The Faith of Atheism

[emprworm]

i agree with that. but a mutually exclusive proposition cannot possibly have another option.

consider the statement:

Either there is life on Mars, or there is not.

I need more information to know which one of those options is the CORRECT ONE (like you mentioned)...but i do NOT need more information to know that one of them must be true! (i just don't know which one)

do you agree with this?

[TMA_1]

dude I agree with you all the way. every post you put forth I agree with because you speak from truth. I was just pointing out to try to put a little less emotion in it. Also I have a hard time trying not to argue with religion. This may insult people but it is not meant to be. It comes from the bible. "Do not cast pearls before swine". People who dont believe dont understand. Those who are athiests are just as closed minded as anybody else. They will deny it of course since its human nature, but they will come to find out where they are wrong. Again I know its hard not to argue, I do it too much myself.lol I try to argue when it is just fun. but I tend to argue about religion to people and it just doesnt pan out.

[emprworm]

<snip pot stirring comments and attempts to referee a thread with irrelevant inserts (the board mods can do that job just fine)>

To that post I respond:

When considering atheism, we are reduced to merely three possibile sources for the origin of the universe.

1. the universe began to exist and was caused.

2. the universe began to exist and effected itself into existence from nothing.

3. the universe has always existed without a beginning.

[Acriku]

What if there is a virus on Mars? Viruses are being debated continuously as to whether or not they are actual life. Very slight example but oh well.

Anyways, yes I agree with that. But the universe problem is more complex than the Mars problem, we could know what happened before Mars or some other planet, and studying it from right before it existed to the present which would give us a better understanding of it - but not the universe. This is my opinion, and I admit this is complex to me, so I am trying my best here.

[TMA_1]

"<snip pot stirring comments and attempts to referee a thread with irrelevant inserts (the board mods can do that job just fine)>"

I quoted the ignorant, rude, and brash stuff you have said. There is plenty more where that came from. You make christianity a laughing stock with these attempts. That is why I am posting.

[emprworm]

What if there is a virus on Mars? Viruses are being debated continuously as to whether or not they are actual life. Very slight example but oh well.

if there is a virus on Mars it does not invalidate the question:

"There is life on Mars or there is not."

It all depends upon what you consider a virus as, yet the logic will still hold true.

Anyways, yes I agree with that. But the universe problem is more complex than the Mars problem

Why? Why do you make an exception for the universe? We can look at the universe and ask the exact same question:

Either there is life in the universe or there is not.

In fact, of ANY question you can ask regarding anything existing in the universe, you can also ask it about the universe itself.

Either Mars began to exist, or it did not.

Either the Universe began to exist, or it did not.

Either Acriku was supernaturally caused or he was not

Either the universe was supernaturally caused or it was not

IN no case are those statements logically invalid. Logic applies to all things in the universe, you cannot make an exception to the universe. what basis do you have to do this? The most simplistic view to hold would be that the universe is no exception to that which applies to what it contains.

[emprworm]

"<snip pot stirring comments and attempts to referee a thread with irrelevant inserts (the board mods can do that job just fine)>"

I quoted the ignorant, rude, and brash stuff you have said. There is plenty more where that came from. You make christianity a laughing stock with these attempts. That is why I am posting.

please post about the topic of this thread or stay off. thanks.

[Acriku]

Emprworm I just explained that which you cut out, so why ask that question and not simply reply to my explanation (true or not, it's my best guess now).

[TMA_1]

"please post about the topic of this thread or stay off. thanks."

hmm, I thought you said that was a mod's job. geesh.lol

anyways, to actual talking, take a look at this.

5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5

This is a simple table of ten digits that go from negative five to positive five.

When you add two opposites, such as negative five to positive five, you get zero. Athiesm proclaims to be the opposite of supernatural belief. That is what it says in acriku's sig. Therefore, exact opposites are equal in their closed mindedness. They both shun eachothers beliefs. We admit faith, but it it is hard for science to do. You are the negative and we are the positive. Both equal in close mindedness.

[emprworm]

sorry acriku for not quoting it, but i read it. not knowing how the events unfolded does not invalidate the question.

Either the universe began to exist or not.

thats all there is to it. so simplistic, yet so undeniable. sure, we dont know the ACTUAL ANSWER, but we do know one of those is true while the other is false.

atheism in my experience is generally about simplifying things wherever they can be simplified. well here you go. Why muddy it by trying to claim that logic itself does not apply? That is vastly more complex. Everything we see in the universe is logical. all science assumes logic. To say that logic applies to all within the universe, yet not the universe itself...to me...would be a blunder in rational thought, and most certainly unscientific.

[emprworm]

"please post about the topic of this thread or stay off. thanks."

hmm, I thought you said that was a mod's job. geesh.lol

anyways, to actual talking, take a look at this.

5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5

This is a simple table of ten digits that go from negative five to positive five.

When you add two opposites, such as negative five to positive five, you get zero. Athiesm proclaims to be the opposite of supernatural belief. That is what it says in acriku's sig. Therefore, exact opposites are equal in their closed mindedness. They both shun eachothers beliefs. We admit faith, but it it is hard for science to do. You are the negative and we are the positive. Both equal in close mindedness.

i have no idea what you just said

[Acriku]

Please don't take my words as what atheism states. Atheism doesn't state anything, and probably I'm the only atheist with my whacky explanations :D

[TMA_1]

hehe well it seems that empr cant read english, so I will explain better.

Science is the opposite of religion in many people's eyes. Science has a hard time admitting that they require faith in order to trust their tests. usually if you pin an athiest down they will say they "trust" their ideas. just another word for faith in this case. Negatives and positives of the same digits, like religion and athiesm, are both similar. Both require faith and have a set of standards. some scientists even commit the greatest sin of all in their studies. the use of dogma.

[TMA_1]

"Please don't take my words as what atheism states. Atheist doesn't state anything, and probably I'm the only atheist with my whacky explanations "

Ho Ho ho... and we all love you for it...lol ;)

[emprworm]

well i admit i don't understand your reasons for being an atheist, but perhaps you can understand...or at least try to...why I am a theist.

I see the three possible causes for the universe. I understood them, they are as clear as a blue sky. The universe is all that is natural. And it always tends to be simplistic as quantum physics is so clearly illustrating (not that quantum physics is simple, hopefully you will understand what I mean).

Of the three possible origins of the universe, only a caused universe is most consistent with natural law. all things in the universe are finite caused changing things....the universe should be no exception- this is the most simplistic view. why make an exception? Do i have a reason to? No. I don't.

Therefore the natural universe demands a cause. But if it was caused, then automatically that cause must be supernatural.

"But isn't this more complex?" one may ask.

Well of course not! To the natural universe it is exceedingly simple. THe natural universe need not violate logic...it need not arise from nothingness...it need not be untouchable by science...it need not violate known laws of physics. The natural universe is behaving in its most simple fashion, when, like all its natural finite components, it too behaves not as an exception, but as another natural finite component.

A caused universe. The most smiplistic definition of them all. Any supernatural cause is not more complex because it is the natural universe that tends to favor simplicity. anything that is supernatural is fully exempt from this principle.

thus, the primary reason I am a theist.

I am hoping you can see it from my point of view, even though I know you dont conclude my conclusions...perhaps you can gain insight into why I have this view.

[emprworm]

like religion and athiesm, are both similar. Both require faith and have a set of standards. some scientists even commit the greatest sin of all in their studies. the use of dogma.

ok, i see what you are saying now. yes, i agree with this.

and yes I can read english.

[Acriku]

Ok I can see where you are coming from, but what reason do you have that it has to be caused? Oh and the universe would be the exception because the universe is just like a collective noun, just a word to describe all that is there. Or perhaps it is indeed something not tangible but something like an orbital shell, then natural laws would apply to whatever is there, but does it to the shell? Or am I babbling? Oh here's one: perhaps at the very instnat that the universe came into existence, there were no laws for it to abide by, if you understand what I mean.

[TMA_1]

hehe good job! ;) ahh I am kidding.

People on this forum that support atheism have gone to pretty biased sites for info. "atheism.com"??? lol

I suggest actually talking to scientists about this information first. I am fully equiped to talk about any spiritual matter. a person who is an avid athiest should do the same, and use their own words instead of quoting from some discovery channel type website.lol

[Acriku]

So tma are you suggesting we surrender all "faith" of our reality and sink into a stupor with the confusion of the thought?

[TMA_1]

on the contrary. I am glad that atheists have faith in their assumptions just like christians. :)

[Acriku]

Now be careful about that. What assumptions? That there is no god or something else?

[emprworm]

Ok I can see where you are coming from, but what reason do you have that it has to be caused? Oh and the universe would be the exception because the universe is just like a collective noun, just a word to describe all that is there. Or perhaps it is indeed something not tangible but something like an orbital shell, then natural laws would apply to whatever is there, but does it to the shell? Or am I babbling? Oh here's one: perhaps at the very instnat that the universe came into existence, there were no laws for it to abide by, if you understand what I mean.

well yes, i know that is the common idea: that there were no laws including logic to abide by, but this is not consistent, in my view, with the natural universe. The universe is simply the sum of all the components. we know the universe is finite because it all was once located in one place that has been expanding outwards. I think this is pretty much agreed to by everyone. It is made up of finite parts. Any set of natural components is itself a natural component. A bunch of atoms make a molecule. A bunch of solar systems make a galaxy. Maintaining simplicity in the natural universe would not exempt the sum of these finite things as anything else other than another finite thing. Simplicity to me means: those same natural laws and principles which apply to all the things in the universe apply to the universe which is nothing more than simply all those natural things. The reason i have to think that it is caused is because no event in the natural universe occurs without a cause, let alone an explosion on such a grand scale as the big bang. if matter an energy came into existence without a cause, then no longer is this a simple universe because logic has just been tossed out the window. Now, that pink sky pixie might just exist....perhaps it too, along with a galactic purple jelly popped into existence. Science would be a total loss because when one observed something, we could not make any conclusions whatsoever about it since there is no such thing as consistent natural laws or consistent logic.

this is my own, personal reason for being at theist. i understand your conclusions are different and that despite what some ppl in here accuse me of doing, i am not trying to convert anyone. i'm only killing time that i have (unfortunately) to waste on a friday night :-[

ok, well, i think this debate became reasonable and to acriku my appreciation for giving me another chance to turn it into a conversation.

[TMA_1]

you sound like you assume your opinion is correct. you also said that there is nothing wrong with faith and that it sounded like I just wanted all faith gone. Well I was able to make you admit that faith is required for atheism. I proved my point. To you your assumptions are truth. you believe what your opinions hold. If you didnt, than you would not care in the first place. if there are no direct facts, faith has to take it's place.

[SurlyPIG]

Like Nema pointed out, we might trace the universe all the way back to microseconds after the big bang, but what, if anything, preceeded the big bang, cannot be known.

which is why it is a faith-based proposition untouchable by science. to say the big bang "effected" itself is also a faith based proposition untouchable by science. it is all option #2 as I so clearly stated in my opening argument.

Uhh...that's not a position or a theory, that's the inevitable. You can't know if God preceeded it, a different universe, a collection of all matter and energy, a void, you just don't know. That's why believing so strongly in any concerning theory is silly. If you'll notice I said I place absolutely no objective value. It's total conjecture, just like your theory, Acriku's, Nema's, Stephen Hawking's etc. Calling it anything more than conjecture is be zealous.

anything existing outside our universe is supernatural. there is no such thing as a different "natural universe". To whatever exists beyond our universe, the term could be applied to that thing only from its perspective. (i.e. if God exist, then God is natural to Himself, but not natural to our universe.).

I meant natural in the sense that it did not occur as a result of the will of deity. Your arguement is absolutely sound. But equally sound, what if the same matter and energy that went into the big bang originated in this universe? Obviously, one tryind to disprove this will walk the origin trail and say "Well how did it just zap out of nowhere in that universe?" Perhaps it was a place where such bizzare and improbable things were possible, even regular...and coincidentally the next part of this quote will probably be exactly what you would have replied.

So your postulation that there is a multiverse is totally grounded in faith...it is a supernatural claim and cannot ever be proven by science.

Never say never.

And I never claimed there is a multiverse. And it may be proven by science if it does it again. Astronomers have found that the rate at which the universe is expanding is slowing down, and the matter and energy that was hurled in all directions by the big bang is going to slow down until it stops, and like an object thrown from the ground, will come travelling back down toward the origininating point of the explosion, at which time it is possible it may occur again.

For whatever reason, that universe converged at a definate point, and there was a massive exposion, the big bang,

lol, this is the part i like...."for whatever reason". There is no science...no logic...that can explain how our universe came into existence

Of course not. Not YET. It is all conjecture. My explanation, yours, they're all scientifically baseless, equally possible but not equally probable.

But that is the theist option as well. Anyone who postulates a caused universe is also postulating supernatural existence. Now I don't have a problem with that except that such an individual has no rational basis upon which to discredit theism in the name of science, lest he be a hypocrite.

Actually it's stilly to postulate such an idea. To make such a wild assumption would be completely illogical. It is simply an exploration of possibilities, of which this idea seems least improbable (note how I did not say most probable...It's like voting. Which candidate is the least worst).

this is nice...its pure faith...pure religion, untouchable by science. supernatural and faith-based. do i have a problem with it? Nope. to each human, his own faith and belief. just don't start calling it science

Oh? Didn't you claim ID is scientifically sound and should be taught in schools...And it's not a religion. It's an idea. It'c conjective. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not holy, divine, religous or sacreligous. It's not proven, disproven, scientifically-originating or impossible. It's just a possibility. Just like yours. The difference is you would be willing to die and to kill for yours. I am not.

We must not be so quick to jump to supernatural conclusions for things we cannot yet explain in the world around us.

but you just did with every single possibile origin for the universe that you cited. THe only origin for the universe (of the three possible ones) that is most in harmony with natural law is option #1, which is the one I hold to, and also the most simplistic one, btw.

No it isn't. What the heck is simple about an uber, super-powered, untouchable, unseeable, infallable, omnipotentally powerful being that creates and transcends everything and anything that is bound by absolutely nothing? It doesn't seem simple to me at all. Thats why I think it requires so much faith. Even my idea is far more simple to explain and to conceptualize. That one idea of universii popping into existence is even more simple.

"In the beginning there was God and only God, and He was..." (for 400 pages)

"In the beginning there was - POOF!"

If the universe had a beginning, obviously, deadly obviously it's beginning was supernatural. If you think this is some sort of shocking revelation you are presenting, you're quite mistaken. I've known that for a LONG time. It's what breeded my fascination in the philisophical paradigm "I think, therefore I am." Either there is something beyond all we can sense, or it does not exist. However supernatural doesn't mean religous, and doesn't mean omnipotent.

[TMA_1]

"supernatural doesn't mean religous, and doesn't mean omnipotent."

that is really general. The supernatural just means what is beyond our physical nature. I am not religious. I am branded as religious by people who dont understand what I believe. You would be suprised how discriminatory people are to christians.