I bothered to study religion. I wrote a long thread about why I no longer believe in God in another topic.
Your apologist talking points can be looked up online. My question: is nothing possible? No. Then something always had to exist and there’s no need for a creator.
@BlacklightShade I'm not saying you cannot believe or not believe in god, I'm saying that if you think that we can definitely prove one way or another to the point that the argument is "won" then you don't understand the argument. Plenty of people believe one way or another and can fully admit that its not some kind of one sided argument, their is no evidence for either argument because again, as I pointed out their is a lot of contradiction, not in religion or science but in the argument itself. It requires cause and effect to be consistent yet existence itself shows that its not. Now if one where to say that their may be reasonable evidence to show that if their is a god that he at the very least seems completely indifferent to us, sure that's something you can probably argue, but arguing that its settled with a body of evidence to back it is false. As I pointed out things are to complicated and the way we understand the universe simply isn't fit to understand nothing from something, we are applying rules to something that exists outside of those rules (again, science itself is claiming that their was nothing then something with the big bang theory, that requires that their was nothing then something ergo that their was a time that the rules where not in existence). I'm agnostic, I don't really know if I have the capacity to rationalize that which cannot be rationalized but I also cannot bring myself to believe something without evidence. This is why I pointed out militant atheists not atheists as a whole.
@OddBeMe I'm not an apologist, I am pointing out that the argument is inherently flawed, I then went on to prove it objectively using reason and logic. Is nothing possible? Well first you would have to prove that nothing is possible, an assertion, which is what you have given, is not the same as evidence of fact. Second, if you believe in the big bang then yes you absolutely must believe that their was nothing then something as that's the foundational principle of the "theory"(more of a hypothesis really). Third, if existence has always existed it defies the rules of cause and effect which reason, logic and even more so science, depends upon because it exists without having been created ergo it is an effect without a cause. This leads us right back to the original argumentative position of using cause and effect to explain that which is in direct conflict with cause and effect. Hence my point being that its flawed argument and is at least at the moment, not a question that can be answered using our current way of thinking.
Sorry. You’re so confused. A theory is fact in science. Look it up. And believing in the Big Bang doesn’t mean you believe in nothing before it. We don’t know what was before it because we can’t get past the Plank time.
Clearly not a particularly science minded person are you? First and foremost a theory is NOT a fact, a theory can always be proven wrong it is merely that which is considered to be true based upon what we know now which can and does frequently change. Second, the big bang theory isn't a theory because in order to be a theory you need to be able to replicate the experiment, you can't replicate the big bang, you need to directly observe it, you cannot directly observe it, ergo its not a theory its a hypothesis. Further still the things it proclaims as "fact" also are provably false. It claims that all things are moving away from us while our data that is directly observable shows that galaxies are in fact colliding with each other, that more then likely the milkyway galaxy actually already collided with another galaxy in its past and that currently the andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with the milkyway galaxy all of which is the complete opposite of "Moving away" from all other matter and galaxies. Second, it proclaims that the universe is expanding, however in order for that to be the case you need dark energy, which we cannot measure nor observe in any real way. It also spontaneously creates itself despite having laws against the spontaneous creation of energy/matter. That makes it questionable, not impossible mind you but questionable considering we have no means of showing that its true.
Third, it proclaims that the universe is expanding greater then the force of gravity can cause matter to coalesce, this would mean that the matter that originally existed would have been expanding at a rate faster then it could form stars which would then make us have an even distribution of matter through out the universe yet we see that not only do we not have that but matter is not evenly distributed meaning that it would also not be moving away from a central point as their are patches which have very little matter and others that have an abundance of it. Fourth, it states that the big bang created equal parts matter and antimatter. This would have resulted in both matter and anti matter annihilating each other leaving us with no matter. This is obviously not the case. Further we have no evidence that their is any anti matter that exists within the known universe except for that which was created by humans. So we can state that its absolutely a hypothesis based upon definition, that scientific facts are not absolutes, and that as a hypothesis it has many many flaws (and is why many scientists are looking for alternative cosmological theories).
As for not believing that their was nothing before it, sure okay, what is the scientific argument for what happened before? Well nothing. You have Laurence Krauss's argument that their was a "quantum field' which of course is something he just made up to try and understand what happened and he can't really tell you what a quantum field is or how it miraculously spawned all of existence. But that isn't scientific and is nothing more then a techno babble term for faith (as their is no more reason to presume this is the case then anything else and their is no scientific data to suggest this is the case). What else do you have? Nothing. Also as I pointed out you either have nothing then something, or you have something that was never created both of which cause the same problem, a violation of cause and effect. Again, you cannot argue against this point which is why you haven't bothered trying. The argument is fundamentally flawed because the tools used to try and explain a break in causality require an unbroken causality.
you’re losing me with you’re novel length texts. Have you proven God yet?
So basically you decided that since you couldn't argue against me your just going to sling insults and ignore the statement made? Smart move, maybe acting like an elitist and ignoring the argument entirely will make you seem less ignorant to people who agree with you. Of course it doesn't matter because you have already revealed your complete ignorance on the subject. First and foremost by not providing any argument of any kind, you made an assertion and then. . . well that's all you did. That's not an argument that's a claim that isn't backed by an argument, its utterly meaningless. Two you completely missed the point of my argument, I never once suggested god exists nor did I suggest he doesn't. I stated that the argument itself is flawed because it requires tools to deduce that we don't have i. e. its an unknowable from a logical stand point not just an "argument from ignorance". You also have no understanding of how science works which is just pathetic in this day and age with the abundance of information and the fact that you would use science which you don't understand as evidence of an argument that you can't even articulate properly.
Your writing style still loses me. Can you prove God or not?
Can you? The answer is no, you cannot disprove god which is why you push the burden of proof onto others because your arguing the same style of argument as a theist. This is getting pathetic on your part, you have the argument you claimed to want and now your, to use the colloquial terminology, "bitching out" and trying to play cocky and hope that you can compensate being an intellectual "limp dick"(to use the colloquial terminology) with an air of arrogance, its not doing what you think it is, your just coming off as increasingly pathetic. I personally don't care but its looking really bad for you. You want the answer read what I wrote, try and fail to rebuke it, other wise don't bother asking a question that has already been answered three different times already.
I didn’t exist before I was born.
@hellionthesagereborn If I asked you to believe in leprechauns, you’d say no. I wouldn’t expect you to disprove them first.
God your arguments are so awful. What are the parameter of which leprauchans exist? If they violate known laws then we can rightfully presume that they probably don't exist i. e. evidence. Your not providing no evidence, your providing evidence by not believing because your saying that they do not fit into the frame work of the universe that we have. This doesn't work with the notion of god as I have pointed out because he would exist outside of our frame work thus this type of argument is invalid. Again, pretty straight forward.
@BlacklightShade And? I never said you did? I never said you would exist after you die either. I never mentioned existing beyond that which shows that causality must not be consistent. Whats your point?
Right, what I meant was science keeps proving to the best of our knowledge and clearly improving lives. Religion, not so much.
well religion is a good short term solution for severe life crysis. when you lose your meaning in life or an important person, it can help coping. however long term it's never a good solution. it's like painkillers. yeah they help if you sprained your ankle but if your leg is broken, you should have that fixed instead of taking painkillers.
As an adult I put away my childish toys.
you're speaking about times when you have your shit together. i'm speaking about times in which people lose their shit. be it mental health issues or horrible things happening to them. when people don't have their shit together, it can help. like a cast helps healing a broken bone. however you should get rid of the cast once the bone has healed.
When I lose my shit, I go to scientifically proven areas like psychology or math. And analyze my way out of the shit. Maybe that’s why religionists statistically more depressed than atheists?
lol funny that you say that cause i'm actually a social scientist and there's definitely a correlation between mental health and religion. anyway you have to realize that not everybody has access to the resources that you have. with resources i don't only mean money. i mean knowledge and habits that provide you with mechanics and structure to rebalance your life. what if you don't know where to go or who you can ask? what if you don't have the money to pay a therapist? i'm speaking very broadly. we both know what would be the best but what's the best for us usnÄt possible for everyone.
I believe you. But how sad is it that people can’t find logic and instead just embrace magical thinking? I guess it’s lazier, but it’s still sad.
i would say generally it's easier to find beauty, passion and fuzzy emotional stuff in mystery and magic. logic and the real world can be cold and mundande and i think it takes quite an advanced psychological setup to find the beauty in that.
I guess. But it’s much more fulfilling understanding things instead of just pointing to faith. Like my convo with gunderson up there.
i'm not trying to look down on people that are less intelligent but well... for those, this may be the better option.
Anti intellectualism is never a better option.
anti intellectualism and "making due with what you have cause you are not very intelligent" are different things. it's like anti vax. being against vaccinations in general is dumb. however choosing against vaccinations for yourself can be a very respectable decisin under certain circumstances.eventually everyone has to figure out what works for them anyway.
Sorry, If you decide not to get vaxxed and then walk through a herd of children, they could all die. Or vice versa. Anti intellectualism is never ok. Treating people differently because you think they’re dumb is never ok. We should teach and learn.
you have to treat people differently based on their intellect because they are litterally unable to grasp certain concepts. it's like telling a cripple in a wheelchair that he should just walk.choosing not to be vaccinated "can" be a good decision, cause we do have herd immunity (due to the fact that most people are vaxed). so if you're not vaxed, you won't harm everybody, however depending on your personal health record and your family history, it can actually be the wiser decision not to take certain vaccines. however having an "anti vax" stance is still inexcusable even given those conditions. that's what i'm saying.
you see there are cases in which a certain family and medical history can cause your individual odds of being negatively effected by a vaccines possible side effects. for such individuals, getting the vaccine is mathmatically more dangerous than not taking it and risking to get the thing, that the vaccination was trying to prevent, if that means they're procentually more prone for a heart failure or a stroke or whatever down the line. such cases exist.
You’re understanding of herd immunity is ass backward. If you don’t get vaxxed you could develop a strain of virus NO one is vaxxed for. That’s why we all (the herd) must get vaxxed. That’s why polio and measles are coming back.And who are you to say which person is too stupid to treat properly?
however that doesn still not validate the claim that vaccines are generally bad
But yes, doctors can tell you when and how to vaccinate. Not parents who armchair medical advice on Facebook.
ok so let's make a practical example. let's say you have a family history of getting strokes. and there's a vaccine let's say against the mumps, that has a 1 in 100.000 chance of giving you a stroke, however your family was already very prone to this and you also have to take medication for another disease that you already have that's raises your chances for issues in combination with the vaccination. combining your genetically increased likelyhood with that other medication, taking the vaccination mathematically rises your risk of getting a stroke as a sideeffect to 70%. this is of course exaggerated to the point where it becomes blatantly obvious but such rare cases exist and in those cases, deciding against a vaccination is viable, causeyou can sruvive mumps but you may die to a stroke. are you with me on this or do you disagree with that?
i am of course with you when you say anti vax is dumb. cause it obviously is. however often people fail to see the distinction that i'm trying to make because they're not intelligent enough. and for those people it's better to tell them that "vaccinations are always better" cause they're too dumb to grasp the difference between a decision that makes sense for a society and individual decisions.
Not sure how you got to 70%. But my over all point is anti intellectualism makes us dismiss experts like doctors. If your doctor says pass on the flu vax this year, fine. But don’t just think you know best. Go where the knowledge is.
I agree. But lots of newer believers are coming out with the “Everyman God”. Every religion is right and all that bs. I don’t think religion will ever die.
Religion is the backbone of sanity and proper behavior for a lot of cultures and people. People with troubles and fears usually cling to religion as some sort of an answer so yes it's very unlikely religion will be completely out of the picture for many years to come.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
How is it shallow when the only thing proven to exist are people, the universe, etc?
What I meant was it's shallow if that's the only reason someone believes in God. It hardly matters if they believe or not in that case.
Gotcha, I respond to a lot of people who try to tell me there’s something “beyond the universe”. Gets me everytime :)
Why they believe in God is probably different than why they think you should believe in God. When trying to convince others that God exists, they generally do that argument. It's unlike the reason why they believe it.
Actually in my experience they just tell me about some bullshit moment they think God protected them and expect me to believe it. So I think they do want me to believe for their reasons. And it’s idiotic.
There are no assumptions in scientific theories. And you can thank science for the mobile device your typing on.
It was once assumed that the planet is flat. And science delivered the proofs.My reasoning: A theory is an assumption in its beginnings.'Science' is just one version of 'believing': We believe in atoms; we believe in gravity; we believe in electricity; we believe in radio transmission. - that's how we could work out a way to make use of it.500 years ago, 'we' would have been laughed at to even think about certain stuff.Any theory (to me) is "innocent, until proven guilty" No matter how loud others shout against it. To conclude that God does not exist - simply because we don't have tools or methods to do so... would be sort of un-scientific in MY eyes. /// Many people are too busy with proving each other wrong; instead of joining forces and looking into where it can be good for ALL of us.
You need to research what a theory means in science. It’s a set of facts that leads to the best explanation. An assumption would be closer to a hypothesis in science.
And science is the only “belief” that can be proven. And we can make predictions based on it. Like where to find particular fossils. Can religions do that?
You didn't listen.
No you just ran out of apologist talking points. And I don’t believe God doesn’t exist. I just don’t believe in God. If you can’t tell the difference, then you need to read up on philosophy.
Incorrect. I had 'offered' a theory - and YOU discuss a different one. Let's end this here, please. It leads nowhere :)
As soon as I saw the hairy guy I clicked out of the video. But should god have to be disproven? Or should God be proven before you believe?
As soon as you saw the hairy guy? What kind of motivation to ignore the arguments is that? If you watch the film in its entirety, like an honest person, you'll hear him reason on why speaking of proving God's existence is contradictory to the kind of entity the premise is based on.
I’ve heard that shit before. But you didn’t answer my question. Shouldn’t god be proven? Not disproven?
I don't really believe you. You haven't made any counter argument to the claim. You merely seem to not want to engage in it. False premise. It is not a question on whether we must either prove or disprove God's existence, it can be both, but the truth is that we're talking about you demanding we prove God's existence *with science* which is a flawed concept given God's nature as outside time and mind, above our understanding, the very craftsman of the world's laws and science. Brian Holdsworth explains it better than I, so once more, you ought to watch the video for it is my main inference here. Rather than trying to ignore it and enter into a sidetrack discussion with me.
Science is the only thing that gets results in the real world. And I bet that any other topic, you’d use science to prove it first before you believe. Why not god?
Brian evaluates this. Why not watch? Do you fear something about the video? Many things, in the past and present, happens outside science's explanation.
Wow you’re not getting it. You have no idea what’s outside of scientific explanation. Because if science doesn’t provide if, we don’t know it.
And you have some serious hard on for this hairy Brian guy.
Your main tactic appears to be the employing of insults. But examples of what science cannot explain on a philosophical level is that science can explain how the universe is built, but not why. On the strictly scientific level, from dark matter and unintelligible signals in space, to why cats purr, and last I heard, science cannot actually to this day explain *why* we have conciousness that results in emotions and experience. We can also liken it to gravity. We cannot see gravity, nor can we ascertain that gravity causes one to fall from a cliff, not for certain. We can draw correlation, but not cause, as we say in scientific terms. We can never be completely certain gravity is behind what transpires, at some level it requires faith. Neither can we see the wind, but we see the effect it has on the world. Now I provided this video because this man reasons well and in line with my own rationale. But it your choice if you'd rather smear both me and him than address it. I'll not pursue a discussion of such low quality any further.
Nothing requires faith. Just confidence based on evidence. And like children, why is a stupid question.
Matthew 18:3: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."We are all children my friend.
Ever wonder the guys who wrote the Bible tell people to think like children? So they can control them like children.
So who created the simm? God or science?
Science god obviously
Did Science God create Science or was it around before Him?
No Joe did
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!