Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

[Taz]

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

Actually, cosmologists and physicists say this.

They say this because space and time were created by following the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.



I am beginning to think you have not looked at anything I have posted.

This guy is explaining a theory that he doesn't particularly think is all that solid, and calls it a mystery.

 

[hobelim]

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

It is an unbelievably stupid assertion that the laws of nature existed before anything existed..

 

[ding]

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

When your facts are shown to be wrong, and your reasoning shown to be fallacious - that's refutation.

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

 

[WinterBorn]

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

Actually, cosmologists and physicists say this.

They say this because space and time were created by following the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.



I am beginning to think you have not looked at anything I have posted.

I have looked at some of them. Some were too long for such a discussion.

So you are saying that cosmologists and physicists say that non-material things existed before space and time?

 

[ding]

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

It is an unbelievably stupid assertion that the laws of nature existed before anything existed..

Is that because you believe God didn't exist before space and time? You did say you believed in God, right?

 

[WinterBorn]

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

When your facts are shown to be wrong, and your reasoning shown to be fallacious - that's refutation.

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

Logic? Like you trying to tell me what I believe? That is hardly logical.

 

[ding]

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

Actually, cosmologists and physicists say this.

They say this because space and time were created by following the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.



I am beginning to think you have not looked at anything I have posted.

I have looked at some of them. Some were too long for such a discussion.

So you are saying that cosmologists and physicists say that non-material things existed before space and time?

The one where Alexander Vilinken said the laws of nature existed before space and time was 3 minutes long.

 

[dblack]

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

When your facts are shown to be wrong, and your reasoning shown to be fallacious - that's refutation.

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

You're making faulty generalizations about atheists - based on your own stereotypes. You're making false claims about the definition of atheism. You're wiring up your incorrect facts with your fallacious reasoning and coming to false conclusions. Your entire premise is a strawman.

 

[ding]

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

When your facts are shown to be wrong, and your reasoning shown to be fallacious - that's refutation.

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

Logic? Like you trying to tell me what I believe? That is hardly logical.

No. The one where I explained how your beliefs were illogical. Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

 

[ding]

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

When your facts are shown to be wrong, and your reasoning shown to be fallacious - that's refutation.

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

You're making faulty generalizations about atheists - based on your own stereotypes. You're making false claims about the definition of atheism. You're wiring up your incorrect facts with your fallacious reasoning and coming to false conclusions. Your entire premise is a strawman.

Can you be specific about my "faulty" generalizations?

 

[hobelim]

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

It is an unbelievably stupid assertion that the laws of nature existed before anything existed..

Is that because you believe God didn't exist before space and time? You did say you believed in God, right?

By definition any living being that would qualify as what people define as God would be exist independent of space and time, in a completely different realm of conscious existence that is not based on anything material.

Your confusion stems from your misunderstanding the story of the creation in genesis which is about events that happened on earth no more than 6-10,000 years ago, not 14 billion years ago and is not and was never about the beginning of the universe, the solar system, the earth or the first plants, animals, or human beings.

 

[ding]

Let me be very clear here, I believe that God can be discovered differently by different people. That God does not care which religion you practice. Only Hobelim cares about that.

God doesn't doesn't care about what religion you practice? Only I do?

lol... did you never actually read the bible?

You don't even believe that God exists. So your discussion on theology is a red herring.

You don't believe that God existed before space and time, remember?

 

[dblack]

Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

What's illogical about it? We don't know. How's that for an explanation? It has no bearing at all on the veracity of your claim that atheists "do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world". That claim is false. You haven't proven it. You've just stuffed it into the discussion as an unsupported premise.

 

[ding]

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

It is an unbelievably stupid assertion that the laws of nature existed before anything existed..

Is that because you believe God didn't exist before space and time? You did say you believed in God, right?

By definition any living being that would qualify as what people define as God would be exist independent of space and time, in a completely different realm of conscious existence that is not based on anything material.

Your confusion stems from your misunderstanding the story of the creation in genesis which is about events that happened on earth no more than 6-10,000 years ago, not 14 billion years ago.

News flash. Everything in the universe is material, right? So everything in the universe that is not material (i.e. love, thought, music, etc) proceeds from the material.

Unless of course if you believe as I do that everything that is material proceeded from something that wasn't material.

 

[hobelim]

Let me be very clear here, I believe that God can be discovered differently by different people. That God does not care which religion you practice. Only Hobelim cares about that.

God doesn't doesn't care about what religion you practice? Only I do?

lol... did you never actually read the bible?

You don't even believe that God exists. So your discussion on theology is a red herring.

You don't believe that God existed before space and time, remember?

You seem to be confused. I believe in God, the God I know.

What I do not believe is you and what you profess to believe about God.

There is no such thing as a trinity, three coequal beings in one unequalled God that diddled a virgin so that he could father himself without a human father to become fully human and fully God only to turn himself into something made by human hands that has no life and doesn't even qualify as a cheap snack food.

What you profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence. Is this really a surprise to you? lol...

And then when I tell you what God is really about and what Jesus was actually teaching, you are the atheist.

Hope that clears things up for you.

 

[ding]

Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

What's illogical about it? We don't know. How's that for an explanation? It has no bearing at all on the veracity of your claim that atheists "do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world". That claim is false. You can't, and haven't proven it. You've just stuffed it into the discussion as an unsupported premise.

It has everything to do with it. If you do not believe that everything in the universe did not proceed from something which is not material then you must believe that everything in the universe proceeded from material.

 

[ding]

Let me be very clear here, I believe that God can be discovered differently by different people. That God does not care which religion you practice. Only Hobelim cares about that.

God doesn't doesn't care about what religion you practice? Only I do?

lol... did you never actually read the bible?

You don't even believe that God exists. So your discussion on theology is a red herring.

You don't believe that God existed before space and time, remember?

You seem to be confused. I believe in God, the God I know.

What I do not believe is you and what you profess to believe about God.

There is no such thing as a trinity, three coequal beings in one unequalled God that diddled a virgin so that he could father himself without a human father to become fully human and fully God only to turn himself into something made by human hands that has no life and doesn't even qualify as a cheap snack food.

What you profess to believe about God does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence. Is this really a surprise to you? lol...

And then when I tell you what God is really about and what Jesus was actually teaching, you are the atheist.

Hope that clears things up for you.

Did the God you know exist before space and time?

 

[dblack]

Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

What's illogical about it? We don't know. How's that for an explanation? It has no bearing at all on the veracity of your claim that atheists "do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world". That claim is false. You can't, and haven't proven it. You've just stuffed it into the discussion as an unsupported premise.

It has everything to do with it. If you do not believe that everything in the universe did not proceed from something which is not material then you must believe that everything in the universe proceeded from material.

I suggest a corncob pipe. And a hat of some kind.

 

[Taz]

You don't believe that God existed before space and time, remember?

You don't have proof of that anyways.

 

[ding]

Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

What's illogical about it? We don't know. How's that for an explanation? It has no bearing at all on the veracity of your claim that atheists "do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world". That claim is false. You can't, and haven't proven it. You've just stuffed it into the discussion as an unsupported premise.

It has everything to do with it. If you do not believe that everything in the universe did not proceed from something which is not material then you must believe that everything in the universe proceeded from material.

I suggest a corncob pipe. And a hat of some kind.

Exactly. You have no logical answer.

Atheists are logically materialists because they do not believe the material world proceeded from the immaterial.

Atheists believe that all non-material things proceeded from material things.