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
Notice bold word. It is "god's." Proof you do not know English.
Provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, else...
The Nine Razors:
Do NOT make me sic Tin-Man on you. You would regret it...
rmfr
@Dan "I think it is part of gods great plan. We are evolving towards perfection."
We are? Explain disadvantageous genetic mutations that cause things such as progeria and down syndrome.
@Ford Re: "Explain disadvantageous genetic mutations that cause things such as progeria and down syndrome."
Howdy there, you ambiguous reptilian! Diggin' that profile pic!... *thumbs up*... Welcome to our humble abode. Glad you could join us. As you can see, we have recently had a major influx of..... uhhhh.... hmmmm..... Oh, gee, how to put this nicely... Well, a recent major influx of, uh, "persons of questionable intellect". Not all that unusual, to be honest, but it seems the batch of twits we have had lately have been of below-average standards. So sad. Where have all the good trolls gone?.... *sad sigh*....
Anyway, I think I may be able to help you with your question to Dan. Now, keep in mind I am only spit-balling here, but I'm gonna give this a shot. Also, I'm afraid I may have to use a bit of "theist logic" (a true oxymoron if ever there was one) to provide a "reasonable" answer. So, with that in mind, I'm going to speculate that those ailments you mentioned (along with all the other nasty little defects that plague we puny humans) is simply part of Gawd's PERFECT Plan to get rid of all of us who are NOT perfect. And in doing so, only the creme de la creme of the humans HE made in HIS image will be left to make HIS perfect plan of a PERFECT world a reality. Pretty simple if you think about it, right?
(On a side note, I do believe I knocked a couple of gears out of place typing that last bit. If anybody needs me, I'll be at the mechanic's shop for the next little while..... *banging side of head with heel of hand*... Owwie....)
"Time having a start is strongly in favour of a deity IMO"
I don't see any evidence offered in support of that claim.
"It smacks of design and intervention."
No it doesn't - Hitchens's razor applied.
"A temporal sequence needs a start to be fully defined."
No it doesn't - Hitchen's razor applied.
" can't be a number and greater than any number."
Gotcha, how old is your deity....oh check fucking mate to your bullshit...
"Time logically needs a start."
No it doesn't - Hitchens's razor applied.
Come on Dan your endless bare assertions are tedious...
@Dan
"Then the starting point is before all possible starting points. So its not a starting point."
I agree, I lean heavily towards the proposition that our universe is just part of a larger everything, and it has been in existence for eternity. But it is not a merry-go-round.
How does simply moving the goal posts solve anything? We can all agree and nothing changes.
Explain the maths that evidences an eternal deity, but claims infinite regress is impossible?
" If its not logical, it does not occur in reality."
An unevidenced deity using unexplained magic is completely irrational, so you have just claimed to be an atheist Dan.
A material God, limited by the rules of reality is allowed without the recourse to magic.
The alternative, a universe from nothing is more magical IMO.
You have not claimed a material deity Dan, so that's some about face. However please feel free to properly evidence this material deity now???
That last sentence is a false dichotomy fallacy, now you will go back to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy by asking well what's the alternative? We are not limited to two choices until you can demonstrate objective evidence for your claim. For the record I have never claimed a universe came from nothing, nor do I accept bare assertions that it cannot.
Logic and reason just aren't your bag mate, sorry.
@ Dan
***borrowing Tin-Man's hand for a quadruple face palm***
Aw shit. Now I have a concussion...
Dan: "A material God, limited by the rules of reality is allowed without the recourse to magic."
Yet you say your deity is infinite. Just by saying it is "timeless" and "spaceless" means it is INFINITE. Yet you are also spewing your BULLSHIT about infinite being impossible. If so, then your deity is impossible.
Dan: "The alternative, a universe from nothing is more magical IMO."
You are the only one spewing this BULLSHIT. No one else has ever said this. Why is it that NO Religious Absolutist is ever capable of any other form of speech than LYING?
rmfr
@Dan
"A. Axiom 1. The universe is everything"
Please prove this assertion. For example, if your god created this universe, then your god was alone before this universe (by your definition, everything). So before this universe was created, your god was nothing?
Is this the only universe? Brane theory disagrees.
And you can not use Axiom 2 and Conclusion1 to prove Axiom 1, that is circular logic.
If you define the universe to be everything (IE including any multiverse, gods, branes etc...) then logically it can only be caused by the universe.
@Dan
"If you define the universe to be everything (IE including any multiverse, gods, branes etc...) then logically it can only be caused by the universe."
Then why did you use the word "universe" instead of "everything"?
I know the difference between those two words, and most readers also are aware of the difference in terminology. So what are you, a dishonest person who when caught in a paradox decides to move the goalposts, or just a stupid person?
Either way you cut it, your god existed before this god did the magic trick of creating everything. Still a paradox. We still arrive at the paradoxical logical conclusion that your god was nothing before it created everything.
"If you define the universe to be everything then logically it can only be caused by the universe."
If you define any deity to be everything then logically it can only be caused by itself.
Infinite regress anyone?
Dan "Making up magic numbers is not allowed "
No indeed, so how old is your deity, and what created it? You've already asserted it can't be eternal as that by definition makes infinite regress possible? Something you are denying...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, Occam's razor states that something becomes less likely to be true the more unevidenced assumptions that it uses.
Your assumptions:
The universe couldn't have always existed (in a different state for example)
A deity exists, and has always existed (directly contradicting your claim that Infinite regress is impossible.)
A deity can contradict your denial of infinite regress but a universe can't.
-----------------------------------------
A. Axiom 1. God is everything
B. Axiom 2. Events are cause by a god.
C. Conclusion 1. God was caused by god
How's that for circular irrational reasoning.
Re: OP
*speaking on megaphone*...Arakish!.... AAAARAKIIIISH!!!!!.... Please report to the Debate Room STAT!... Your hands are needed!.... After reading the OP, I feel an incredibly strong urge to perform an epic quadruple face palm!...
@ Tin-Man
My hands are always here (I am like an omnipresent deity in that regard) for anyone to do a quadruple face palm. Even when I am asleep. Hell, on virtually every phrase and sentence he has typed, I am always face palming. If I ain't careful, I going to give myself a multiple concussion.
rmfr
@ Dan
You spewing the same old BULLSHIT?
Further note: I never read any of this thread, just saw Dan was back. May read the thread later.
rmfr
@arakish Happy xmas! No its all new and its honestly not bullshit!
@ Dan
Coming from you, what else could it be?
We have already been over this circular time loop bullshit already.
rmfr
" its all new and its honestly not bullshit!"
Wrong on both counts I'm afraid.
Merry Xmas anyway...
First published Fri Jul 20, 2018; substantive revision Fri Aug 3, 2018
"An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member"
so indeed a first number exists.
according to main stream academia.
could we simplify this argument and not use math terms that apparently most of us do not understand.
the question of , god or no god ? if science could answer that question it would have already.
Same goes for religious people and their scripture.
if one could some how, repeat an experiment to answer the question as to "the universes beginning" we would get a ear-full about it.
read up about the opinions of all the famous physicists on the matter, they where all reluctant to answer, as most brilliant men in modern day times, simply because its not a question we can currently answer with any authority in terms of science.
does this discussion not belong in the frame of philosophy and theoretical amateur cosmology.
are we partaking is pompous intellectual showboating with no hope of reconciliation or learning ?
Jung - The argument is about an infinite regress in past time so it's the other way around. No first member but a last member (now).
The argument only relies of the very reasonable axiom 'events are caused by events'. IE just cause and effect.
I agree collecting evidence is hard but there is the big bang - for circular time, all we need is the big crunch and that could happen, Astronomers can not agree on the expansion rate of the universe at present. But I don't see where else you can get enough matter/energy for the big bang apart from the big crunch.
I am not showboating. Just trying to get at the truth.
The law of cause and effect applies to natural material phenomena, that exist within the a temporal condition, that our physical material universe.
You're not trying to get to the truth Dan, that's absurd, you are claiming to know it.
"The argument only relies of the very reasonable axiom 'events are caused by events'."
What event cause your deity?
"But I don't see where else you can get enough matter/energy for the big bang"
Argumentum ad ignorantiam / argument from incredulity, take your pick.
@Dan
"I agree collecting evidence is hard but there is the big bang - for circular time, all we need is the big crunch and that could happen, Astronomers can not agree on the expansion rate of the universe at present. But I don't see where else you can get enough matter/energy for the big bang apart from the big crunch."
At present our level of science cannot answer what came before the rapid expansion. You are making wild speculative assertions.
The honest answer concerning what came before the rapid expansion is "we do not know".
@Jung
First published Fri Jul 20, 2018; substantive revision Fri Aug 3, 2018
"An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member"
That quote is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/
In order to avoid copyright violations and confusion, please state the source Jung.
There are many different definitions of "infinite regress" and we need a common definition in order to conduct an adult dialogue.
If we can not prove that the universe was created, then a god is not required. So the first step is proving that the universe was created.
Jung, you make sense. But the "pompous intellectual showboating with no hope of reconciliation or learning ?" is being done by just one individual.
"the question of , god or no god ? if science could answer that question it would have already."
Why do theists who make grandiose unevidenced assertions for scientific evidence of a deity not see the simple truth of this statement. Kudos sir for concisely destroying all theistic claims for scientific validation of their beliefs.
Dan: "The argument is about an infinite regress in past time so it's the other way around. No first member but a last member (now)."
And you have it so completely backwards.
rmfr
I am just going to copy and paste the OP so that any edit can be caught.
" Time is a circular eternal loop created by God!
There is a clean way to demonstrate an infinite regress of time is impossible:
1. The number of events in an infinite regress is > any number
2. Thats a contradiction (can’t be both a number and > any number)
3. Making up magic numbers is not allowed (can break any theory if magic is admissible)
So that means time had a start. IE it must be real like Einstein said...
It must also be circular by this argument:
A. Axiom 1. The universe is everything
B. Axiom 2. Events are caused by events
C. Conclusion 1. The universe was caused by the universe
A perfect circle of time! Big Crunch causes Big Bang! Where else in space time to get that much matter/energy! Thats so Occam’s Razor it must of been created by God!
Happy Xmas everyone BTW."
@David Killens
I agree I was getting mean spirited typing at the end and got a little salacious you are very right.
I am arrogant by nature but do mean well.
I do apologize for making such a finite statement and hope to continue in discussion with you all here.
Also how do we go about proving the universe was created ? or not ?
Not entirely sure of the question, How could something always have been, in a material sense. where did matter come from ?
Have we definitely answered that question ?
So I get the Higgs field and the asymmetry in matter and anti-matter so we can get matter out of smaller particles like photons and Gamma rays through decay and such.
but where did those come from? I mean the FIRST big bang, where did those particles come from ?
and if its an infinite bang and crunch, then it has a causal agent outside of TIME,SPACE and MATTER ? and that is some cazy shizz my brother/sister..
How do we answer that ? some people use personal experience of the divine and maybe that's not so crazy.
Pages