Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/monster
meriam webster definition of a monster. As you can see there are multiple different definitions and only one of them uses the word imaginary. You can pick which one you want but there are several dictionaries in existence that all have multiple definitions for the same word. Not only that but those definitions can be changed. When you start letting those words dictate your understanding of something then you allow the person creating those definitions to control your thinking. Unless you're the guy trying to control someone's thinking by selectively choosing the definition that supports your argument.
Monster-
: a strange or horrible imaginary creature
: something that is extremely or unusually large
: a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems
Full Definition
1 a :an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure
b :one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2 :a threatening force
3 a :an animal of strange or terrifying shape
b :one unusually large for its kind
words also don't exist on their own you cannot just use any ? meaning for any ? word or you lose the concept and lose the purpose of communication
How do you think slang and different dialects come into existence? And I never said you could use any meaning for any word. I said and demonstrated that there are already multiple meanings for the same word. You just selectively chose which meaning you wanted to apply to fit your argument.
THE ONLY thing slang does is convey the same concepts by the use of a new word. All the meanings of the word monster actually fit my point. pasta is not an animal, plant or force nor can it fly it has no behavior or character
-
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
I wasn't referring to the op when I mentioned a perfect being. I was talking about the dictionary definition of ? that I posted a link to. And the laws of conservation of energy and mass say that energy and matter can niether be created or destroyed. It simply changes form therefore there is no logical reason to believe that there has to be any sort of creator. And again, if you're the one making the claim about the existence of something then the burden of proof is on you. If I started making claims about psychic abilities then is the burden of proof on the rest of the world to prove that I'm lying or am I not responsible for backing up the claims that I'm making.
Hmm these laws say this but most evidence shows that the universe started at a specific point in time, and hasn't existed for an eternity. That seems to contradict that law don't you think? -
FuriousOne wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
That is a logical leap because you do not know if a creation process was necessary as if it is building a house. You do not know the ultimate nature or process that began the universe or if there is a defined beginning as we understand it.
It's not a logical leap. Nothing that's ever been observed in existence is self-generated from nothing. But it's logical for you to assume that the origin of existence is?
I didn't say it was generated from nothing and neither has any scientist. You just don't understand what they are speaking on. Regardless, you do not know the origin of the universe or the various states that it could exist in or whether it is infinite unto itself. I've already presented the theory of an expanding and collapsing universe. Nobody knows basically. -
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
Now disprove the invisible pink unicorn
Ok to begin with you cannot have an invisible unicorn because a unicorn has a human created description and for it to have a human given description it would mean that it would have to be visible.
you also cannot be invisible and be pink
You can't know that for sure, you're just speculating
it's invisible and you can't have knowledge of it only think you do'
Therefore it is possible it exists
actually for you to say that it's pink that means you have knowledge of it otherwise you could not say it was pink and that's no speculation your own description destroys any chance of an invisible pink unicorn existing.
Description would destroy your deity's existence potential too
Also you are making Claims about the invisible pink unicorn's existence but have no evidence of its non-existence which is irrational
I am not making claims about it's existence i am saying that it logically cannot exist because the description given invalidates the possibility. you cannot call something invisible and pink
My deity has no absolute physical description and you would have to not only destroy my deity but all possible deities.
You have no direct evidence of the invisible pink unicorn, or invisible objects for that matter, to really know that it does not exist
That is speculation that there cannot be an invisible thing that is also pink, but until you have knowledge of invisible things to know for certain that it is not possible there is a logical possibility. Your hard Anicornism is irrational until you can refute this possibility with certainty. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The complexity of things does not prove intelligence because there are obvious flaws in many of the supposed designs. This is why animals go extinct from lack of adaptation. I know people would like to say that it's part of the plan and it's a learning phase, but that's a pretty brutal way to learn especially when there is no animal left in your species to learn. It would be more logical to create a creature that can adapt to anything wisthout risk of individual organisms (actually, why not a singular organism that can survive even an exploding sun) while still learning. There are many organism that has lived for thousands or even millions of years, but they are trapped in their environment and if earth stops spinning, they have no recourse. Doesn't sound intelligent to me for such an omnipotent designer. I'm wonder why something with such power has to design anything in the first place, i would think that since it is so powerful, and encompass all, it would have no need for such limited things.. Companionship and longing seems like a very human emotion. Some organisms don't require these tools live a virus that mindlessly consumes all that it can encompass.
perhaps they only look like flaws to you and perhaps death and extinction is part of the system.
They are flaws because they are unnecessary to an all powerful being and any system can be created to replace it that would work without the need for those things.
But the system was not made for him it was made for us. I like popcorn it's not necessary for me, i like to draw it's not necessary for me.
You are applying human emotions to an entity like liking something. Do you have a reason for this omnipotent being having such base desires and a requirement to like us or having any other reason for creating everything?
What requirements are you talking about??? i said ? wanted to create the universe not that he needed to and i did not apply any emotion to ? doing this at all. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The complexity of things does not prove intelligence because there are obvious flaws in many of the supposed designs. This is why animals go extinct from lack of adaptation. I know people would like to say that it's part of the plan and it's a learning phase, but that's a pretty brutal way to learn especially when there is no animal left in your species to learn. It would be more logical to create a creature that can adapt to anything wisthout risk of individual organisms (actually, why not a singular organism that can survive even an exploding sun) while still learning. There are many organism that has lived for thousands or even millions of years, but they are trapped in their environment and if earth stops spinning, they have no recourse. Doesn't sound intelligent to me for such an omnipotent designer. I'm wonder why something with such power has to design anything in the first place, i would think that since it is so powerful, and encompass all, it would have no need for such limited things.. Companionship and longing seems like a very human emotion. Some organisms don't require these tools live a virus that mindlessly consumes all that it can encompass.
perhaps they only look like flaws to you and perhaps death and extinction is part of the system.
They are flaws because they are unnecessary to an all powerful being and any system can be created to replace it that would work without the need for those things.
But the system was not made for him it was made for us. I like popcorn it's not necessary for me, i like to draw it's not necessary for me.
You are applying human emotions to an entity like liking something. Do you have a reason for this omnipotent being having such base desires and a requirement to like us or having any other reason for creating everything?
What requirements are you talking about??? i said ? wanted to create the universe not that he needed to and i did not apply any emotion to ? doing this at all.
How do you know what ? wants? Every want is based on a need. Everything we do is actually based on solving a need even when it seems illogical to others. Like our need to create something to give us purpose. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/monster
meriam webster definition of a monster. As you can see there are multiple different definitions and only one of them uses the word imaginary. You can pick which one you want but there are several dictionaries in existence that all have multiple definitions for the same word. Not only that but those definitions can be changed. When you start letting those words dictate your understanding of something then you allow the person creating those definitions to control your thinking. Unless you're the guy trying to control someone's thinking by selectively choosing the definition that supports your argument.
Monster-
: a strange or horrible imaginary creature
: something that is extremely or unusually large
: a powerful person or thing that cannot be controlled and that causes many problems
Full Definition
1 a :an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure
b :one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character
2 :a threatening force
3 a :an animal of strange or terrifying shape
b :one unusually large for its kind
words also don't exist on their own you cannot just use any ? meaning for any ? word or you lose the concept and lose the purpose of communication
How do you think slang and different dialects come into existence? And I never said you could use any meaning for any word. I said and demonstrated that there are already multiple meanings for the same word. You just selectively chose which meaning you wanted to apply to fit your argument.
THE ONLY thing slang does is convey the same concepts by the use of a new word. All the meanings of the word monster actually fit my point. pasta is not an animal, plant or force nor can it fly it has no behavior or character
Just because you've never seen flying pasta doesn't mean it doesn't exist. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
That is a logical leap because you do not know if a creation process was necessary as if it is building a house. You do not know the ultimate nature or process that began the universe or if there is a defined beginning as we understand it.
It's not a logical leap. Nothing that's ever been observed in existence is self-generated from nothing. But it's logical for you to assume that the origin of existence is?
I didn't say it was generated from nothing and neither has any scientist. You just don't understand what they are speaking on. Regardless, you do not know the origin of the universe or the various states that it could exist in or whether it is infinite unto itself. I've already presented the theory of an expanding and collapsing universe. Nobody knows basically.
Wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I#t=93 -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The complexity of things does not prove intelligence because there are obvious flaws in many of the supposed designs. This is why animals go extinct from lack of adaptation. I know people would like to say that it's part of the plan and it's a learning phase, but that's a pretty brutal way to learn especially when there is no animal left in your species to learn. It would be more logical to create a creature that can adapt to anything wisthout risk of individual organisms (actually, why not a singular organism that can survive even an exploding sun) while still learning. There are many organism that has lived for thousands or even millions of years, but they are trapped in their environment and if earth stops spinning, they have no recourse. Doesn't sound intelligent to me for such an omnipotent designer. I'm wonder why something with such power has to design anything in the first place, i would think that since it is so powerful, and encompass all, it would have no need for such limited things.. Companionship and longing seems like a very human emotion. Some organisms don't require these tools live a virus that mindlessly consumes all that it can encompass.
perhaps they only look like flaws to you and perhaps death and extinction is part of the system.
They are flaws because they are unnecessary to an all powerful being and any system can be created to replace it that would work without the need for those things.
But the system was not made for him it was made for us. I like popcorn it's not necessary for me, i like to draw it's not necessary for me.
You are applying human emotions to an entity like liking something. Do you have a reason for this omnipotent being having such base desires and a requirement to like us or having any other reason for creating everything?
What requirements are you talking about??? i said ? wanted to create the universe not that he needed to and i did not apply any emotion to ? doing this at all.
How do you know what ? wants? Every want is based on a need. Everything we do is actually based on solving a need even when it seems illogical to others. Like our need to create something to give us purpose.
Now you're applying human psychology to this hypothetical deity.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The complexity of things does not prove intelligence because there are obvious flaws in many of the supposed designs. This is why animals go extinct from lack of adaptation. I know people would like to say that it's part of the plan and it's a learning phase, but that's a pretty brutal way to learn especially when there is no animal left in your species to learn. It would be more logical to create a creature that can adapt to anything wisthout risk of individual organisms (actually, why not a singular organism that can survive even an exploding sun) while still learning. There are many organism that has lived for thousands or even millions of years, but they are trapped in their environment and if earth stops spinning, they have no recourse. Doesn't sound intelligent to me for such an omnipotent designer. I'm wonder why something with such power has to design anything in the first place, i would think that since it is so powerful, and encompass all, it would have no need for such limited things.. Companionship and longing seems like a very human emotion. Some organisms don't require these tools live a virus that mindlessly consumes all that it can encompass.
perhaps they only look like flaws to you and perhaps death and extinction is part of the system.
They are flaws because they are unnecessary to an all powerful being and any system can be created to replace it that would work without the need for those things.
But the system was not made for him it was made for us. I like popcorn it's not necessary for me, i like to draw it's not necessary for me.
You are applying human emotions to an entity like liking something. Do you have a reason for this omnipotent being having such base desires and a requirement to like us or having any other reason for creating everything?
What requirements are you talking about??? i said ? wanted to create the universe not that he needed to and i did not apply any emotion to ? doing this at all.
Since he could have created the universe by accident it is not logical to say he wanted to do it as it could have been unintended -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »The complexity of things does not prove intelligence because there are obvious flaws in many of the supposed designs. This is why animals go extinct from lack of adaptation. I know people would like to say that it's part of the plan and it's a learning phase, but that's a pretty brutal way to learn especially when there is no animal left in your species to learn. It would be more logical to create a creature that can adapt to anything wisthout risk of individual organisms (actually, why not a singular organism that can survive even an exploding sun) while still learning. There are many organism that has lived for thousands or even millions of years, but they are trapped in their environment and if earth stops spinning, they have no recourse. Doesn't sound intelligent to me for such an omnipotent designer. I'm wonder why something with such power has to design anything in the first place, i would think that since it is so powerful, and encompass all, it would have no need for such limited things.. Companionship and longing seems like a very human emotion. Some organisms don't require these tools live a virus that mindlessly consumes all that it can encompass.
perhaps they only look like flaws to you and perhaps death and extinction is part of the system.
They are flaws because they are unnecessary to an all powerful being and any system can be created to replace it that would work without the need for those things.
But the system was not made for him it was made for us. I like popcorn it's not necessary for me, i like to draw it's not necessary for me.
You are applying human emotions to an entity like liking something. Do you have a reason for this omnipotent being having such base desires and a requirement to like us or having any other reason for creating everything?
What requirements are you talking about??? i said ? wanted to create the universe not that he needed to and i did not apply any emotion to ? doing this at all.
How do you know what ? wants? Every want is based on a need. Everything we do is actually based on solving a need even when it seems illogical to others. Like our need to create something to give us purpose.
Now you're applying human psychology to this hypothetical deity.
That was my point. I'm am speaking from the point of a human. This does not apply to the nature of the universe and people are defining ? in human terms. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
That is a logical leap because you do not know if a creation process was necessary as if it is building a house. You do not know the ultimate nature or process that began the universe or if there is a defined beginning as we understand it.
It's not a logical leap. Nothing that's ever been observed in existence is self-generated from nothing. But it's logical for you to assume that the origin of existence is?
I didn't say it was generated from nothing and neither has any scientist. You just don't understand what they are speaking on. Regardless, you do not know the origin of the universe or the various states that it could exist in or whether it is infinite unto itself. I've already presented the theory of an expanding and collapsing universe. Nobody knows basically.
Wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I#t=93
Vilenkin does not say it was created from nothing.
He just says that the laws of physics as we understand them would permit the universe to come from nothing
the only requirement being that the laws of physics would have to exist prior to our universe's inception -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
That is a logical leap because you do not know if a creation process was necessary as if it is building a house. You do not know the ultimate nature or process that began the universe or if there is a defined beginning as we understand it.
It's not a logical leap. Nothing that's ever been observed in existence is self-generated from nothing. But it's logical for you to assume that the origin of existence is?
I didn't say it was generated from nothing and neither has any scientist. You just don't understand what they are speaking on. Regardless, you do not know the origin of the universe or the various states that it could exist in or whether it is infinite unto itself. I've already presented the theory of an expanding and collapsing universe. Nobody knows basically.
Wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I#t=93
I'm speaking on the definition of nothing as known by a laymen. The universe still vibrates and creates. Nothing isn't defined as you think it is in scientific terms. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
I wasn't referring to the op when I mentioned a perfect being. I was talking about the dictionary definition of ? that I posted a link to. And the laws of conservation of energy and mass say that energy and matter can niether be created or destroyed. It simply changes form therefore there is no logical reason to believe that there has to be any sort of creator. And again, if you're the one making the claim about the existence of something then the burden of proof is on you. If I started making claims about psychic abilities then is the burden of proof on the rest of the world to prove that I'm lying or am I not responsible for backing up the claims that I'm making.
Hmm these laws say this but most evidence shows that the universe started at a specific point in time, and hasn't existed for an eternity. That seems to contradict that law don't you think?
Those are just theories based on the limited perspective of the universe that we have. If they were indisputable then they wouldn't be theories now would they? -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
That is a logical leap because you do not know if a creation process was necessary as if it is building a house. You do not know the ultimate nature or process that began the universe or if there is a defined beginning as we understand it.
It's not a logical leap. Nothing that's ever been observed in existence is self-generated from nothing. But it's logical for you to assume that the origin of existence is?
I didn't say it was generated from nothing and neither has any scientist. You just don't understand what they are speaking on. Regardless, you do not know the origin of the universe or the various states that it could exist in or whether it is infinite unto itself. I've already presented the theory of an expanding and collapsing universe. Nobody knows basically.
Wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I#t=93
Vilenkin does not say it was created from nothing.
He just says that the laws of physics as we understand them would permit the universe to come from nothing
the only requirement being that the laws of physics would have to exist prior to our universe's inception
Of course he doesn't say the universe was created from nothing because he has no scientific basis to. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Its wild how you all rely on science when its convient but then jump to conclusions rather then let scientist to continue their investigation. This evidence is what ex
Don't generalize me, it's weakening your argument. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
That is a logical leap because you do not know if a creation process was necessary as if it is building a house. You do not know the ultimate nature or process that began the universe or if there is a defined beginning as we understand it.
It's not a logical leap. Nothing that's ever been observed in existence is self-generated from nothing. But it's logical for you to assume that the origin of existence is?
I didn't say it was generated from nothing and neither has any scientist. You just don't understand what they are speaking on. Regardless, you do not know the origin of the universe or the various states that it could exist in or whether it is infinite unto itself. I've already presented the theory of an expanding and collapsing universe. Nobody knows basically.
Wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I#t=93
Vilenkin does not say it was created from nothing.
He just says that the laws of physics as we understand them would permit the universe to come from nothing
the only requirement being that the laws of physics would have to exist prior to our universe's inception
Of course he doesn't say the universe was created from nothing because he has no scientific basis to.
So then why did you straw man him? It was claimed that no scientist says the universe came from nothing but you allege this is wrong and implicate Alexander Vilenkin. It's an erroneous association as he never says that. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Its wild how you all rely on science when its convient but then jump to conclusions rather then let scientist to continue their investigation. This evidence is what ex
Don't generalize me, it's weakening your argument.
I actually didn't mean to post that. It was something that i wrote but it was still at the bottom when i was quoting. Regardless, i don't see how pointing out that people are jumping to conclusions and grasp at science only when convenient is an invalid argument. -
housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/08/16/the-physics-of-nothing-the-phi/This is experimental fact. We can artificially create a vacuum chamber (like the world’s largest one, above) that is — while imperfect — good enough to detect the physical effects of these spontaneously created particle-antiparticle pairs.
Take a vacuum, and inside of it, place two parallel, uncharged metal plates.
In the absence of these vacuum fluctuations, you would expect the force between the plates to be dominated by gravitation. But if you bring these plates close enough together, you find that these vacuum fluctuations cause the plates to attract one another! This attractive force is purely quantum in nature, and is the surefire experimental evidence — that’s been around since 1948 — that this is the physical nature of nothingness.
Now, combine this with the one thing this empty spacetime is allowed to do: expand. -
So is the argument being made nowhousemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »housemouse wrote: »
yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.housemouse wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that ? exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're ? doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.
I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things
No you can't
But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe
ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist
essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity
THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.
You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.
once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.
You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.
Go back to school please.
No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.
I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.
The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a ? isn't fabricated.
Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples.
I never said it was. Prove that the universe was actually created and wasn't always in existence in one form or another. -
Oya_Husband wrote: »Y'all are tangled in strings....striinngs
string theory is just interpretation of data there can literally be 5^10000 answers to the same problems with string theory. and i am being serious out of every book written by a scientist that i have read none of them confirm the existence of a multiverse they all say it's just a thought experiment or that it's math on paper.
It was in reference to Ultron lol not the string theory, it needs more testing and results. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »housemouse wrote: »http://i.word.com/idictionary/?
And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a ? may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of ? is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.
OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.
Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.
That is a logical leap because you do not know if a creation process was necessary as if it is building a house. You do not know the ultimate nature or process that began the universe or if there is a defined beginning as we understand it.
It's not a logical leap. Nothing that's ever been observed in existence is self-generated from nothing. But it's logical for you to assume that the origin of existence is?
I didn't say it was generated from nothing and neither has any scientist. You just don't understand what they are speaking on. Regardless, you do not know the origin of the universe or the various states that it could exist in or whether it is infinite unto itself. I've already presented the theory of an expanding and collapsing universe. Nobody knows basically.
Wrong.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I#t=93
Vilenkin does not say it was created from nothing.
He just says that the laws of physics as we understand them would permit the universe to come from nothing
the only requirement being that the laws of physics would have to exist prior to our universe's inception
Of course he doesn't say the universe was created from nothing because he has no scientific basis to.
So then why did you straw man him? It was claimed that no scientist says the universe came from nothing but you allege this is wrong and implicate Alexander Vilenkin. It's an erroneous association as he never says that.
He says it's possible that the universe came from nothing. There's no way anybody could KNOW WITH ABOSLUTELY CERTAINTY the origin of the universe so he can't technically say the universe was created from nothing. There's no science that can prove that, that departs from science into the realm of philosophy. Not a straw man.
