Religion IS crazy!

[pavilion103]

Exactly.

The default position can't be - I need evidence for a creator.

As stated before there are only two neutral alternatives:
1) a creator
2) self-existing universe


You can't put the burden of proof on either side.


It is inconsistent to just say - there is not enough evidence for a creator so I don't believe in one.
If you are examining both 1) and 2) consistently, this above comment would imply that you've also looked at alternative 2) and there IS enough evidence for a self-existing universe.


If I said there is not enough evidence for a self-existing universe then you would say to me "you're just assuming there is a God without any evidence"

Yet if you say there is not enough evidence for a God then I would say "You're just assuming the universe is self-existent without any evidence."


This is a very dodgey game that I have seen atheists play.

 

[Value Collector]

What is your best piece of evidence that there is not ?

Your attempting to shift the burden on proof there, If you claim a god created the universe the burden is on you to prove that.

I haven't claimed to know there is no god, I am just with holding belief until it can be proven, as I said I am happy to say "I don't know"

Creation from nothing would appear to violate the Law of Causality. Creation by an external entity obeys this law.

wouldn't the external entity violate the law of causality?

if your happy to say an external entity can be eternal, can't the universe be eternal.

quantum mechanics says things pop into and out of existence all the time, we are far from having a full understanding, So we can not make a claim that the universe couldn't come from nothing.

As I said, I am happy to say "I don't know, but perhaps we can find out"

 

[Value Collector]

Exactly.

The default position can't be - I need evidence for a creator.

.

why Not

As stated before there are only two neutral alternatives:
1) a creator
2) self-existing universe


You can't put the burden of proof on either side.

the burden off proof is on any one that makes a positive claim one way or the other.

It is inconsistent to just say - there is not enough evidence for a creator so I don't believe in one.
If you are examining both 1) and 2) consistently, this above comment would imply that you've also looked at alternative 2) and there IS enough evidence for a self-existing universe

.

Nope, it's perfectly fine to say you don't know either way.

If I said there is not enough evidence for a self-existing universe then you would say to me "you're just assuming there is a God without any evidence"

I would only say that if you were making a positive claim a god existed, based on lack of evidence for the alternative, I would say your making the logical fallacy of special pleading, because your saying that your pet hypothesis is true, just because we currently have no evidence for the opposing view, when in reality you need to be able to prove your hypothesis, not just have lack of evidence for another.

Yet if you say there is not enough evidence for a God then I would say "You're just assuming the universe is self-existent without any evidence."

I don't assume the universe is self existent, I say I don't know. But I believe there is a chance it is self existent.

This is a very dodgey game that I have seen atheists play

what part is dodgy?

 

[pavilion103]

Everyone can only have one of two positions.

1) creator
2) self-existent universe


It's not about a positive claim or negative claim.

To say that 1) doesn't have enough evidence so you don't believe in it, implies that you lean towards the alternative view 2) (given there are only two alternatives).

This would mean that you believe there is more evidence for a self-existing universe than a creator.

My quqestion then would be what is this evidence?

 

[Value Collector]

Everyone can only have one of two positions.

1) creator
2) self-existent universe

Nope, you can be neutral, you can say you don't know either way.

It's not about a positive claim or negative claim.

If you say you know there is a god that created the universe, that is a positive claim, and the burden of proof is on you.

To say that 1) doesn't have enough evidence so you don't believe in it, implies that you lean towards the alternative view 2) (given there are only two alternatives).

Not at all, you can be of the belief that neither option is known, and at this stage the answer is unknowable.

 

[pavilion103]

OK maybe I'm confused about your position:
So are you also saying then that there is no evidence for a self-existing universe?

 

[Value Collector]

OK maybe I'm confused about your position:
So are you also saying then that there is no evidence for a self-existing universe?

Not to the point where I would say we have proof the universe is self- existent.

This area is still under intense scientific investigation, At this point we don't know what happened before the big bang, So I think the only intellectually honest answer is "we don't know"

If you want to speculate and say the big bang was caused by a god, I would have to say maybe it's possible, I have no idea what the probability would be, But I can't rule it out. If you want to speculate and say that the big bang was caused by the collapse of a previous universe in an eternal bang crunch cycle, I would have to say maybe it's possible, I have no idea what the probability would be, But I can't rule it out.

We simply don't know, and if you claim to know, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Value Collector]

I think Both Pav and Sir R might get something from watching this video.

It is a demonstration on Possibilities, Probabilities and when its best to say I don't know.

 

[SirRumpole]

I think Both Pav and Sir R might get something from watching this video.

It is a demonstration on Possibilities, Probabilities and when its best to say I don't know.

I'll watch it , but I've never said I know there is a God (he doesn't talk to little old me, unlike the clergy), I just believe there is, as you believe there isn't.

 

[pavilion103]

So basically you're saying God is possible, self-existent universe is possible.... but you can't say either way.

As previously stated, I believe that the evidence points to a creator (I've listed the pieces of evidence many times in here).

Also scientific evidence in no way points to a self-existing universe. This cannot be validated by science in any way.
Even the very first hurdle, a 5 year old kid can tell you that something doesn't come from nothing (yet atheists try to invent all fancy definitions and end up describing "nothing" as "something").


The God v self-existent universe debate is an unfair one for the atheist (it's like having one arm tied behind your back). I'm not saying that I have 100% proof, but the evidence points in a very clear direction.

 

[pavilion103]

Also amazing how if I post something from any sort of creaction website/channel etc, people will point it out and say that it's not valid,yet people are able to post videos of these buffons who clearly have an agenda.

 

[pavilion103]

I much prefer his work on AFL 360

 

[bellenuit]

OK maybe I'm confused about your position:
So are you also saying then that there is no evidence for a self-existing universe?

Pav, I agree totally on what VC said above and I have personally said in the past that I do not rule out that there may have been a God who created it all. But like VC, I have seen no evidence for it and keep an open mind.

And again like VC, I understand that our current knowledge of the universe goes back to just after the Big Bang. In fact I think they are fairly sure what happened within a few trillionths of a second after the Big Bang and what has followed since to get to where we are today (in a very broad context, not obviously down to minutia).

What caused the Big Bang and what went before it is very much speculation and in the realm of Quantum Physics, something way beyond my level of understanding. What I do know is that in the realm of Quantum Physics, things that seem impossible at a macro level are possible at the quantum level. For example, objects been in two different places at the same time, objects coming into existence from nothing etc. These have been demonstrated in the lab and are completely supported by the mathematics.

When they speculate that the universe came from nothing one has to be very careful on what words mean in that context. For example, what is nothing. One might say that is obvious: take any volume of space and it will contain nothing if there are no objects of any sort within it (down to he smallest known or even unknown particle) and perhaps even no waves of any sort passing through it. But since there is also speculation that time and space came into existence at the Big Bang, how do you define nothing if there is no space. Our volume of space containing no particles of any sort is meaningless if space didn't exist.

As I say that is a very complex subject which is difficult to understand.

But you are very disingenuous. While purporting to argue about science and requiring evidence concerning some of the speculations regarding the Big Bang, all the while you yourself know that you are a young earth creationist and believer in the nonsense put out by Answers In Genesis. What may or may not have happened at or before the Big Bang 14 odd billion years ago is not something you care about as I understand you believe it all happened just 6,000 years ago and all in 6 days.

 

[Value Collector]

So basically you're saying God is possible, self-existent universe is possible.... but you can't say either way.

.

I actually said "maybe" God is possible, I don't know if a god is possible or not. As I said I don't know if its possible that anything can exist outside of space and time, let alone a god.

Because I don't know if it possible or not, I won't rule it out, But I can't rule it in, Hence my neutral position.

Did you watch that video I put up, I think you'll understand more if you watch it.

As previously stated, I believe that the evidence points to a creator (I've listed the pieces of evidence many times in here).

I know you believe that, I just don't think your evidence is valid, I think your special pleading your case because you start with pre existing notions you want to maintain.

Also scientific evidence in no way points to a self-existing universe. This cannot be validated by science in any way.
Even the very first hurdle, a 5 year old kid can tell you that something doesn't come from nothing

Well I don't know if you can say that for sure, How can you prove something doesn't come from nothing.

there is a whole area of particle physics that is gathering evidence that says that certain particles can and do pop into and out of existence. So I don't think we can write that off, and even your god hypothesis would rely on making something from nothing, your just invoking a god to achieve it instead of particle physics.

The God v self-existent universe debate is an unfair one for the atheist (it's like having one arm tied behind your back). I'm not saying that I have 100% proof, but the evidence points in a very clear direction

As far as I can see you have no proof.

But feel free to share your best piece of evidence.

 

[pavilion103]

You're right I have no proof.
In the same way that no one has proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.
But you follow evidence to make your conclusion that it will.
(evidence that has been discussed over and over and over in here)

------------------------------------------------------
I do not claim to be a young earth creationist.
I don't know how old the earth is and neither does anyone.
The Bible doesn't state anything about the age of the earth either.

-------------------------------------------------------

Even when we use quantum physics to experiment, we are experimenting using aparatus and conditions that are already existing.

People don't seem to get that.

 

[Value Collector]

I'll watch it , but I've never said I know there is a God (he doesn't talk to little old me, unlike the clergy), I just believe there is, as you believe there isn't.

So your an Agnostic Deist.

and I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Niether of us know, but you choose to believe. Your free to believe what ever you want, but if you care about whether your beliefs are true, you should always be prepared to hang a question mark on even your most treasured beliefs.

And if it is any consolation, I would rather live in a world full of Deists who admit they don't know, than I world of Theists that Say they know there is a god and he talks to them, I think the world would be a nicer place.

 

[pavilion103]

So your an Agnostic Deist.

and I am an Agnostic Atheist.

Niether of us know, but you choose to believe. Your free to believe what ever you want, but if you care about whether your beliefs are true, you should always be prepared to hang a question mark on even your most treasured beliefs.

And if it is any consolation, I would rather live in a world full of Deists who admit they don't know, than I world of Theists that Say they know there is a god and he talks to them, I think the world would be a nicer place.

We all have our own personal desires and preferences I guess.

Personally if I go to Cold Rock I will always get cookies and cream icecream with cookie dough, one of my friends got strawberry icecream with gummie bears and skittles.

 

[Value Collector]

You're right I have no proof.
.

Thank you for admitting that.

In the same way that no one has proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.
But you follow evidence to make your conclusion that it will.

Well the sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates and gives the illusion that the sun is rising.

And we can prove that the earth will continue to rotate for the next 24 hours by using newtons laws of motion.

There is no such logical scientific laws that point to a god, so your analogy is bunk.

I don't know how old the earth is and neither does anyone.

Again the approximate age of the earth can be established, it's roughly 4.5 Billion years old.

Just because we don't know what happened before the big bang, doesn't mean we don't know anything. their is lots of things that are known.

Even when we use quantum physics to experiment, we are experimenting using aparatus and conditions that are already existing.

People don't seem to get that

Whats your point?

 

[pavilion103]

Those laws say that it has rotated that way in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but you still can't prove to me that it will tomorrow. The evidence points to the fact that it will. It can be proven once it occurs.
My anaology stands.

Age of the earth.
You are assuming the methods used are accurate.
You are also assumming a number of things remaining constant or assuming certain rates of change.
This is all a projection. We don't know the conditions the further back we go.


My point is that in order to do any experimentation to show that something can come from nothing, you need to start with nothing. Every single observation starts with something (including the observer).

 

[Value Collector]

We all have our own personal desires and preferences I guess.

Personally if I go to Cold Rock I will always get cookies and cream icecream with cookie dough, one of my friends got strawberry icecream with gummie bears and skittles.

Yes, But to me its not an ideal world when the gummy bears and skittles guy wants to cut your head off for not liking his brand, while you threaten me with hell fire for not liking cookies and cream, and you want the government to legislate against marriages who prefer fruit salad, and people are told to ignore the science that says vegetables are better for you.