Atheism and Agnosticism are not Mutually Exclusive.

[magellan01]

@Fantome

No, that’s one of the foundations of religious apologetics and Creationism (though God gets a free pass).

Yes, he does. THAT"S the point. He/It is that which would need no cause.

@Fantome

And the God Theory doesn’t just push the starting point back?

Nope. See above.

@Fantome

A pretty solid theory, eh? You’re using both the words solid and theory as loosely as can be.

Actually, you may want to reread what I wrote. Those terms apply to what we know and think without god(s) in the process.

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

Yes, he does. THAT"S the point. He/It is that which would need no cause.

Why?

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

Why?

Because it is our experience that everything has a cause. It has been a foundation of science. You see the fruits of this in a toaster, a space shuttle, a pencil, and in medicine. we have a pretty good theory going back to the Big Bang. Then we get stuck. There are theories that get us beyond there to other or earlier universes, but that just pushes everything back. We can do that forever. But what started it all off? Where dod all the matter/energy come from? What put things on the table and in play? It must have been something not subject to the causal laws that guide our realm. Therefore, when we find this god, he will—by definition—not be subject to those laws.

That is why he gets a pass.

[rhubarbarin]

@magellan01

It must have been something not subject to the causal laws that guide our realm. Therefore, when we find this god, he will—by definition—not be subject to those laws.

This is where you stopped making sense.

[Fantome]

@magellan01

Yes, he does. THAT’S the point. He/It is that which would need no cause.

But you used what you believe science says to prove that everything has a cause. Where does science say there is one exception and it is God? Why are you giving God a free pass to what you claim is “one of the foundations of science”

Nope. See above.

You’re just declaring by fiat that God gets a free pass from what you claim is “one of the foundations of science”. Science doesn’t have free passes for gods.

Actually, you may want to reread what I wrote. Those terms apply to what we know and think without god(s) in the process.

So you think the Big Bang is a pretty solid theory yet it requires a god? You lost me. .

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

Because it is our experience that everything has a cause. It has been a foundation of science. You see the fruits of this in a toaster, a space shuttle, a pencil, and in medicine. we have a pretty good theory going back to the Big Bang. Then we get stuck. There are theories that get us beyond there to other or earlier universes, but that just pushes everything back. We can do that forever. But what started it all off? Where did all the matter/energy come from? What put things on the table and in play? It must have been something not subject to the causal laws that guide our realm. Therefore, when we find this god, he will—by definition—not be subject to those laws.

That is why he gets a pass.

Your premise as to what started the whole shebang, indeed your premise that there had to be a “start” at all, is without evidence, and thus you have no need for a “god” as an explanation. Show me the problem before you present the solution.

[Fantome]

@magellan01

Then we get stuck.

God of the gaps.

[magellan01]

@rhubarbarin

This is where you stopped making sense.

In our world/realm everything must have a cause. We can point to nothing that does not have a cause. We may not understand what it is for a time, but more and more we learn how things operate. But when we go back pre BB, eventually we need to get to a Prime Mover. By definition, this Creator God will have the ability to exist without something preceding him.

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

Your premise as to what started the whole shebang, indeed your premise that there had to be a “start” at all, is without evidence, and thus you have no need for a “god” as an explanation. Show me the problem before you present the solution.

What caused the Big Bang?

Now whatever your answer is, what caused that?

[magellan01]

@Fantome

 So you think the Big Bang is a pretty solid theory yet it requires a god? You lost me. .

I think I addressed most of your questions in recent posts. Just to clarify, the BB is a theory of how our universe came into existence. It is mute on what caused it.

[Frank_apisa]

@iophobon

But regardless of any interesting hypothesis about the nature of the universe, I still say I don’t believe in gods and will even go as far as to say I believe there are no gods. And frankly, I don’t see why this should be a big deal in any way.

It isn’t a big deal as far as I am concerned. No more than when I am debating with people absolutely insistent that gods, of necessity, MUST exist.

Believe whatever you want.

Am I somehow shutting off possible explanations of the universe by self-identifying as an atheist? I don’t see how. It is one thing to think of crazy metaphysical reasons for the universe’s existence, but when you ask for my best guess, I’ll give it to you, which is that there is no intelligent being suspiciously like humans that lords over the universe.

Thank you for sharing that. I don’t know if there are gods either. So we are of one mind on that.

So maybe you want to think of yourself as even more open minded than me by refusing to even speculate on the possibility of the existence of gods. That’s fine. But there’s no need to set yourself against people like me who actually make a statement about our belief because we are actually in the same crowd.

What precisely are you talking about here? What have I done to “set myself up against you?”

For the record, I saw your several posts earlier…and was really hoping you would address a comment to me. You seemed reasonable and non-confrontational in several conversations I merely witnessed. When you got to a point where you indicated that the difference between “I do not believe in gods” and “I believe gods do not exist”…it was important to the arguments that have occurred between me and several other atheists…so I called the differences to your attention. I was not rude…or even abrupt. I suggested there was considerable difference…and gave my reasons for why I felt that way.

In other words, your statements that portray atheists as rigid believers who just can’t realize the might be wrong are bull. Most of us are just as open minded as you, with the only difference being that we are grounded enough in the reality we can observe that we realize discussion about the infinite other possibilities or explanations, while possibly fun, is for all practical purposes talking about fantasy and fiction.

This nonsense that you people are “grounded in reality” is a red-herring. I am every bit as grounded in reality as any of you. I do not know if gods exist or not. You seem to be sure they do not. If the only thing you have going for you is that nobody can establish that they do…your “grounded in reality” ought to be stressing the “I do not know” rather than the “I guess no because it seems so very much more likely.”

All said in the spirit of debate, Io…not confrontation. I am damn near certain I could spend an enjoyable hour or two over drinks or coffee with anyone here, especially you…in friendly camaraderie. We are discussing real differences of opinions…and I intend to be as determined in my defense of my positions as most of the atheists here are determined to defend theirs.

[Frank_apisa]

@DanBlather

And your default position on invisible cars is what?

That it is nonsense proposed by atheists who have nothing else to offer.

[magellan01]

This has inadvertently turned into a hijack. I apologize for that. This has been discussed numerous times on this board and I was intrigued by my discussion with FinnAgain. But I do find it an interesting subject.

Now, I’m going for a bike ride.

Hopefully when I get back this thread will be back on track, with FinnAgain having conceded each and every one of my brilliant points.

[Fantome]

@magellan01

What caused the Big Bang?

Now whatever your answer is, what caused that?

What caused God? You haven’t explained why God gets a free pass but a simpler explanation that we don’t yet have can’t also get that pass. There’s no reason to assume a very complex being always existed as that also goes against “one of the foundations of science.”

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

Cite where I have made this claim.

(The claim in question was contained in my comment: The fact that you think the evidence for “no gods” is so much greater than for “gods” is laughable considering the only “evidence” (if you stretch the meaning of that word) for “no gods” is…there is no evidence for “gods.”)

I can’t.

The moment I read your call for a citation…I remembered you making comments that indicated you are not one of the people using the “there is a mountain of evidence that there are no gods.”

I was wrong.

I am debating a dozen different people here, Czarcasm…and “who claims what” gets a bit foggy after a bit.

I apologize and withdraw the comment.

[Fantome]

@magellan01

In our world/realm everything must have a cause. We can point to nothing that does not have a cause. We may not understand what it is for a time, but more and more we learn how things operate. But when we go back pre BB, eventually we need to get to a Prime Mover. By definition, this Creator God will have the ability to exist without something preceding him.

Why assume the first cause is god-like?

Even if we grant that a first cause exists, it makes no sense to assume that it is any kind of god, let alone Yahweh. The idea of an intelligent, universe-creating god “just existing” is far more difficult to explain than the universe itself “just existing”. Intelligence is one of the most complex things we are aware of in the universe. To assume a being who is so intelligent that it can design an entire universe, as well as micromanage the personal lives of billions of people on earth through prayer, would require an enormous amount of explanation.

Christians try to avoid this issue by saying “God does not need a cause because He is outside of time.” This is a glib non-answer. If all that is required to get around the first cause argument is an entity that exists outside of time, then all we need to do is postulate a single particle that exists outside of time and triggered the big bang. It need not have any special powers at all. Besides, this particle might even exist, depending on how you define “outside of time”. Photons, light particles, do not experience time, since they move at the speed of light. Therefore, according to this argument, light can pop into existence without cause.

Theists will object that this particle should have a cause. But they have already refuted this argument by granting that there exists an uncaused cause in the first place. If God can exist without a cause, why not a particle? Why not the universe?

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Cosmological_argument

[Frank_apisa]

@Czarcasm

Considering that you are asking for evidence against a position for which there is no evidence whatsoever, I have to ask:
Do you know anything at all, or is your whole life one big free-for-all where the possibility of anything being true is always 50/50?

I remember an interview Bill Moyers had with Richard Feynmann just before Feynmann’s death. Feynmann went out of his way to say that truly knowing something was very, very difficult to do. He mentioned that the best most people, including scientists, can do is to try to narrow things down after assessing as much of the relevant data as possible.

In any case, I know (in any reasonable understanding of that word) many things, Czarcasm.

I do not know, in any sense of the word, the nature of the Reality of existence.

It (existence) may be the results of gods…whose existence were not the results of anything. On the other hand, existence may not be the result of anything…it may always simply have been.

I am not willing at this time to rule anything in or out.

If it is necessary for you to think me deficient because of that…do so.

[Czarcasm]

@Frank_apisa

That it is nonsense proposed by atheists who have nothing else to offer.

Why is an invisible car nonsense as opposed to an invisible god? There are freeways full of evidence that cars exist, at least.
What is your default position on invisible cars? Are you open minded about them? If someone asks you about them, do you say, “Well there is no evidence that they exist, but there is no evidence that they do not exist, so I just can’t make a commitment.”?

[gonzomax]

@magellan01

Here’s the thing, invisible cars have no value in explaining anything. A god that operates outside our laws does. We do not know what caused the Big Bang. One of the foundations of science is that everything haas a cause. That would include the BB. We can devise explanations like Brane Theory but that just pushes the starting point back. Now I don’t want to hijack this thread into a discussion about whether or not there is a Creator God, but to place the theory of God in the same category of the theory of invisible cars is just sloppy. One attempts to explain a hole in a pretty solid theory of how we got here, the other serves no purpose.

That fails miserably. If everything has a beginning then god has one. Then whatever made god has one etc. Trying to explain first cause is futile. We do not know what initiated the big bang, but it was the beginning of time. There was no before.

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

What caused the Big Bang?

Now whatever your answer is, what caused that?

Could you bookmark this post so that I won’t have to answer it over and over and over again?
I don’t know yet, and I refuse to speculate until a suitable amount evidence is presented that will allow me to state a theory.