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.
I have answered many of times and each time came back with more evidence the athiest community on this site has gotten a bad first impression i haven't had alot of conversations with athiest but the critical thinking skills for the guys that have posted are very weak so far and i was looking forward to being intellectually challenged which i have been because there are concepts in this thread that i dident know but a more open minded community were we can share ideas and learn with good reason and buy definition if you don't even consider then concept of GOD as a possibility then you are being close minded i am in a supreme position because i consider both as possibility and percentages sway one way of a higher power/something always existing like dark matter but time will alter my postion and my percentages will go up and throughout my life if i never reach 100% and the human race has the potential to unlock that truth of 100% certainties sepending on how long the human race survives
Seriously, not one period and not one comma in 180 words?!! Even though it's been pointed out many times now. This is starting to look like a childish tantrum.
If you actually want to be taken seriously, I suggest you stop ranting and blaming people, and instead start debating and answering questions.
Andrewcgs - "then the concept of something always exiting has been scientifically proven as well through dark matter. dark matter can always exist it cannot be destroyed its also called the god particle"
Under the inflationary model, dark matter was created during a process called reheating---admittedly a terrible name---so it hasn't always existed.
The 'god particle' is a (silly) reference to the Higgs boson, not dark matter.
These simple mistakes on the topic seem rather odd coming from someone who claims "im way past big bang i know what caused it and how".
These two christian apologists, Freeslave, and Andrewcgs, are ignoring science and pushing a revisionist agenda. It's clear that they reciting what others have told them instead of knowing anything for themselves. One of them is too stupid to use spell check or Grammarly. Constantly we have asked for facts to back up their claim but instead are repeatedly insulted. Typical theist tactics. I say ban both of them for trolling. Or at least lock them out from starting threads.
mykcob4
1. Contrary to ignoring science, I am not only quoting it, but suggesting that we stick with established scientific facts rather than speculation.
2. I assume you also recite that which others have told you, as do we all. Comparing these ideas is the means by which we arrive at that with we "know for ourselves".
3. The requests for facts have been met on my part with the very facts which have been requested.
4. I have as yet offered no insult. I have, however on a number of occasions caught you in propagating falsehood and called you out on it line by line, (which you seem to take as offensive). Aside from correcting error, however, I have been quite amenable, especially in the face of constant unwarranted personal insults on your part.
5. If the above is criticized as "typical theist tactics", I'm guilty.
6. If I am to be banned for the above, as you request, then pray tell, who would be left standing?
7. Clearly the intent of threads like this are to illicit discourse on the subjects to which they pertain. If my remarks have not met this purpose then why bother posting on a thread like this if the only posts which you approve of are those with which you agree.
I have clearly, concisely, and kindly presented solid arguments for the fact that the positions I hold are not only plausible, logical or reasonable, but that they can hold up under the strongest scientific scrutiny, and are credible and coherent, and should therefore at the very least be accepted as a viable alternative to views to the contrary.
However, since this is clearly not the case, and since rational discourse is appears indeed unwelcome, I humbly remove myself from further pursuit, as such is obviously quite unproductive. Best Wishes.
The difference between you guys and me is i consider everything as a possibility that cannot be proven at this point and time were you guys have close minded perspectives which i may have been wrong about certain things i have said i am not perfect and i dont know everything something i think you guys aren't humble enough to say but i also know i have gave concepts that past the big bang or this universe and time will tell if i am right or wrong and i am not pushing no dam agenda there are spiritual people who dont not believe a religion but a god in some form like that movie prometus or predator god,ailens or higher power or maybe not physical form at all but a force i dont care about being wrong i just dont think i am wrong but you guys are limited in were you gain knowledge i can learn form all form of reality like a tree, or a child with there creative minds thats full of questions but also a poorly educated person as well my grandmother never finshed the 6th grade i dont think you guys cant relate to to that type of learning and gaining knowledge
The problem Andrewcgs is we are constantly bombarded with people making bold claims. Like your claims, they are typically long on bravado, and very short on evidence.
some examples are:
1)People are being abducted by aliens
2)Bigfoot is real
3)Ancient aliens built the pyramids
4)9/11 attacks were an inside job
5)Jewish banking conspiracies
6)Lizard-man conspiracies
7)Flat-earth/NASA/moon-landing conspiracies
The list goes on an on. We certainly can't accept these claims at face value. First of all, they often contradict each other. Secondly, if there is no evidence to support them, how do we know they aren't just made up? The only way I know evaluate their accuracy is to scrutinize their details; as they say: the devil is in the details.
I still wish you would start over and explain it carefully, correcting for or at least addressing the potential problems that have been pointed out so far. An again, you need to address the grammar a little. It don't have to be perfect, but if you continue to spam pronouns into huge run-on sentences on a complicated topic; no one will ever understand you other than yourself. You already know what you are trying to say so no matter how poorly it is written it will make sense to you. But the rest of us only have access to what you actually write, leaving us scratching our heads.
@ Andrewcgs
I guess it won't do any good to ask you any more questions, since you seem unable to answer even one.
207 words this time, no periods, no line breaks, but at least a couple of commas, that's progress!
It's OK to be open minded. Just don' t let your brains fall out!
Nyarlathotep i can respect that but the only concept i want to actually explain in this thread was that if something can come from nothing and if something can always exist both concepts would need absolutely nothing to be created/no creator which i feel like is an agreeing position of both sides believers in god and believers in the big bang weather or not if the universe started with the big bang or if the universe existed before the big bang that is the only concept i want to be viewed as creditable that i have said in this thread because if we cant agree that both the sun and the moon are round then we you guys wont agree with me on this either i will explaining other claims i have said in other threads
God is a perpetual motion machine. God violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Yes. The very nature of God is spiritual, and as such must function outside the realms of physics.
Do tell, how can something which functions outside the realms of physics exist? That would be hard to explain, and even harder to prove. Nay, it would be impossible to prove. That would be much like me telling you I have a cube which perfectly fits the peramiters for being a sphere. Such a claim would hardly be worth serious consideration, unless genuine proof was produced. Which, in my experience, is impossible for theists to accomplish. You claim undeniable proof, and yet when the time comes to show this proof, it seems to have evaporated. I'm quite interested in your response.
You missed one other important detail, Xavier. Most theists claim that "You can't place limits on God." And yet, perhaps unintentionally, by claiming he/she/it/they exists, they are placing their own limit on God, as existence is, to a degree, a limit.
Xavier De Forres
Good question. And while I am quite hesitant to answer, I will do so under the condition that I assume your question is sincere and as such is deserving of an answer.
You asked how can something which functions outside the realms of physics exist? The very nature of the question assumes that the physical must be all that exists. If this is true, then it would make the question of origins impossible to answer, since no matter what explanation was offered, we would ultimately be saying that space, time, matter and energy all created themselves out of nothing, or that they have always existed eternally. Eternal physical existence is an impossibility since you cannot have an infinite regression of events. As such, whatever we say is the origin of time, space, matter and energy, must exist above, beyond, and function without these limitations.
As to the existence of God being impossible to prove, that depends on your definition of proof. If by proof you mean scientific proof as in a lab and test tube, then clearly there can never be such proof, since you cannot prove the existence of something spiritual by physical means. However, if by proof you mean that it is reasonable to make such conclusions based on the available evidence and upon the philosophical necessity for there to exist something outside the physical realm in order for the physical realm to have been created, then yes, this kind of "proof" is possible. Just like there is absolutely no "proof" for much of quantum theory - only hints that point to the likelihood of that reality. No one has ever observed an atom, but there are tell-tale signs which lead us to certain conclusions that seem not only reasonable, but highly likely. If all claims which cannot be "proven" scientifically are not worth serious consideration, then we would not have a great deal of the beliefs we currently think to be true. On the more philosophical end, Concepts like love and beauty are things that are very difficult to quantify scientifically,or to "prove" but we believe strongly in their existence nonetheless.
As to the idea that such "proof" is impossible for the theist to produce, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Which is what makes most conversations like the ones here not only unproductive, but usually end up digressing with the pursuit until all you are left with is a bunch of people throwing around insults while looking for those who agree with them, rather than actually discussing the issues in a kind, respectful and productive way. It is impossible to answer a question to which one is not truly seeking an answer. Attempting to do so is vanity, and ends up proving quite masochistic.
As such, I do not claim any such "undeniable proof", as much of the evidence provided for the existence of God is often readily dismissed without honest due consideration.
In the end, the Christian belief that God created the universe can never be "proven", much the same as other theories we believe cannot be proven. But what can be demonstrated is that to believe in such a God is scientifically plausible, philosophically sound, rationally defensible and logically coherent. Those who attempt to paint all theists with the broad brush of being primitive, gullible, archaic, ignorant, or a plethora of of other conveniently dismissive stereotypes do so only to find comfort in assumed superiority of their own view. On the other hand, I have also known theists who claim that all atheists are angry, rude, condescending, bigoted, bitter, and the like, which is not always the case. But taking such divisive positions does nothing to further the questions at hand, or the spirit of unity in which we should be working to solve them.
Until we are willing to lay aside simplistic terms and convenient definitions, forums like this will serve only as a venue for venting criticism of our "opponents" while comforting ourselves with the agreements of the like-minded. I wish this were not so.
(Sorry for the long-winded summary) Hope this helps. :)
P.S. - I will not be on this blog anymore (for the above reasons), but if ANYONE wishes to discuss further because they want to have a civil dialogue for the purpose of real answers to honest questions, just send me a personal message. I will never turn away an honest, kind, rational discussion.
I Wish You All The Best! :)
It's quite simple. If you cannot prove an object or event physicaly-that is, if it has no physical presence in this world, then there is no reason to believe it exists. This world is one of proofs and speculation. I don't honestly care wether or not there are religious people in the world. So long as they do not get in the way of advancement. I want to see humanity go as far as possible, using any and all available means. Technological augmentation, stem cell reaserch, and the like. Some theists don't agree with this goal or these technologies. That, and that alone, is the reason I dislike religion. You preach the advancement of a gods "Goal" for us, and think that it is most important. As should be obvious, I disagree. I do not car about any individual entity. No country, no nationality, no region captures my attention and care. Country's come and go, the contents shift, regions change. I am worried about one thing only: humanity.
Xavier, You stated that "If you cannot prove an object or event physically-that is, if it has no physical presence in this world, then there is no reason to believe it exists."
If this be the case, then we must also abandon many of the beliefs which give our existence its greatest meaning. The things that make us human, and which give mankind the potential for such beauty, love, greatness and drive. Certain things cannot be proved or disproved in a test tube.
I will be leaving this forum today, so if you would like to talk more, just send me a personal message. Best Wishes :)
That is why I do not entirely value emotion. It is unstable. A wildcard.
True, but these are also the very things which make us the most "human" and life most worth living.
In addition, believing in that which we cannot scientifically "prove" also goes beyond just emotion, and applies equally to principles of philosophy, ethics, and even certain scientific theories which (though not proven) are extremely likely, and make rational sense of the things which we cannot see, and give evidence of the existence of that which we cannot prove. :)
Nothing about religion makes any logical sense. Not even your holy books. Try again, without shooting yourself on the arse.
Freeslave,
There is no question that the feelings of love and beauty exist. Xavier may have been saying that without physical evidence there is no reason to assume the reality of something. I think any psychologist would vouch for feelings of love or beauty. Such feelings, however, are tied up with the human condition. There is no reason to think that some abstract entity called "love" is floating around someplace outside of conscious beings and is, in principle, beyond scientific comprehension.
Freeslave,
I am delighted, almost giddy, at the thought of replying to a post that shows some concept of organized thinking, a post written rather well.
"You asked how can something which functions outside the realms of physics exist? The very nature of the question assumes that the physical must be all that exists." - Freeslave
Here we have one of the big stumbling blocks. Any search for verifiable knowledge must begin with the facts, and the best attested facts we have are the principles of nature, the realm of physics. These have been tested under extreme conditions by numerous experts using the best of equipment. Everything we "know" about God seems to be mere speculation, either penned by theologians before the limitations of science were appreciated or taken from holy books of highly questionable origin. When mere speculation is put on the scales with the best attested facts we have about reality, there can only be one, clear winner.
The idea that God is beyond physics has no credibility unless one assumes, a priori, that God is a reasonable conclusion despite his omnipowers. You're guilty of using the conclusion to influence the argument! The rational conclusion, based on what we know about physics, is that the God hypothesis should be rejected. Notice that this argument does not presuppose that nothing can exist outside of physics! The conclusion is that the best evidence we have does not support such a belief.
"we would ultimately be saying that space, time, matter and energy all created themselves out of nothing, or that they have always existed eternally. Eternal physical existence is an impossibility since you cannot have an infinite regression of events." - Freeslave
Aren't you making a gigantic assumption when you assume that an abstract state of "nothing" could exist in reality? It may be that the most "nothing" that reality can produce is a complex sea of seething quantum fluctuations in space-time from which Big Bangs might occasionally arise. From the viewpoint of abstract nothingness, something would have always existed since reality could never go below its own level of nothing. In that view an infinite regress is just an artificial scheme to divide a continuous reality into pieces. The point here is not that I have proven that there was no beginning but, rather, that your claim that it can be ruled out does not hold water.
I have a second problem with your assumption, given a finite universe, that space, time, matter, and energy had to create themselves. The statement about how they came to be is not a statement about what the preceding cause was. For example, the time and space associated with our universe came out of the Big Bang. Its energy appears to be a case of zero being separated into minus and plus contingents, and matter was created from energy as the temperature dropped. We have to be careful of overly simplistic arguments.
I'm sorry that you chose to leave this thread.
Freeslave - "Yes. The very nature of God is spiritual, and as such must function outside the realms of physics."
While that idea is popular it is very problematic. If we assume for the moment that it is true, and there is a physical realm and a spiritual realm: the next question is can the spiritual realm effect the physical (and vice versa).
If the answer to this question is no, then the conservation is over. Clearly we live in the physical realm (if you don't think so, go put your hand on a hot stove and you'll be reminded that we do), and if we can never interact with the spiritual and vice versa, the spiritual realm might as well not exists. Or restated: what is the difference between a spiritual world that can't effect the physical, and there being no spiritual world? No difference at all.
If the answer is to the question is yes, then the spiritual realm is actually part of the physical, since it effects, and can be effected by, the physical. These effects can be measured physically. Which destroys the idea that the spiritual world is somehow different than the physical world. Restated: What is the difference between the spiritual and the physical if they can effect each other? No difference at all.
Chimp 3 that is not for this thread i keep telling you guys that but for some reason you guys cant respond on the topic of this thread without making points about things that is not for this thread it about commonality not who right or wrong or if you think the concept of god is impossible
I will comment how I so choose! I did not ask your permission nor do you own this thread. I will follow my own lead without your imposed restrictions.
YOU ARE OFF TOPIC THATS ALL IM SAYIN BRO!
you would have to put your own beliefs aside to understand the concept and would have to think from a hypothetical stand point not right or wrong or whats possible or impossible but instead of saying someting coming from nothing and something always existing both need absolutely nothing to be created/no creator to be a commonality to be true and to make logical sense chimp3 and others you say stuff like "God is a perpetual motion machine. God violates the laws of thermodynamics" that has nothing to do with the point im making so its funny how you guys go off topic that is trait of having a conversation with a religious person
I take credit for what I say. What you propose is only a fragment of this thread. You are not alone
Hmm. Two apologetists down for the foreseeable count, done in by only a handful of people. I foresee my membership on this site being very fulfilling intellectually.
mykcob4
1. Contrary to ignoring science, I am not only quoting it, but suggesting that we stick with established scientific facts rather than speculation.
2. I assume you also recite that which others have told you, as do we all. Comparing these ideas is the means by which we arrive at that with we "know for ourselves".
3. The requests for facts have been met on my part with the very facts which have been requested.
4. I have as yet offered no insult. I have, however on a number of occasions caught you in propagating falsehood and called you out on it line by line, (which you seem to take as offensive). Aside from correcting error, however, I have been quite amenable, especially in the face of constant unwarranted personal insults on your part.
5. If the above is criticized as "typical theist tactics", I'm guilty.
6. If I am to be banned for the above, as you request, then pray tell, who would be left standing?
7. Clearly the intent of threads like this are to illicit discourse on the subjects to which they pertain. If my remarks have not met this purpose then why bother posting on a thread like this if the only posts which you approve of are those with which you agree.
I have clearly, concisely, and kindly presented solid arguments for the fact that the positions I hold are not only plausible, logical or reasonable, but that they can hold up under the strongest scientific scrutiny, and are credible and coherent, and should therefore at the very least be accepted as a viable alternative to views to the contrary.
However, since this is clearly not the case, and since rational discourse is appears indeed unwelcome, I humbly remove myself from further pursuit, as such is obviously quite unproductive. Best Wishes.
Pages