Who here is an atheist?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science of physics, chemistry and biology explains the universe and life.

I think I am going to become a atheist. Why believe in goat herder crap that is used to kill people for no reason.

You obviously have never read the New Testament.

Also, it is sheep, not goats! That's why they were "shepherds" and not "goatherds". Just when I think you cannot prove yourself to even more ignorant, you surprise me!

Wrong, plenty of goat herders back then. They are even mentioned.

 

[BradVesp]

Science of physics, chemistry and biology explains the universe and life.

I think I am going to become a atheist. Why believe in goat herder crap that is used to kill people for no reason.

You obviously have never read the New Testament.

Also, it is sheep, not goats! That's why they were "shepherds" and not "goatherds". Just when I think you cannot prove yourself to even more ignorant, you surprise me!

I think someones trying to "get your goat". They may have succeeded.

 

[ding]

Who here is an atheist? It seems to me my belief in god is unfounded and without proof. I know that the universe was created by the big bang and the processes of science. Why on earth do I cling to 2,000 year old sheep herders writing?

This writing promotes hatred, idiocy and backwardness. I am so very close to just saying fuck it and becoming a atheist!!!

What I've read in the bible should never be read to a child as it is fucking savage stoneaged crap. And you fuckers bitch about sex ed??? really? The bible encourages rape, murder of babies and rape of women. On and on. Incest is in the bible with lott fucking his daughters, murder of ones brother and genocide of millions of people.

Since I don't know how the universe came to be I don't consider myself an atheist, however, when it comes to the God of the Bible, I have zero faith in it so in that sense I am an atheist. There may be a god out there but I don't think anyone has any more of a clue than I do.

It seems to me that before one can answer who God is they have to first answer the question is there a Creator. Then from there they can figure out who He is. The answers to both questions can be found by studying what was created.

No, it can't. You have tried this argument repeatedly, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the only way your argument works is to presume the universe was created. Try presuming that the universe was not created, and then proceed with your argument from there, and see if it still works.

Science tells us the universe had a beginning. Why are you rejecting science?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[Czernobog]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

So, what, because we don't know we're supposed to invent a sky fairy as the explanation?

How about intelligence as an explanation?

Why must we presume an explanation? Why can't we just say, "Gee. I don't know. lets study, and research, and find out!"? The "God of the Gaps" is the theists' last, ever-shrinking defence.

So that isn't one of the steps in a scientific investigation? Isn't that the whole point of studying and researching it? To presume an explanation that makes sense?

No, it';s not. One of the steps of scientific investigation is to presume an explanation that can be tested. See, Intelligence created the universe, relies on another presupmtion that must first be proven: that the "intelligence" exists. Now, should you find a way to observe, measure, and verify the existence of that intelligence, by all means you should inform the scientific community, as you will instantly become the most celebrated cosmologist in existence.

Scientific methods can only be used within the universe. This discussion we are having is a philosophical discussion. There is no evidence for what happened prior to the big bang. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Except you're not discussing philosophy. You are trying to introduce philosophy into a question of science. There's a difference.

But we can use science to study what was created and how it evolved to gain insight in the philosophical discussion.

That is what I do.

No, you can't. Science, and philosophy are two separate disciplines. You want to infect science with unprovable philosophical constructs. Sorry.
Science doesn't work that way.,

 

[ding]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

What caused "God"?

Did God bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Whatever it is... it has those attributes. I can think of several things that meet this description but they are more like verbs than nouns. Which is another clue to the puzzle.

And that isn't a "solution", because it relies on a logical fallacy called special pleading.

It is a description of the attributes of the solution. It was never proffered as anything else.

We live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect. The only solution for the first cause conundrum is something which did not need a cause. Hence it is eternal. The only way it can remain eternal is to be unchanging.

What do you think the solution to the first cause conundrum is?

Which is, by definition, special pleading. It is making up a scenario where someone, or something, that possesses a "special quality" - that cannot be proven - that makes it "immune" from the laws of logic.

Sorry. Presenting a logical fallacy as a solution to a logical impossibility is not a solution. It is just a logical fallacy.

What was my logical fallacy?

1. That we live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect
2. The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal (as in it always existed and will always exist)
3. To remain eternal it must be unchanging

Which one is wrong and why?

 

[ding]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

So, what, because we don't know we're supposed to invent a sky fairy as the explanation?

How about intelligence as an explanation?

Why must we presume an explanation? Why can't we just say, "Gee. I don't know. lets study, and research, and find out!"? The "God of the Gaps" is the theists' last, ever-shrinking defence.

So that isn't one of the steps in a scientific investigation? Isn't that the whole point of studying and researching it? To presume an explanation that makes sense?

No, it';s not. One of the steps of scientific investigation is to presume an explanation that can be tested. See, Intelligence created the universe, relies on another presupmtion that must first be proven: that the "intelligence" exists. Now, should you find a way to observe, measure, and verify the existence of that intelligence, by all means you should inform the scientific community, as you will instantly become the most celebrated cosmologist in existence.

Scientific methods can only be used within the universe. This discussion we are having is a philosophical discussion. There is no evidence for what happened prior to the big bang. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Except you're not discussing philosophy. You are trying to introduce philosophy into a question of science. There's a difference.

But we can use science to study what was created and how it evolved to gain insight in the philosophical discussion.

That is what I do.

No, you can't. Science, and philosophy are two separate disciplines. You want to infect science with unprovable philosophical constructs. Sorry.
Science doesn't work that way.,

The scientific method is a systematic process that involves:

• Making an observation.
• Stating a question.
• Formulating a hypothesis.
• Conducting an experiment.
• Analyzing the data and drawing conclusions.

 

[Votto]

Who here is an atheist? It seems to me my belief in god is unfounded and without proof. I know that the universe was created by the big bang and the processes of science. Why on earth do I cling to 2,000 year old sheep herders writing?

This writing promotes hatred, idiocy and backwardness. I am so very close to just saying fuck it and becoming a atheist!!!

What I've read in the bible should never be read to a child as it is fucking savage stoneaged crap. And you fuckers bitch about sex ed??? really? The bible encourages rape, murder of babies and rape of women. On and on. Incest is in the bible with lott fucking his daughters, murder of ones brother and genocide of millions of people.

Atheist here.

Ok, that makes two.

More than I thought there were;

 

[ding]

Except you're not discussing philosophy. You are trying to introduce philosophy into a question of science. There's a difference.

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

2. The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal (as in it always existed and will always exist)
3. To remain eternal it must be unchanging

I disagree with your premises. The universe does not need a first cause, could be eternal, and can also change. Given that I think your premises are not necessarily true, I find your logic unsound.

 

[BradVesp]

So. Big Bang.

What caused the "Big Bang"?

Did the Big Bang bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

So, what, because we don't know we're supposed to invent a sky fairy as the explanation?

How about intelligence as an explanation?

Why must we presume an explanation? Why can't we just say, "Gee. I don't know. lets study, and research, and find out!"? The "God of the Gaps" is the theists' last, ever-shrinking defence.

So that isn't one of the steps in a scientific investigation? Isn't that the whole point of studying and researching it? To presume an explanation that makes sense?

No, it';s not. One of the steps of scientific investigation is to presume an explanation that can be tested. See, Intelligence created the universe, relies on another presupmtion that must first be proven: that the "intelligence" exists. Now, should you find a way to observe, measure, and verify the existence of that intelligence, by all means you should inform the scientific community, as you will instantly become the most celebrated cosmologist in existence.

Scientific methods can only be used within the universe. This discussion we are having is a philosophical discussion. There is no evidence for what happened prior to the big bang. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Except you're not discussing philosophy. You are trying to introduce philosophy into a question of science. There's a difference.

But we can use science to study what was created and how it evolved to gain insight in the philosophical discussion.

That is what I do.

No, you can't. Science, and philosophy are two separate disciplines. You want to infect science with unprovable philosophical constructs. Sorry.
Science doesn't work that way.,

It's the ability to repeat the test with consistent results that makes science important.
Philosophy doesn't do this, but it informs and suggests things for science to investigate.

 

[ding]

No, you can't. Science, and philosophy are two separate disciplines. You want to infect science with unprovable philosophical constructs. Sorry.
Science doesn't work that way.,

Sure I can. I can study what we see and make observations. You like making observations, right?

 

[ding]

2. The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal (as in it always existed and will always exist)
3. To remain eternal it must be unchanging

I disagree with your premises. The universe does not need a first cause, could be eternal, and can also change. Given that I think your premises are not necessarily true, I find your logic unsound.

2nd Law of Thermo precludes an eternal acting universe.

If the universe were eternal we would be at thermal equilibrium.

The best theory for how the universe began is the inflation theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Except you're not discussing philosophy. You are trying to introduce philosophy into a question of science. There's a difference.

Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states it thusly:

"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning."

"Only god"

Lederman is an atheist and uses that euphemism to mean "we dont know" and to poke fun at the idea of "god of the gaps".

 

[Czernobog]

Who here is an atheist? It seems to me my belief in god is unfounded and without proof. I know that the universe was created by the big bang and the processes of science. Why on earth do I cling to 2,000 year old sheep herders writing?

This writing promotes hatred, idiocy and backwardness. I am so very close to just saying fuck it and becoming a atheist!!!

What I've read in the bible should never be read to a child as it is fucking savage stoneaged crap. And you fuckers bitch about sex ed??? really? The bible encourages rape, murder of babies and rape of women. On and on. Incest is in the bible with lott fucking his daughters, murder of ones brother and genocide of millions of people.

Since I don't know how the universe came to be I don't consider myself an atheist, however, when it comes to the God of the Bible, I have zero faith in it so in that sense I am an atheist. There may be a god out there but I don't think anyone has any more of a clue than I do.

It seems to me that before one can answer who God is they have to first answer the question is there a Creator. Then from there they can figure out who He is. The answers to both questions can be found by studying what was created.

No, it can't. You have tried this argument repeatedly, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the only way your argument works is to presume the universe was created. Try presuming that the universe was not created, and then proceed with your argument from there, and see if it still works.

Science tells us the universe had a beginning. Why are you rejecting science?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Science doesn't tell us that. Why are you lying about what science says? Some scientists a universe with a defined beginning. Some do not. So, at best you could say that some scientists tell us the universe had a beginning.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

[ding]

2. The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal (as in it always existed and will always exist)
3. To remain eternal it must be unchanging

I disagree with your premises. The universe does not need a first cause, could be eternal, and can also change. Given that I think your premises are not necessarily true, I find your logic unsound.

You do realize that all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of one billionth of one trillionth of an atom, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

2nd Law of Thermo precludes an eternal acting universe.

False. It does not. And that law, as far as we can tell, only holds for our particular, observable universe.

If the universe were eternal we would be at thermal equilibrium.

Not necessarily true at all. For one, you keep making the error of not distinguishing between our observable "universe", and "all that is". Second, a closed system can enjoy thermal equilibrium overall, despite patches of local areas of less or more entropy.

 

[ding]

Who here is an atheist? It seems to me my belief in god is unfounded and without proof. I know that the universe was created by the big bang and the processes of science. Why on earth do I cling to 2,000 year old sheep herders writing?

This writing promotes hatred, idiocy and backwardness. I am so very close to just saying fuck it and becoming a atheist!!!

What I've read in the bible should never be read to a child as it is fucking savage stoneaged crap. And you fuckers bitch about sex ed??? really? The bible encourages rape, murder of babies and rape of women. On and on. Incest is in the bible with lott fucking his daughters, murder of ones brother and genocide of millions of people.

Since I don't know how the universe came to be I don't consider myself an atheist, however, when it comes to the God of the Bible, I have zero faith in it so in that sense I am an atheist. There may be a god out there but I don't think anyone has any more of a clue than I do.

It seems to me that before one can answer who God is they have to first answer the question is there a Creator. Then from there they can figure out who He is. The answers to both questions can be found by studying what was created.

No, it can't. You have tried this argument repeatedly, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the only way your argument works is to presume the universe was created. Try presuming that the universe was not created, and then proceed with your argument from there, and see if it still works.

Science tells us the universe had a beginning. Why are you rejecting science?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Science doesn't tell us that. Why are you lying about what science says? Some scientists a universe with a defined beginning. Some do not. So, at best you could say that some scientists tell us the universe had a beginning.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

No one believes that stuff.

Try again.

You are literally shitting all over science.

 

[Czernobog]

What caused "God"?

Did God bring existence into existence? Or did something exist before that?

If so, how?

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Whatever it is... it has those attributes. I can think of several things that meet this description but they are more like verbs than nouns. Which is another clue to the puzzle.

And that isn't a "solution", because it relies on a logical fallacy called special pleading.

It is a description of the attributes of the solution. It was never proffered as anything else.

We live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect. The only solution for the first cause conundrum is something which did not need a cause. Hence it is eternal. The only way it can remain eternal is to be unchanging.

What do you think the solution to the first cause conundrum is?

Which is, by definition, special pleading. It is making up a scenario where someone, or something, that possesses a "special quality" - that cannot be proven - that makes it "immune" from the laws of logic.

Sorry. Presenting a logical fallacy as a solution to a logical impossibility is not a solution. It is just a logical fallacy.

What was my logical fallacy?

1. That we live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect
2. The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal (as in it always existed and will always exist)
3. To remain eternal it must be unchanging

Which one is wrong and why?

2, and 3. They presume a being, or force, that has a special condition that no other being, or force in the universe has. That is text book description of special pleading.

Which you would have already known had you read the link I provided the first time I pointed it out. Perhaps rather than firing off your pre-conceived responses, you should take the time to actually read links provided to you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Does anyone notice the common characteristics of atheists?

They are all assholes!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You do realize that all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of one billionth of one trillionth of an atom, right?

While that may be true, it actually is not necessarily true. The universe did not have to be that small for the expansion to have occurred, and for "time" (as we observe it) to have begun.