Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Dan: "Your math sucks beyond belief. I'm afraid I do not have time to try educate you again."
No. You should actually be focusing on actually educating yourself.
Did you actually earn a Baccalaureate in Mathematics? Or was it a Baccalaureate in Methamatics?
rmfr
"Again this follows the pattern of all your replies; you refuse to engage on the specifics of my argument; its all vague generalities in your responses"
Why should I engage with pure assumption? You have made a raft of claims and asserted they are mathematically and scientifically valid, so either cite your published peer reviewed work or your claim is axiomatically false. You used an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to assume something you say can't be explained requires a supernatural deity. Those are the specifics of why your argument is invalid.
Dan
"1) Non-causal cosmological argument (IE my new argument)
2) Causal cosmological argument (Prime mover etc...)
3) Fine tuning of the universe
4) The Big Bang
5) Why is there something rather than nothing"
1. No scientific evidence and an appeal to ignorance fallacy, it;s not new either, you use argumentum ad ingorantiam fallacies every time you come here.
2. No evidence and an inherent special pleading fallacy, what moved your deity, what moved that what moved that etc etc?
3. It's not fine tuned, this has been thoroughly debunked too many times for your claim to be viewed as anything but dishonest.
4. TBB does not evidence a deity, this is simply a lie Dan, but by all means link this breaking news for us that i can't find anywhere outside of your fatuous claim.
5. Another appeal to ignorance fallacy. Not knowing something can never be used to rationally assert anything.
You can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity, QED...you can as easily argue for the existence of Thor or Zeus, or pixies or garden fairies with the appeal to ignorance fallacies you keep constructing.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Please do take the time to understand what fallacies in informal logic are, and what this one means. You just keep repeating the same fallacy over and over Dan.
"My ideas do not disagree with any scientific facts - science does not know the cause of the Big Bang. "
Now Dan, if you're going to claim that the current scientific understanding concludes a deity is evidenced, possible, or necessary then you ARE disagreeing with the scientific facts, as you're adding something they neither evidence nor support.
"It's clearly a very singular event IE not natural."
THAT disagrees with a scientific fact, or you don't know what natural means.
I've just checked every major news network and none of them are claiming the big bang theory has evidenced anything supernatural?
@ Dan
Sheldon: "Dan, have any of your claims been peer reviewed and published in a worthy scientific journal?"
Yes, Dan. Please do tell us if your pasture patty claims have been peer-reviewed? Have they been published? Can we get the links so we can see them?
If you are not going to back your dropping of pasture patties of gibberish, then please do keep them to yourself. We are all tired of taking turns to clean up the mess you leave behind. At least I know Tin-Man is. I think it was his turn when you dumped that pile with your OP.
Might even be the reason he is stomping around in a shitty mood.
rmfr
I'd be interested to know why he seeks feedback here from atheists and not from scientists with proper credentials in the related fields of study?
If you recall, Breezy was always on the verge of publishing his religious denials of scientific facts as well. Yet months turned to years and nary a word in the press to show either evolution bring falsified or a deity being evidenced?
Breezy even tried to pretend that either event wouldn't be global news on an unprecedented scale as well, by dishonestly pretending my observation was meant we literally got all our scientific knowledge from the news.
Do these apologists really believe scientific evidence for a deity or that falsified an established theory like evolution would be announced in an atheist chatroom by a theist?
Breezy certainly seemed to think this idea had some merit. Yet clearly hisdenials have still not been published and peer reviewed.
Dan, please note, scientific evidence must adhere to the very strict principles of validation contained within that method, and the same applies for arguments claiming to be rational in that they must adhere to the strict principles of validation contained within that method.
All else is mere speculation, and remains so until it satisfies the necessary criteria required.
I have raised my argument within the Philosophical community as well. I will probably try the cosmologists too but I think it is mainly a Philosophical argument.
I seek feedback from athiests as they tend to be quite smart and also hostile to my views which is the ideal combination if you want to get feedback on your views.
You're making claims that the current understanding of the big bang theory evidences a supernatural cause for the universe, so only science can validate that. Philosophy and atheists in an internet chatroom can't change that. Feedback from non-scientific sources, hostile or otherwise are irrelevant to the fact your claims have no scientific validity, and the fact science does not agree with your claims, if it did they would have said so, and the fact you're using known common logical fallacies doesn't bode well.
@arakish
I do not even atempt to answer anything Dan post because:
- Some questions he asks, are well above my understanding and i do know of it only in a amateurish way.
- His anwsers to these questions are utterly no sensical.
@Dan
I am not saying time does not exist, I am only saying it only exist in the human mind, the word, that describes a unit of measuring one event to another.
Events do exist, and you can compare these events to each other... using time the human created concept. It is a useful tool, helps us organize and gain precision. But it is completely worthless when we start talking about events we can not measure, like what happened before the big bang. As far as we have access to so far there is nothing to measure. No data can be gathered.
Was there events before the big bang? Maybe, maybe not, who knows. We so far have nothing to put together an argument for it either way. Trying to build an argument using "time" is deeply flawed.
It is like trying to measure a distance between two things but having no idea where those things are or if they even exist or what these things even are. The correct answer is it cannot be measured, not that the distance is infinite or not, or has a start or end.
This entire argument has a really simple and easy answer, it just not the answer some people like: "WE DO NOT KNOW."
since we do not know all we can do is idly philosophize about it, but we can no reach no conclusions until we begin to learn at least something, which in the case of before the big bang, may simply not be possible.
I will tell you it starts to sound/look real silly when people try to evidence their completely unevidenced god ideas with "time" arguments.
It is right up there with: leprechauns and pot of gold at end of rainbow is real, because you can't ever reach the "end" of the rainbow.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Yes but there are some things about the pre-Big Bang we can deduce on purely logical grounds. For example, would you argue with the following?
1) If Quantum fluctuations create matter on average and occur naturally
2) And 'time' is infinite
3) Then matter density is infinite
4) So we can conclude either time is finite or quantum fluctuations don't create matter on average.
@Dan
1) meh, I will step over this, I could argue this point some, but for now I move on to 2)
On a purely logical ground, "infinity" creates many more problems than it solves.
Infinite, forever, the opposite of the finite that we are. And surround ourselves with interface with etc.
Let us jump down the infinite time rabbit hole for a bit and see what problems we run into when we just scratch the "surface" of what infinite is.
You are using infinite "time." So lets start there. Infinite time means anything that can happen, no matter how remote of a chance, does happen. That means at one point I was god, creator of the universe, incredibly powerful and knowledgeable. So were you. So was your sister, your brother, your identical but conjoined twin. There was also a universe that had no such thing as we could call any definition of a god.
Then there is a time where your god exactly how you imagined it, down to the detail you never even thought of yet, but that "god" existed. There was a time that everything happened exactly as how you remember it, but right after you read this sentence you become "god." Oh that did not happen? No worries, it already did happen, and it will happen again, and again, infinite number of times. Oh same also happened to me. It happened to your parents.
But we are not done yet!
Infinite time means even though it's incredibly remote chance of happening, there be a time when all these events are happening at the same "time." How do we measure time again? Oh: comparing one event to another. But all events are happening at the same time? What happened to time now?
Well the human created concept of time really starts to break apart.
Suddenly since all events are happening at once, stacked on top of eachother, you can no longer measure one event to another, the human created concept of time, stops. Does not mean the events stop though. Just time is no longer a factor, swallowed by "infinite." Oh shit, "time" stops working because time is infinite? Is there no time, and we are just part of every possible event? How does this work? What is going on here?
Perhaps, because human concept of time is flawed. Perhaps because we cannot truly comprehend infinite. It is all fine though, we are simply jumping down the rabbit hole into deep philosophy, as long as we do not try to draw conclusions from this stuff we are fine.
Right?
It is all fun and games until you try to evidence something with conclusions from infinite "time."
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
'Infinite time means anything that can happen, no matter how remote of a chance, does happen. That means at one point I was god, creator of the universe, incredibly powerful and knowledgeable'
- only things that are possible happen with infinite time, so it's not possible for you to be God I'm afraid.
Anyhow my OP proves that time is not infinite so its not relevant.
My God exists outside of time (he created time); so there is never a case of him existing inside time with infinite instances; he is singular.
'Infinite time means even though it's incredibly remote chance of happening, there be a time when all these events are happening at the same "time."'
- you need infinite space for that and the events would be happening almost infinity far apart so I don't see at all why the concept of time breaks down.
We cannot comprehend the infinite because the infinite is impossible. Space is finite for example. It's expanding so if you think about it that means it can't be infinite.
@Dan
Why is it not possible for me to be god? Or you? Or your conjoined twin? Highly, Highly! unlikely to be sure, but impossible? Are you sure?
If it is completely impossible for me to become god, then how is it possible for your god idea to become god?
.
Good to see you OP says time is not infinite, and your 4 point argument tries to say time is not infinite.
And if time is finite, that makes your god finite too right? If god is defined by this universe, then w/o it, there is no god right? A god possibility may have existed before the universe (your argument not mine) but there was no creation, no nothing so not really a god right? So god's own god like definition is finite right?
You face the same dilemma even with your presentation, either your god is infinite or it is not, both create large problems with the concept of god. Do you ever wonder why every where you turn you face real issues in making the god concept work?
I will say a finite god does make a lot more sense then an infinite god, but why worship a finite? Especially when there is zero evidence such a finite creator being is likely completely unaware of you? Also since we are now talking a finite god, and lack of any evidence of such it, maybe such a finite being surpassed it's finite time. Ever consider your "god" is dead/gone/no longer "god?"
@LogicFTW
You can't be God because you'd have to be outside of time to be God.
'Good to see you OP says time is not infinite, but what does that do to your 4 point argument that assumes time is infinite?' - but that argument ends in an absurdity; IE time is finite.
'And if time is finite, that makes your god finite too right?' - finite but eternal outside of time. Beyond this universe.
@Dan
Okay so to make your definition of a "god" it has to be outside of time. (aka not measurable by events) You also state god is beyond this universe.
Heyyyy... we agree!!!
You state your god is not measurable by events and is beyond this universe!
I also think your god idea is not measurable by events and is not part of this universe!
So the question then becomes, why are you trying to convince others to "believe" in this god even though it is timeless (not measurable by events) and is beyond the universe. What's the point? What does it have anything to do with any of us at all? Except story time when we are bored and got time to kill?
Maybe because it makes for a real convenient con? (I am not saying you are conning people, but instead other people fell for the con, quite often a con done by someone long dead.)
Read up on Ron L Hubbard and scientology. That con got exposed for what it is and even die hard theist can see that religion for what it is, a con made up by L Ron Hubbard, someone that started off as a science fiction writer, (not a very succesful one until he tried to pass off his sci fi books as fact and the explanation for everything.)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Dan "the infinite because the infinite is impossible."
So your deity had a beginning then?
Dan: "Anyhow my OP proves that time is not infinite so its not relevant."
Specifically, bold text. Your OP did not prove any such thing. You made an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
As Sheldon suggested, do try to understand what it is before using it as an argument.
rmfr
We? You are concluding this, on the internet, and again when you have had your assertions published in a worthy scientific journal and there is a widespread scientific consensus then I will pay due deference. Until the it's no different to the other superstitious hokum apologists vent on here every day.
So you're on the verge of publishing your claims are you, meanwhile perhaps you can cite how well the long list of previous claims you have made, and asserted had scientific validity, were received when those were offered for proper scientific scrutiny?
How do you know this?
How do you know this?
@ Dan
Even your ultimate answer is: “I DO NOT KNOW.”
And time after time after time you have proven “YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MATHEMATICS BEYOND High School Algebra.”
And why do you avoid the insinuated question about your Baccalaureate in Math?
rmfr
I am starting to get the feeling that you are genuinely angry, arakish. As a fellow human I would like to take this time to pause, and ask if there is anything we can do for you. It might be best for you to take a few days off from this site and recollect yourself.
No anger. Just put up or shut up. You ain't never heard that saying?
Your mental density is starting to surpass that neutron star...
rmfr
The rest of us are at like a 2. You’re at 11. That’s on you, nobody else. Just sayin. Getting some advice from our Lord and Savior might actually do you some good.
@ HumbleThinker
Why would I take advice from the most horrible monster that ever haunted Humanity?
Perhaps it is you whom needs the time off to deal with that Schizophrenic Delusional Disorder.
rmfr
@Humble Thinker Re: "The rest of us are at like a 2."
*raising hand*.... Uh... Ahem... Er-um.... Excuse me, please... *clumsily standing up from desk*... Gee, I hate to be the odd man out here, but... uhhhh... *nervously shuffling from foot to foot*.... I think I'm actually closer to a 3-ish.... maybe? Well, 2 and a half, at least, but I just really don't feel like a two at the moment. Actually, could even be a 3.25, I suppose. I mean, honestly, I don't usually get down to a 2 until after my morning coffee. Oh, but don't worry, though. It's not like I'm at a "bad" 3(ish). And it isn't anything you have done. I just think 3 is really just kinda like my default setting, ya know? Like I said, it's not that I cannot get down to 2. Heck, I've even been as low as 1.173 before. (Probably best if you do not ask when or why... *looking up and away*) Anyway, though, just felt like I should let you know. Wouldn't want you making any false statements or anything like that by mistake. So, uh, anyway, uh, carry on, or, uh... whatever... *clumsily sitting back down in desk*...
You think it's impossible to type CAPITAL LETTERS without being angry? OR ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO TROLL ARAKISH?
You KNOW it's A little BUTTON on THE left HAND side OF the KEYBOARD, that YOU can TURN on AND off AT will, RIGHT?
@ HumbleThinker
"I am starting to get the feeling that you are genuinely angry, arakish."
And you seem to completely acting like you know nothing. Using all uppercase letters is just another form of adding further emphases on italics and bold text.
Why do you not use what intelligence you seem to possess?
rmfr
You claim there is a god, what objective evidence do you have that it exist?
I apply xenoview's razor to your claims of a god.
Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk
It's always funny when theists claim to know what god can or cannot do.
Pages