not a supportable position.

[Elrathin]

Scientific worldviews are based upon observation and analysis of the known universe.

Religious worldviews are based upon faith.

Facts are provable to an independent observer. Faith is not.

I don't see your point as valid or logical. Faith and facts are not equivalent. Someone's faith that there exists a god is based upon NO evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be faith. Someone's scientific opinions (not beliefs) about the origin of the universe is based upon analysis of accumulated data.

To opine that those two worldviews are equally rational is not a supportable position.


Ok first of all, let me set a few things straight. I am agnostic in my beliefs. Now we are getting several conversations here.

So let me break them down to you. You now more can prove WITH ABSOLUTE PROOF there is not god. There is just no way to PROVE that even scientifically. The absence of proof does not make it fact. If I am living in America without any internet or outside communication and have never heard nor seen anything about china and someone comes and tells me about china, I cannot say China doesn't exist because I haven't seen it. That isn't logical at all. I can speculate about it not existing and even have a theory about it, but I cannot prove China doesn't exist. So you can only have FAITH that god doesn't exist.

Now onto another theory. DAVot says that there is no big bang and it's all basically illogical science. He believes that the universes has always existed and always will. Now his theory is not scientific but based on faith that the universe has always existed. Now I no of no scientific theory that says the universe has ALWAYS existed and always will, so it is based on faith.

Now IMO to say there is ABSOLUTELY NO GOD is illogical as well. You may think there is no god, but to say there is none in an absolute form is illogical to me just as it is illogical to say the god is a Christian god. Hence the only logical conclusion is an agnostic one.

We can go round and round who isn't logical and who is. I'll tell you what, you'll lose. Because in the long run logic is subjective. So to me your theories on atheism are illogical and that will never change just as you believe an agnostic or religious view is illogical. Now you can hide behind scientific theories are always logical, but they are not. Some scientists for a long time though the Earth was flat. Yes, scientists. Just because scientists think it up, doesn't make it logical.

[piratemonkey]

Ok first of all, let me set a few things straight. I am agnostic in my beliefs. Now we are getting several conversations here.

So let me break them down to you. You now more can prove WITH ABSOLUTE PROOF there is not god. There is just no way to PROVE that even scientifically.

Stop here. There are several problems with your argument already:

1) No scientists will ever say that there is absolute proof of a universal negative. That's not something that's typically possible to prove. E.g. Prove to me that aliens have never landed on Earth. Not possible.

2) It's not my burden to prove a negative. The positive statement of fact in discussion is, "There is a god." That's an amazingly extraordinary factual statement to make and the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. (And extraordinary claims require a higher burden of proof.)

3) No scientific atheist will ever stay there is absolutely, certainly no diety of any kind. It's just very, very, very unlikely since there isn't a shred of evidence that there is a god. Using Occam's Razor, the only rational position go on with our worldview as if there is not a god.

If I'm doing and experiment on the number of legs a cat has, I would be forced by your logic assume that there are 50-legged cats our there when I'm forming my hypothesis. (As well as 49-legged ones and 51-legged ones, etc.) Every theory is not equivalent in it's likelihood.


The absence of proof does not make it fact. If I am living in America without any internet or outside communication and have never heard nor seen anything about china and someone comes and tells me about china, I cannot say China doesn't exist because I haven't seen it. That isn't logical at all. I can speculate about it not existing and even have a theory about it, but I cannot prove China doesn't exist. So you can only have FAITH that god doesn't exist.

You are exactly wrong. I do not have faith.

I am making a logical deduction based upon the evidence. Could I be wrong? Yes. Is it likely, based upon an objective analysis of the evidence? No.

And your China example is a flawed one. If you had NO outside communication you would have absolutely no reason to think that China exists. Your position would be wrong, but rational because you are making a judgment based upon falsely limited information.


Now IMO to say there is ABSOLUTELY NO GOD is illogical as well.
I agree, but no rational atheist would say this.

I also wouldn't say there ABSOLUTELY IS NO PINK, WINGED ELEPHANTS. It's just very, very unlikely. ;)


We can go round and round who isn't logical and who is. I'll tell you what, you'll lose.
I think you've already lost.


Because in the long run logic is subjective.
Scientific evidence is not.


So to me your theories on atheism are illogical and that will never change just as you believe an agnostic or religious view is illogical.
Only if I'm making an unprovable, faith-based claim. Show me where I'm doing that.


Now you can hide behind scientific theories are always logical, but they are not. Some scientists for a long time though the Earth was flat. Yes, scientists. Just because scientists think it up, doesn't make it logical.

Who's hiding? The scientists who thought the world was flat were making the a rational, logical deduction based upon the evidence they had at the time.

Can scientist be wrong? Yes, we are all the time. I can admit that.

Can a person with a faith-based worldview admit the same?

[Elrathin]

1) No scientists will ever say that there is absolute proof of a universal negative. That's not something that's typically possible to prove. E.g. Prove to me that aliens have never landed on Earth. Not possible.

Wrong there are many atheists that have said THERE IS NO GOD. Hences atheism. That is the stance, that there is no god. That is illogical to say as an absolute.


2) It's not my burden to prove a negative. The positive statement of fact in discussion is, "There is a god." That's an amazingly extraordinary factual statement to make and the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. (And extraordinary claims require a higher burden of proof.)

When you say THERE IS NO GOD, the burden of proof is indeed on you. If you say you think there is no god, that is your opinion and stands as that.


3) No scientific atheist will ever stay there is absolutely, certainly no diety of any kind.

There are many atheists that have said absoultely there is not god. That is what atheism is, the belief there is no god.


Every theory is not equivalent in it's likelihood.


and the same goes for athiests. Yours is no more logical than someone of faith.


You are exactly wrong. I do not have faith.

Sure you do, do you have proof there is no god as you state? Then it is faith.


I am making a logical deduction based upon the evidence. Could I be wrong? Yes. Is it likely, based upon an objective analysis of the evidence? No.

Just as I take the stance that there is something out there. COuld I be wrong? Yes, am I given what life is compared to an inanimate object? No.


And your China example is a flawed one. If you had NO outside communication you would have absolutely no reason to think that China exists. Your position would be wrong, but rational because you are making a judgment based upon falsely limited information.

And as an agnostic, given what we have seen with life, it is illogical to believe that life just popped out of nowhere.


I also wouldn't say there ABSOLUTELY IS NO PINK, WINGED ELEPHANTS. It's just very, very unlikely. ;)
[/quote]

I have never said there could be no god. So how is my stance anymore illogical than yours?


I think you've already lost.

Of course you would believe that. Why would you beleive I have won? Ego plays a big part is seems.


Scientific evidence is not.

Really? So every scientific evidence that has been uncovered is never subjective in its meaning? I think you need to re-examine that position.


Only if I'm making an unprovable, faith-based claim. Show me where I'm doing that.

You are, you are making a faith based claim there is no god. Therefore your logic is subjective.


Who's hiding? The scientists who thought the world was flat were making the a rational, logical deduction based upon the evidence they had at the time.

But it still wasn't right. So whos to say agnostics are not making a rational and logical decision given the fact?


Can scientist be wrong? Yes, we are all the time. I can admit that.

Can a person with a faith-based worldview admit the same?


I can't speak for every religion, but yes I can admit that. I just don't think I am, just as you don't think you are.

[piratemonkey]

Wrong there are many atheists that have said THERE IS NO GOD. Hences atheism. That is the stance, that there is no god. That is illogical to say as an absolute.

Not me. And I agree that such a statement is illogical





When you say THERE IS NO GOD, the burden of proof is indeed on you. If you say you think there is no god, that is your opinion and stands as that.

Once again, I haven't said that, nor would any scientifically minded, rational atheist.

Even Hitchens doesn't say this.


There are many atheists that have said absoultely there is not god. That is what atheism is, the belief there is no god.

Here's where I think our disagreement lies.

If we are talking in absolute terms, I can't say there isn't a god (and I also can't say there isn't a pink, winged elephant.)

If we are talking in practical terms, Occam's Razor insists that I function as if there is no god, since there is no evidence whatsoever that there is one.

There's also no evidence that there isn't a 50-legged cat. Would you be comfortable stating that one doesn't exist? I'd probably live my life as if one didn't exist... wouldn't you?


and the same goes for athiests. Yours is no more logical than someone of faith.

It is, because I am not saying there absolutely certainly isn't a god. I'm saying is astronomically unlikely.


Sure you do, do you have proof there is no god as you state? Then it is faith.

For the 10th time, I haven't stated this.


And as an agnostic, given what we have seen with life, it is illogical to believe that life just popped out of nowhere.

Um, no it isn't. Not if all the evidence points that way.




Of course you would believe that. Why would you beleive I have won? Ego plays a big part is seems.
On both sides.

The problem with your argument is that you are arguing against a point I haven't made... an nor would any rational atheist.


Scientific evidence is not.

Really? So every scientific evidence that has been uncovered is never subjective in its meaning? I think you need to re-examine that position.

Really.

Show me evidence that is subjective. Evidence isn't subjective. Interpretation/perception of that evidence can certainly be. That's why we do peer review and make our experiments double-blind.


You are, you are making a faith based claim there is no god. Therefore your logic is subjective.

For the 11th time, I am not making that claim.

Key point:
If the odds are 10,000,000,000 to one against there being a place in the world where the entire sky is green, would you live your life as if that place exists or not?


But it still wasn't right. So whos to say agnostics are not making a rational and logical decision given the fact?

Me.

There is no evidence proving there is a god. None whatsoever.

By your logic, you have to believe in all possibilities that haven't been disproven, no matter how unlikely. That's not only impossible, it would be exhausting! ;)

[DavoT]

Interesting posts gentlemen, however, you're both missing the point....God cannot be disproved as it's undefined, IOW, if someone said there was a large{dimension}, pink{colour} elephant{animal/unique appearance} on the moon{place}....at least in theory, I could attempt to disprove the pink elephants existence....but how on earth can I even attempt to disprove something that's undefined...?

That's why both theism and agnosticism are wrong, with agnosticism being the more honest sounding position, but no less illogical.

Science will NEVER determine the origin of the universe, cause the question is beyond it's scope, and also implies that something can come from nothing{impossible}, or that a creator exists{exposes one to an infinite regress}.....therefore, accepting the universe's existence as eternal is the only logical conclusion.

[tony mitra]

Find myself in agreement with DavoT about science's inability to prove or disprove an entity that is not defined by science, such as what is God - matter, space-time, energy, force, a theory or something else.

While there is reason to doubt (for some) and reason to believe (for some) in God, it is possibly a fair statement that humans have made a very big mess among themselves due to difference of opinion on God.

Regarding science never being able to determine the origin of the universe, I am not sure what the future will bring. It has come up with some amazing discoveries in the past couple of thousand years already.

As to something coming out of nothing, that debate might also change in future, if "something" and "nothing" both get a bit more refined by science.

Cheers and have a great wkend.
:)

[moses2792796]

Interesting posts gentlemen, however, you're both missing the point....God cannot be disproved as it's undefined, IOW, if someone said there was a large{dimension}, pink{colour} elephant{animal/unique appearance} on the moon{place}....at least in theory, I could attempt to disprove the pink elephants existence....but how on earth can I even attempt to disprove something that's undefined...?

That's why both theism and agnosticism are wrong, with agnosticism being the more honest sounding position, but no less illogical.

Science will NEVER determine the origin of the universe, cause the question is beyond it's scope, and also implies that something can come from nothing{impossible}, or that a creator exists{exposes one to an infinite regress}.....therefore, accepting the universe's existence as eternal is the only logical conclusion.


Yet it has been proven by the science that you hold so dear that the Big Bang singularity almost certainly existed.

[Red Dragon]

Interesting posts gentlemen, however, you're both missing the point....God cannot be disproved as it's undefined, IOW, if someone said there was a large{dimension}, pink{colour} elephant{animal/unique appearance} on the moon{place}....at least in theory, I could attempt to disprove the pink elephants existence....but how on earth can I even attempt to disprove something that's undefined...?

That's why both theism and agnosticism are wrong, with agnosticism being the more honest sounding position, but no less illogical.

Science will NEVER determine the origin of the universe, cause the question is beyond it's scope, and also implies that something can come from nothing{impossible}, or that a creator exists{exposes one to an infinite regress}.....therefore, accepting the universe's existence as eternal is the only logical conclusion.


Yet it has been proven by the science that you hold so dear that the Big Bang singularity almost certainly existed.


Yes and it was an expansion of the universe not the creation of the universe. Also why our vision may be fogged when it comes to the pre-big bang universe, we are not completly in the dark. For example we know that the expansion of the universe creates space and that the gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it will most likely sum to zero. Also for the infinite universe argument it is possible and probable that there is more than one dimension of time, the other dimension being unbounded, so there is no overall origin of time. Another possibility is that the universe is in an eternal cycle without beginning or end. Each big bang might end in a big crunch to start a new cycle (Steinhardt and Turok 2002) or at long intervals, our universe collides with a mirror universe, reconstructing the universe anew. Also what you are trying to do is reconstruct an argument from incredulity, sometime know as an argument from ignorance or "the god of the gaps". What your saying is that it is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created. This a horrible argument since no one knows everything and this leads to in general being an intellectual sloth. Can you imagine if people had use this argument for lightning, or infectious diseases, earthquakes, the tides, or earth's orbit, wait I think some people already did that and many generations later they were debunked with natural explanations. The gods are only confined to the unknown, an area which is slowly shrinking. Does that mean one day people will stop using this argument proably not since we'll never know everything and people just can't resist trying to prove that their gods exsist. Though this argument really isn't meant to argue against the possible exsistance of gods only that gods are inscrutable and thus useless as an explanation.

[moses2792796]

^^You have completely misunderstood my argument, God has to exist, not because humans have not scientifically explained everything, but because science is limited to the study of material, and can never take the place of the knowledge of the transcendental.

What came before the Big Bang singularity is still confined to the realm of unproven theories at this point, it has been said that there is no point in questioning because if there was anything before it, it would have no consequences that we could observe.

[Red Dragon]

^^You have completely misunderstood my argument, God has to exist, not because humans have not scientifically explained everything, but because science is limited to the study of material, and can never take the place of the knowledge of the transcendental.

What came before the Big Bang singularity is still confined to the realm of unproven theories at this point, it has been said that there is no point in questioning because if there was anything before it, it would have no consequences that we could observe.


The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature. Also naturalism works, very well with humans. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than for historical curiosity. Also the supernatural is contentious, people tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and all too often the only effective way they have found for reaching a consensus is by killing each other. This has been seen throughout human history, and I find it very strange since no one has ever come up with a useful definition of supernatural. By most definitions, something having an effect on nature makes that something a part of nature itself. So any explanation for something we see in nature can be considered natural by definition. So we cannot observe the supernatural, the only way to reach a supernatural explanation would be to eliminate all natural explanations. But we can never know that we have eliminated all possibilities. Even if a supernatural explanation is correct, we can never reach it.

Not to mention that atheism it's self is not irreligious there are atheistic religions. And while they have no creator god they may have spirits and other exotic entities. Buddhism is an example (the Buddha is a human who has reached enlightenment also most Buddhists regard the existence of gods as possible, but often they dismiss gods as simply irrelevant to the important task of overcoming suffering. As a consequence, many Buddhists not only dismiss the relevancy of gods, but also the existence of gods — they are atheists, even if they aren't atheists in the scientific, philosophical sense that many atheists in the West are.
), Jainism (with its Tirthankas, or teachers), Confucianism, Taoism (these last two are usually considered philosophies than more than religious though). There have also been many sects, cults, and schools of thought, that have been atheistic For example many UFO cults are atheistic. The Raelians were founded by Mr. Vorilhon when fluent French-speaking aliens told him that we had mistranslated the Bible, and in fact the aliens built everything on Earth. Also my apoligies for misunderstanding your argument, and I do have a question to ask you. You capitalize the "g" in god which is primarily used to refer to the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Bahá'Ã* Faith. Are you refering to this specific deity or is the capitalazation just a result of habit?

[DavoT]

Yet it has been proven by the science that you hold so dear that the Big Bang singularity almost certainly existed.


:madlaugh:.....please define a singularity for us......in your own words please{so that we know you actually understand what the science says}.[hr]
[ The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically

This is the problem right here......"the supernatural is not ruled out a priori"........the supernatural and God are both undefined arbitrary assertions that need to be treated with the respect they deserve{no