No. From that and the rest of the discussion. Was I wrong?
Gotta run. 'Nite. Back tomorrow.
That sounds like a mocking term that one would use to deflect us away from the fact that you added the tag “God” to your “Creator” after you claimed that “Creator” only meant that which started the whole shebang.
[QUOTE=Me]
I do not have enough information to even hazard a guess
[/QUOTE]
It means exactly what it means-no less and no more. It explains itself.
Atheism a non belief?
Well there is no day I have to get up and go to atheist church.
I don’t have to give money to an atheist organization. No tithing in non belief land.
I don’t have an atheist bible explaining what or why, I should not believe.
There are no priests or rabbis explaining exactly what we should do to get it right. There is nobody on top of a hierarchy.
I don’t have to send my kid to atheist school in case I don’t indoctrinate him well enough.
There are no atheist commandments to follow.
There is no organization telling me to spread my nonbelief to others.
I spend no time worrying about or thinking about it. That was settled long ago.
Exactly how is it a belief system?
It just means you don’t accept it. I personally can’t do the math to understand how you get from Heisenberg to this - I understand it at a very high level - so I can’t convincingly explain it.
“Eternal”?
“Sentient”?
It sounds like you’re making a few more assumptions than the mere existence of an uncaused cause … .
If we assume that there was a first cause(the “Creator”), why should we then assume that this “Creator” still exists after all this time? Indeed, might it not be possible that the very act of Creating destroyed the Creator?
“There ain’t enuff room in this universe for th’ both of us, pardner.”
I should mention that it’s been claimed on this very forum that the non-existence of the soul (or was it life after death? One of the two) has been “scientifically proven.” If so, that would demolish the entire concept behind religion and God.
So there you go… apparently there’s scientific proof that God doesn’t exist…
I realize you’re responding to a bunch of posts, but you misread. Agnostic as to creation of the Universe, as in I don’t know whence it came. Indeed, if I understand Hawking correctly, it’s impossible to know because the BB was a singularity past which we can’t see. This is sometimes misunderstood to mean there was nothing before the BB, but you don’t seem to be making that mistake.
And, no, you don’t have any basis for assuming your Creator is eternal or sentient. Nor does assuming such solve the problem of where it came from.
“Proven” or “provable”?
The soul should certainly be amenable to scientific investigation. Unlike miracles which are sporadic and unpredictable, the soul/brain interaction is (according to the standard hypothesis) a continuous process that’s ongoing inside the head of every individual on the planet. So if we do have souls, we should be able to detect the effects of this interaction as we learn more and more about how the brain functions. At some point we should be able to observe a neurological event that violates the laws of chemistry or physics, providing strong evidence of a supernatural component to human cognition.
In fact, were I a wealthy theist, I’d be pumping lots of money into basic neurological research. It’s the best chance you have to finally establish an empirical foundation for theological thought and shut us atheists up.
However, I expect that what will happen is what always happens when science disproves a theological hypothetical. The god hypothesis will retreat further into the dark corners of knowledge, seeking out tinier and tinier gaps to hide in.
It seems there are some basic definitional problems in this thread. Can we all agree that “atheist” means “one to whom, based on the currently available evidence, the existence of a supernatural being appears unnecessary and unlikely”? It can mean “one who rejects god a priori,” but I don’t think that definition is being used by anyone calling themselves an atheist in this thread, even though the two positions can appear similar, given that in the former definition the atheist can judge the existence of a god to be exceedingly unlikely, just as I can judge the existence of a dead cat in my freezer box exceedingly unlikely without dismissing the possibility as out of hand on ideological grounds (::goes to check freezer:: – wish me luck).
ETA: there was no dead cat in my freezer box
I believe they are now hiding him in hypothetical “alternate universes”.
According to the premise put forth in this thread, atheists cannot know that there is no god. Does it not follow that religionists cannot know that there is a god?
Let’s see a show of hands for all those that believe in a god, but will admit that they do not know if there is a god.
OK. Your logic is:
- Everything needs a cause
- God doesn’t need a cause
As others have pointed out, this is flatly a contradiction, and an obvious one at that. Even forgiving the logical blunder, it makes no sense from any sympathetic angle I can muster; it is incomprehensible to me what you could be thinking. I realize you use the word “special” as though anointing your exception with this adjective precludes the application of rational thought, but look you: if God doesn’t require a cause, then neither does the universe – the universe can just as well be “God” as anything else.
I could be wrong. I’ve reached a conclusion so I don’t consider myself agnostic.
The former, according to DtC, and there wasn’t a lot of argument on that point (though not necessarily because it couldn’t be argued).
Thanks for the permission. It is a contradiction. You said:
Replace “universe” with “God” and your position is less rational than one involving there not having been a first cause by your own admission. Of course it’s much less rational than proposing that the universe was always here since we already know the universe exists. There’s zero evidence for your creator god.
I didn’t think you would be. I’m not arguing with you for your benefit; I’m doing it for anyone that may be swayed by irrational arguments.
No, I’m not. I’m back to not knowing how the universe got here and still having no coherent argument from you why a creator god is a necessity. I’m fine not knowing.
I’m also free to correct you since I can read and all that.
You said my posting of a refutation of the first cause argument was nothing new to this board but you’re not aware that atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive?
No, because it’s not accurate and “one without belief in the existence of God or gods” is much simpler and accurate.
Wait You said:
I take that to mean that quantum physicists operate under the assumption that quantum events must have a cause, although not yet discovered.
Is that correct. If not, where am I misreading you?