1. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    01 Apr '05 03:38
    As I have said, not only in my post above, but also in debate with you in other threads several times; specifically the one where you agreed to my definition of atheism, Atheism is a denial based on a lack of evidence[/b], not on any other reason, personal or otherwise. When evidence is provided that proves god's existence I will happily admit I am wrong.[/b]

    There is plenty of evidence. God would explain the evidence better than anything else, yet you don't admit you're wrong. You should amend that promise.

    The term Atheist has nothing to do with the various theories on the creation of the universe, save the possibility of god being involved in them as it precludes the belief in this god.

    God needing to be involved in the creation is the proof you desire. To preclude Him out of hand prevents you from getting the proof you desire.

    So in other words, yes I can claim to be an atheist with no opinion on the origins how the universe came to be. I deny god for one reason and one reason only that there is no emprical proof that he exists, none, not one bit. You can counter claims with the possibilities of his existence based on what ifs and why nots, but the matter of fact is there is no data to support your positive claim. My claim is not reliant on anything other than the lack of proof. No personal reasons are involved whatsoever.

    There is plenty of evidence (proof). The data is there, but because you reject the idea of God out of hand, you are forced to accept less simple and less appropriate explanations. If you allowed for the possiblity that maybe the proof you desire has yet to be discovered, and that God may exist, you may be able to look at evidence more objectively.

    My atheism is not to spite you Darfius and I am tired of fighting with you, time and again you fail to read what I have written and pay attention to what I am saying. You believe in something for which there is no proof, I am not willing to do so. What in my stance could possibly suggest what you have written above?


    Of course I read what you are saying. It just makes little sense. I believe in something that has more evidence than atheism, and the proof is provided with the acceptance of Jesus Christ, as I have said several times. What you aren't willing to do is allow for the supernatural to be a hypothesis, which, as I've said before, is quite illogical.
  2. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    01 Apr '05 03:40
    Originally posted by bbarr
    The point, again (and hopefully for the last time), is that the atheist doesn't need an account of how the universe 'came to be', because he can claim the universe has always been. The theist rejects the assertion that everything must have a cause. The atheist can reject the same assertion. The theist claims that God has always been. The atheist can cla ...[text shortened]... The positions of each, at least regarding the cosmological argument, are perfectly symmetrical.
    Actually, the assertion is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Theists do not reject that assertion. And as such, since the evidence says that the universe began to exist, it needed a cause. Since the Bible asserts that God never began to exist, He did not need a cause. What is difficult about that?
  3. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    01 Apr '05 04:34
    God created herself by spontaneous self-generation. She created man in the image of herself. Man was libidinous, so God created mankind for us to play with other than ourself. Some prophets have suggested that mankind will outgrow the need for man, and thus become Godlike (see Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman), but this is probably a myth.
  4. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    01 Apr '05 08:23
    Originally posted by Darfius
    Actually, the assertion is "Everything [b]that begins to exist has a cause." Theists do not reject that assertion. And as such, since the evidence says that the universe began to exist, it needed a cause. Since the Bible asserts that God never began to exist, He did not need a cause. What is difficult about that?[/b]
    Sigh.

    Look, either everything has a cause or some things don't have cause.

    If everything has a cause, then God has a cause. If some things don't have a cause then it is possible God does not have a cause. It is also possible that the universe as a whole does not have a cause.

    It is not the case that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, as it is possible that something could begin to exist randomly. What is impossible is that everything began to exist without a cause. So the theist, and the atheist, can both agree that at least somethings that began to exist have a cause.

    Are we clear so far? Good.

    Now, the evidence does not point to a beginning of the universe as a whole. The evidence points to an explosion. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has presented any evidence that prior to this explosion there was nothing at all. Hence, nobody has presented any evidence that the Big Bang brought the universe into existence. Hence, contrary to your assertion, the evidence does not "say that the universe began to exist".
  5. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    01 Apr '05 09:45
    Originally posted by Darfius
    There is plenty of evidence. God would explain the evidence better than anything else, yet you don't admit you're wrong. You should amend that promise.

    Show me it, point it out to me. Honestly if you can show me some empirical data that backs your claim up I am prepared to change my mind. Unlike you I am not trapped by my position, if you can show me the proof I will change my position.

    God needing to be involved in the creation is the proof you desire. To preclude Him out of hand prevents you from getting the proof you desire.

    Lets talk about god without dissolving it into the ideas of creation. Regardless of the origins of the universe, can you prove god exists? If you cannot, my position will continue to deny his existence.

    There is plenty of evidence (proof). The data is there, but because you reject the idea of God out of hand, you are forced to accept less simple and less appropriate explanations. If you allowed for the possiblity that maybe the proof you desire has yet to be discovered, and that God may exist, you may be able to look at evidence more objectively.

    I have not seen it yet. And objectivity is immaterial. If you can show me empirical data that proves god's existence it doesn't matter whetehr I am objective, subjective or anything else, I will be forced to accept that proof.

    Of course I read what you are saying. It just makes little sense.

    I believe most people would disagree with you, I am rarely non-sensical. You may disagree with what I say, but you cannot accuse me of writing nonsense.

    I believe in something that has more evidence than atheism

    Once again you show how little you have actually understood from what I have written. Atheism requires no belief. The statement above is irrelevant and does nothing other than show you still think this is some sort of 'my faith is better than yours' stand off. Atheism is a lack of belief, a denial of the existence of the supernatural. Time and again you present an arguement based on the preconception that my belief is illogical when in fact it is neither belief, nor illogical.

    and the proof is provided with the acceptance of Jesus Christ, as [b]I have said several times. [/b]

    And every time you have said this, I have reminded you that confirmation of proof which is predetermined by a belief in that proof is not proof. If you have no data to back up your claim which is not presupposed by belief in god, you have nothing to bring to the table.

    What you aren't willing to do is allow for the supernatural to be a hypothesis, which, as I've said before, is quite illogical.

    How? How is it illogical? The supernatural cannot be proved. A belief in anything which cannot be proved is illogical. So once more I will set out some key points of my position in the hope you will try and understand them instead of instantly disagreeing with them with no thought to the effect this has on your position.

    1) Atheism is not a system of beliefs
    2) Atheism is a denial that god exists based on a lack of any empirical proof to the contrary.
    3) Atheism is not a position on the origins of the universe.
    4) Atheism does not preclude any other form of belief unless that belief is in direct conflict with the definition of Atheism
    5) Evidence which requires a pre-chosen belief in something is not proof for the existence of that something

    I will continue to act from a position which these points reflect until such time as I am proved wrong.

    Can I ask you something? Are you out to try and save atheists? If so, why do you insist on attempting to undermine them using arguements that require a belief in god. Can't you see that as they deny his existence, the useage of such types of arguement are futile? And if you are not out to save them, why do you treat each debate as a battleground where you try and win higher ground for your position? Surely, whichever of us is right, we are both seeking the truth.
  6. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    02 Apr '05 12:21
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    God created herself by spontaneous self-generation. She created man in the image of herself. Man was libidinous, so God created mankind for us to play with other than ourself. Some prophets have suggested that mankind will outgrow the need for man, and thus become Godlike (see Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman), but this is probably a myth.
    Nammu created god

    That's the part of the Sumerian creation myths whoever wrote Genesis conviently left out.
  7. Standard memberDarfius
    The Apologist
    Joined
    22 Dec '04
    Moves
    41484
    02 Apr '05 19:43
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    Nammu created god

    That's the part of the Sumerian creation myths whoever wrote Genesis conviently left out.
    That's a good conspiracy theory, frog.

    Let me ask you a question. If everything in Genesis was true, would Moses have been the only one to write about it?
  8. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    03 Apr '05 03:291 edit
    Originally posted by Darfius
    That's a good conspiracy theory, frog.

    Let me ask you a question. If everything in Genesis was true, would Moses have been the only one to write about it?
    1st : Since Moses childhood story was taken from Sargon's childhood story

    2nd :Abram's father Tehah"s creator god was the Indo European Sumerian god An (Anu to the Semitic speaking Acadian's)

    3rd : Abram rejected polytheism

    4th : Abram started a monotheistic religion

    5th :Abram needed more than just " I am "

    6th : Abram "edited" the Myths so "I am" got the god's attributes

    7th : Abram needed a new name for god, enter EL

    8th : Genesis IS these stories,possibly with a few Canaanite additions

    Nammu is the inifinite chaos that coiled into itself and created our universe , An (heavens or space) and Ki (earth or matter) was part of the creation . The Sumerians , needing a personailty for the creator god , gave the concept the name An, the father of the gods.

    and this, my dear fellow, is also where Theoretical Cosmology and Physics is heading
  9. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    03 Apr '05 03:551 edit
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Sigh.

    Look, either everything has a cause or some things don't have cause.

    If everything has a cause, then God has a cause. If some things don't have a cause then it is possible God does not have a cause. It is also possible that th ...[text shortened]... , the evidence does not "say that the universe began to exist".
    bbarr is right on this. There is no reason for the atheist to assume that there is a beginning to anything, much less account for it. It is hard to imagine the past and existence going on to infinity, but it is not unreasonable.

    The atheist has faith that there are no certain answers. And even that they must be uncertain about to be coassistant. Their faith is weak. A reasonable atheist (really - no joke) will say the evidence is inconclusive. Else he might be considered a "religious" person. And my experience is that atheist hate all things "religious."

    I believe if there are certain answers about the beginning of time and creation, the only way to know them is for God (the first cause) to reveals those answers. And I believe he has done so by scripture.

    (P.S. Not to say bbarr is an atheist. He may be a Unitarian for all I know. 😉 )
  10. R.I.P.
    Joined
    21 Dec '01
    Moves
    8578
    03 Apr '05 20:38
    Simple man made God as an explaination for things that he didn't understand.
  11. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    03 Apr '05 22:16
    Originally posted by Coletti
    bbarr is right on this. There is no reason for the atheist to assume that there is a beginning to anything, much less account for it. It is hard to imagine the past and existence going on to infinity, but it is not unreasonable.

    The atheist has faith that there are no certain answers. And even that they must be uncertain about to be coassistant. Their ...[text shortened]... scripture.

    (P.S. Not to say bbarr is an atheist. He may be a Unitarian for all I know. 😉 )
    Consider the propterties of the Void. It's far different then the space that makes up our universe. Having infinite size, matter and time don't exist. Nor do energy, gauge fields or manifolds.Even God can't exist in this Void, which can best be described as endless nothingness .
    That, of course, describes a situation where the universe would never exists, as you can not get something out of nothing.. That means we aren't here, but as we all know , we ain't there so we must be here. How can this be? "We need first cause"!
    Let's examine what the first cause argument is: a repeated division of time until we reach zero, or rather close enough to zero to allow for the "first cause" argument to seem reasonable. However, that division never reaches zero so a first cause cannot take place.
    That we are here proves that something must be amiss It certainly can't be a case of "I think therefore: I think I am"
    In advanced Theoretical Physics an hypothesis called Ekpyrotic "Theory" ( scientists, too are sometimes guilty of misusing the term theory) It comes from String "Theory" ( and they wonder why creationist misunderstand the term) Using superstrings a model of the universe is constructed that allows for a cyclical universe, which doesn't need a "first cause" There are other ideas using superstrings,which might give us a rational description of the universe and the "creation".

    btw this isn't a paste job
  12. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    03 Apr '05 22:22
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    ...btw this isn't a paste job
    You make it sound so dirty. 😳😉
  13. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    03 Apr '05 22:24
    Originally posted by Jay Peatea
    Simple man made God as an explaination for things that he didn't understand.
    Says you! 😠
  14. R.I.P.
    Joined
    21 Dec '01
    Moves
    8578
    04 Apr '05 20:41
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Says you! 😠
    Not just me, also thousands of other people also think this. Consider all the other gods that people have worshiped through the ages Zeus, Ra, Nammu, Odin, Shiva etc...the list could go on & on. What makes the Jewish/Christain/Islamic god any different to them? 😛
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree