Does Dawkins exist?
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.
Apollo I think this video fits your argument perfectly.
Comparing the existence of a car with the existence of your god.
what is your theory of the origin of the universe?
I believe in the atheist and scientist Michael Polanyi. If you read his book, Personal Knowedge, I might discuss it with you. There is nothing in his book that I disagree with.
I think there was no creation and the universe always existed and just changed from one state to another.
There is some degree of pattern and order in the universe, both when you look at the small things and the big things, and since everything big out there is made up of something small, there must be a theory that can explain both.
Once we find it we would be one step closer to understand the nature of the universe.
Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that we are just at one point in the time scale between the infinity small and the infinity big?
We are so biased about beginning and ends that we fail to see that most of the things around us are infinite in nature.
-Infinite energy in the vacuum(according to quantum theory)
-Infinite number of divisions of any spherical object(boundary) we see.
-Infinite Density(corrected) at the center of singularity(like a black hole) (which are very popular in the universe)
One could say that Matter is basically a temporary state of an infinite cycle and recycle of different states of energy.
blackholes don't have infinite mass, mass ≠ density
Yes wanted to say density, was writing too quick
"I think there was no creation and the universe always existed and just changed from one state to another."
That's your a priori assumption. That's your faith. I know you and Travis don't like toi aussi, but that's the reality.
Why is it so hard to accept the possibility that we are just at one point in the time scale between the infinity small and the infinity big?
As far as I know, it isn't impossible. I do accept it as a possibility. It is a theory in competition with origin theories. They can't both be correct. It shifts the idea that God is eternal, to the universe is eternal. There is no way to empirically verify either theory. So the only way I know of to evaluate each one is via the coherence theory of truth.
Does the theory that the universe always existed comport well with other things about the universe that are believed to be true? I don't know, you tell me.
Does the theory of a creator comport well with other beliefs and theories about the universe? I think so.
You asked me what was my OPINION and now you say: "That's your a priori assumption. That's your faith."
Don't you see that you have a problem of consistency?
Opinion is not Faith
Check the difference in google.
Assumptions are used to help making some conclusions, the assumption cannot be the conclusion which is based on the assumption.
Else its like saying:
My brother is fat because I made the assumption that my brother is fat.
See how stupid you sound?
Where it should be used in this manner:
Assuming that my brother is fat, he should run slower.
assumption= brother fat.
conclusion= slower when running.
"An opinion is a judgment based on facts" while "a belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values."
You keep coming back in full circle to the same stupid claim Belief=Fact=Opinion like an idiot.
You are a fine example to prove George Carlin right.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
"You asked me what was my OPINION and now you say: "That's your a priori assumption. That's your faith."
Well it is a priori because you have no evidence for it. So it is an opinion you have no evidence for. Categorizing it as an opinion doesn't mean it isn't a priori. And if you hold that opinion, then you hold it on no empirical evidence.
Given that, I hope you don't mind if other people do the same. You seem to be saying it is OK for you to have a priori opinions, but not other people.
You have an a priori theory that the universe always existed. But other people are not permitted to have an alternative competing theory that the universe had a beginning. Sounds like you have faith to me. You sound like a fundamentalist Christian who insist every one should have their opinions.
"Well it is a priori because you have no evidence for it."
You assume i had no evidence for it because it is part of what you wish is true to support you nonsense.
All I said is based on pretty good evidence.
Be more specific on which subject are you referring to and I will provide the evidence that it makes logical sens and it does not fall on the belief category like the belief in a tyrannical/evil god that is somehow intrinsically good.
An opinion is an educated conclusion reached after observing the facts. You do not need evidence for your opinion but it must make logical sens.(eg you see a fridge in the forest, you cannot have the opinion that a tree grew and become a fridge(else it will be a belief not based on any logic), but you can have the opinion that a man put it there and not a woman even if you have no evidence)
A belief does not even have the requirement of it making sens or being possible.
"But other people are not permitted to have an alternative competing theory that the universe had a beginning."
Did I ever say anything about other people right to have a different opinion?(opinions are not beliefs)
"Sounds like you have faith to me."
To you it sounds a lot of things, a Fact also sounds like a belief to you.
It is clear you have hearing problems :P
Apollo, you have talked ad nauseum about the 'atheist scientist' who influenced you and shaped your thoughts.
Why? Do you do so in hopes that it somehow legitimizes your opinion to those in this conversation who identify as atheist?
I, for one, don't really give a crap how your theism developed. I think any theism is hooey whether one bases it on what some atheist wrote or that they saw jesus on their toast.
I could be reading this into your posts but you also seem to think that science and atheism are inextricably linked. They are not. Neither is required to rely on the other.
That you think if something looks a certain way to you then you must be right about it (cells looks like they have an inventor therefore gawd) is weak. You've never met Dawkins but believe he exists therefore gawd, is weak. What would be strong, at least to me, is for you to knock on my door, introduce gawd, and have gawd demonstrate his/her omni-whatever. You are welcome to take doing just that as a challenge. :-)
"I think any theism is hooey whether one bases it on what some atheist wrote or that they saw jesus on their toast."
Good. So what? I believe in freedom of faith. You sound angry. If so, what makes you angry?
"I could be reading this into your posts but you also seem to think that science and atheism are inextricably linked. They are not. Neither is required to rely on the other."
An atheist told me that some atheists had scientific proof that God did not exist and I could find that scientific proof on this site. That Atheist also said every thing atheist say is grounded in scientific fact. So I came here to for verification purposes. Thank you for telling me there is no inextricable link. That's what I thought previously.
"That you think if something looks a certain way to you then you must be right about it (cells looks like they have an inventor therefore...."
I didn't say it must be true. I said it is rationally coherent. In fact I wrote it doesn't prove God exists, it shows it is rationally coherent to believe in a creator.
One reason why science was brought into it was some atheist posters raised the issue of science backing their views.I was asked by an atheist for references for some of my beliefs. I gave references. Polanyi backs my view of an invention. And he does back my view of living things being like inventions. Would it make you happy if I had no references, or if I ignored the question? The fact that he is an atheist doesn't legitimize his views. He is smarter than that. His views are legitimate because he reasons correctly, and he incorporates observed fact into his reasoning. Would you be happier if he was a Christian so you could unreasonably reject him out of hand?
Anyway, the best science guy here so far, Travis, says he has no fight with me now, even though I still believe in God. He is more worried about mixed up fundamentalists, so apparently I'm off his radar. I just wish he would give himself a broader deeper education. Sometimes he is so rigid and blind he sounds fundamentalist. Education can be a cure for that.
As to you, you don't have to be in science to be reasonable. There is nothing wrong with areas of life in my opinion. So what are you into? Art, literature? Film? Auto mechanics?
So why do you read this thread? You aren't into theist origin theories, so what attracts you?
"You sound angry. If so, what makes you angry?"
I had no anger in that statement. Any anger you came away with was your own creation.
"An atheist told me that some atheists had scientific proof that God did not exist and I could find that scientific proof on this site. That Atheist also said every thing atheist say is grounded in scientific fact. So I came here to for verification purposes. Thank you for telling me there is no inextricable link. That's what I thought previously."
I don't speak for anyone else who identifies as atheist and neither do they speak for me.
"Would you be happier if he was a Christian so you could unreasonably reject him out of hand?"
Just trying to ascertain why you iterated and reiterated that he identified as atheist. Find it interesting that you did so.
"As to you, you don't have to be in science to be reasonable. There is nothing wrong with areas of life in my opinion. So what are you into? Art, literature? Film? Auto mechanics?"
Do you assume I'm not a scientist?
"So why do you read this thread? You aren't into theist origin theories, so what attracts you?"
I frequently find theist origin notions (I won't call them theories) amusing.
"Just trying to ascertain why you iterated and reiterated that he identified as atheist. Find it interesting that you did so."
I find that fundamentalist Christians think they have a special corner on the truth and won't read anything by atheists, but some atheists too have that same fundamentalist assumption of having a special access to truth. So obviously I wouldn't bother suggesting anything here written by a Christian.
"I frequently find theist origin notions (I won't call them theories) amusing. "
So what' your theory of everything?
I have no theory of everything. Do you? If so, you might want to re-think calling it a theory.
Apollo - "An atheist told me that some atheists had scientific proof that God did not exist and I could find that scientific proof on this site."
Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you are told.
I don't believe everything I am told. But, instead of arguing, I do the experiment. Then I go back with the results. lol
quotes from Apollo:
"I'd like to point out that my views of what knowledge is and how it is arrived at is very much influenced by an a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲ scientist."
"I take that directly from an a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲ scientist, a chemist."
"The best book I ever read by an a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲ scientist was Personal Knowledge by Polanyi."
"After you read the a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲ Polanyi's book, Personal knowledge, come back and tell me why he is wrong. I believe in the a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲ Polanyi."
"It is written by a chemist, who happens to be an a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲."
"My idea of invention is exactly like the definition of invention clearly explained by the a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲ and scientist, Polanyi in his book, Personal Knowledge. There isn't anything in that a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲'s book that I can disagree with."
"I believe in the a̲t̲h̲e̲i̲s̲t̲ and scientist Michael Polanyi."
All this talk about this silly book, paired with a comment by CyberLN reminded me of something that had been nagging at my mind since Apollo first mentioned the book so I did some double checking. You might have already guessed it but FYI:
The chemist/philosopher Michael Polanyi, despite being a critic of much of formal religion, was a̲ ̲s̲e̲l̲f̲ ̲p̲r̲o̲f̲e̲s̲s̲e̲d̲ ̲C̲a̲t̲h̲o̲l̲i̲c̲.
Ha, ha, ha.
On that experiment, you get 9/10. The only reason you lost a point is it took you too long to check.
Everyone else flunked the do atheists check facts experiment.
I check my own facts, if I am arguing someone too damn dishonest to check their own, they aren't really worth responding to. Thank you, for demonstrating a fundamental lack of honesty, I no longer need to do anything. You have discredited yourself, no need for anymore help from us, you have insulted yourself.
I'm stating to completely give up on you as a debater.
You keep pretending to not notice the uncomfortable questions.
You label yourself as a Christian even though you seem to be a Deist.
You claim to have your own version of "Christianity", but won't tell what that is supposed to mean.
You don't seem sincere in your questions.
Why are you even here, writing in the forum?
you ever met a theist which is "sincere" or honest about their faith?
Why expect Apollo to be one?
To be a theist is basically declaring that you won't use your brain regarding a claim.
To be honest or "sincere" it requires to use your brain.
When I start a conversation with a theist I do not consider if he is "sincere' or honest but WHEN will his hypocrisy make him come up with excuses or change subject to avoid my arguments.
I used to think that some people are just not well informed and are eager to learn and prove me wrong.
Soon I learned that all theist just don't want to be informed. Even those that do come to the light eventually, they have this "faith Glasses" that just makes them convinced(arrogant) to stay uninformed as a way of protecting themselves.
It amazes me that you do not find theists even wanting to know who was the first christian pope.
Not interested, not important, it seems.
Yet happy to follow what ever the pope says in billions.
The funny part is that they are so uninformed that they do not even know that they are following a pope and not the bible.
"FaithGlasses" that makes you want to be ignorant and not informed.
The pragmatic wrote, "Why are you even here, writing in the forum?"
1. Like I said, I encounter atheists from time to time who claim atheism is science based and science proves God does not exist. One particualr atheist referred me to this site to get the proof that God does not exist. So one reason is to give you the opportunity to prove it.
2. Also it was claimed by said athiests that they are fact based and don't have beliefs/faith. so I asked what seperates fact from belief or faith? What criteria do you apply to filter out belief/faith? To that end I asked that in a thread here:
To date, in that thread no atheist has been able to define the criterai which they believe filters out belief/faith from fact. One poster refered me to a site that definec "fact". the definition stated that a fact assumed that the methods to arrive at the fact were reliable. See that word "assumed". It means "supposed to be the case without proof". so facts rely on belief/faith.
So, my conclusion so far concerning atheist claims to have no beliefs or faith seem to be unreliable.
Some posters have insisted that I will not convince them to believe in God. So what? I'm not trying to convince them. Atheists claim to have the Truth. I came here to get the Truth they claim to have.
I believe Richard Dawkins exists, I have seen him in videos and seen books written by him. I have a lack of evidence that any god created the universe. What evidence do you have for a creator or god?
1. Books can be written with a name on them, it doesn't prove there is an actual person attached to the name. Could be a fake name with no real person attached to it. Videos can be faked as well. The video representations of Dawkins could be just an actor. Perhaps your criteria for truth is what you read on a book cover, and see youtube videos. You have to believe that what you read and what you see is true. Without that belief, what do you have? Nothing. Atheists often say skepticism is one of their methods. Did you apply any skepticism to your method of determining if Dawkins existed? And what if I was skeptical? Would that be bad for me to use your method? Ultimately you are trusting of what you read and see, and apparently you accept your trust as proof. I too believe Dawkins exists, but I recognize it is a belief, it is a trust in things I read and see that could be faked, and therefore wrong.
2. a) The evidence for a creator God is similiar to the evidence for the existance of Dawkins. There exist creations, namely books, with the name Dawkins on them. I believe, I trust, I have faith, that the name on these creations refer to an actual person. In short, I know Dawkins by his creations. But I'm assuming that said books are creations. they could have always existed. or those books could have just come into existence by themselves with a fake name on them. Even so, I trust that Dawkins exists and that he really wrote the books. I suppose an atheist could challenge my belief in the existence of Dawkins on the basis that atheists are based in science and have no beliefs and have proof for all their claims. Go for it.
b) the universe, similar to a book, looks like a creation. A creation implies a creator. So it makes sense to believe in a Creator of the universe. The evidence for the creator is the universe.
3 Just another point. I'm puzzled by the fact that atheists often point to the theory of evolution as proof God doesn't exist. Darwin was a Christian. His parents were Christian, his teachers were christian. He had no fight with the church. the church had no fight with him. In fact the church honored him by giving him a burial in Westminster Abbey. Many of the greats in the history of science were theists.
Yet atheists seem to think, with no evidence at all, that science is an activity of atheists and that science proves God does not exist. Really strange.
Current science claims that the universe commenced with a "Big Bang". That is consistant with the theist belief that the universe had a beginning precipitated by God. Atheists are left with two choices. One is that the universe created itself, and the other is that the universe always existed. Take your pick. But what ever you pick, you have no proof. Whatever you pick, it is a belief, or its synonyom, a faith.