If America has a future, it "belongs" to Atheists

I am the one that believes the laws of science have been broken. It is you who is arguing they cannot be. Lets get our positions straight. It is the existence of the creative force itself that is god. You can call it what you want, you don't need to use the word god if you are uncomfortable. Call it a creative force or something. Same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

How did the matter that probably already existed come into existence?

So if you wait long enough, inanimate objects will spring to life? How long?

 

The problem here is that you are making many assumptions; firstly you are making an argument from ignorance, saying in essence that since something is not understood then it must have been something that defies the laws of science, namely a god. This holds no logical water, If one does not know the answer to a question the best that he/she can do is to maintain a state of disbelief until an answer is provided that reasonably answers the question and aligns with observable reality. In addition you make the claim that there had to be a time when there was nothing and then afterwards everything was created; when in reality you are needlessly assuming that matter and energy were created, when matter and energy could well have always existed. You cannot simply assume that matter had to have been created.

As for abiogenesis, you are making an argument from personal incredulity; stating that because your personal thoughts and feelings tell you that life could never come from non-life. Science has all but proved that human intuition is incredibly bad at interpreting likelihood and scientific truth, and that in order to learn anything about our universe and how it works we must abandon our intuition and follow only observable reality. So we may not know the explicit process by which life formed, but we have ideas as to how it could have happened and we have evidence of how organic molecules could have been synthesized in what is believed to have been the environment of prelife earth. Again that is not saying that we know exactly what happened, but we do know that life exists now and occam's razor tells us that a naturalistic explanation is much less needlessly complex than the invocation of an intelligent creator.

Also you should know that Albert Einstein was an admitted pantheist, meaning he treated god as a metaphor for the laws of nature, not as a supernatural or personal god who performs miracles that violate the natural order.

 

Pantheist believe in a Creative force. Same thing. Just an argument over details. My whole argument rests on "you all are pantheists too, you just don't know it".

I did t hear how matter could come into existence. To say I am arguing from ignorance is laughable. We know the universe exists and was created. I say it came into existence by a force outside of scientific understanding an you retort "science has no clue". Doesn't that make you arguing from ignorance? Running around saying "you are wrong, I have no clue either".

In any event. Please answer how matter and energy can be created from nothing.

 

I'm making a statement of ignorance on my part, I'm saying that I honestly don't know I have certain postulates which sound reasonable to me but in all honesty I haven't sufficient evidence to believe in any one hypothesis over another. Your argument is called an argument from ignorance because your are not only stating your ignorance but using that ignorance as a justification for your argument. We can both agree that the universe exists but you insist on making the assumption that existence is necessary upon creation, something you cannot know unless you have access to information no scientist has. I'm not saying your are wrong because I do not know, I am saying you are wrong because you admit you do not know and then use that to argue that in place of that ignorance we should believe in something for which there is no good justification.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantheism
Definition of PANTHEISM
1
: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

Pantheism does not necessarily say anything about a creative force.

Again your challenge is moot, because I don't actually know whether matter and energy was ever "created" from nothing.

 

No it isn't an argument from ignorance because I both know and can show that

A) a universe exists
B) science says energy/matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Just changed.
C) a force outside of natural science created the universe, by its own laws.

A pre universal physics you may call it, god, divine power, etc... All the same. It is the same core belief that is found in every religion. A universe creation event. You probably believe in philosophy and a "correct" way of things to be run among man too. Same as religion. It is an argument over the details.

 

Please show how you know point C, because that is where I have the biggest issue with what you are saying.

and how did you get to moral philosophy? how does that have anything to do with creation or lack-there-of?

 

My experience with atheists online is exactly that: highly emotional individuals with Mommy and/or Daddy problems. It's easy to see because they are often seen trashing, ridiculing or otherwise taking cheap shots at the beliefs of others. Mature atheists, like most theists, often keep their beliefs to themselves for two reasons; those beliefs can't be proven and a person's beliefs are nobody elses business.

 

While I agree that the Universe didn't just spring from nothing, proving it is another matter.

 

In the beginning, a powerful singularity of matter came into existence, and through great energy released itself into the void,pushing out what has become the known universe. It bends the stars and planets with its dispersed force binding molecules through an infinite array of mechanisms. It created water, the earth, fire and the environment for which it to burn. It bound particles together and made them conscious too, bringing to them life. The consequences of consciousness, even in the minutest amounts, are always expansion, as life begins to adapt to natural obstacles and other life to survive, culminating in the creation of an intelligent being, man.

-johnmayo 3:16

See? Same thing, just semantics. The more flowery you get the more you sound like Genesis.

Hindus:

(from wiki)

Muslims:

Catholics:

Those are the majority of religions. All similar creation story. All have similar values, the same values your philosophers hold, just different on the fringe. So in practice, how are you really different then a religious person, except that you take your principles and creation story independently instead of through an organized dogma?

Once we get past this we will get to the fact that you all pray. Every last one of you.

 

This is a very ignorant statement...well so is the basic premise of this thread though. Atheists doesn't mean you're smarter nor does holding religious beliefs mean you are not rational or incapable of reason.

 

That "what", that pre universal physics, that creation event/force is what people call "god", "divine power" etc... the creation itself of something from nothing it the belief in a "god". Whatever you want to call it. The singularity and where it came from. Because that step must have happened, then we have ourselves our "creative force". Can we all believe a creative force happened? Do we agree there? Call it what you will, I am not saying you have to call it "God", or "allah", or "Vishnu" etc..

Once you believe in that, that a creation event happened, and the end result of that event so far is us, then you can say "the what in my chart created the universe and through the mechanisms created by its matter an energy, created man". Does it not? What is wrong with that logic? What is the path to man as you see it, and how is that different then what I said, other then you are just filling in the details?

 

Recognizing that there was a causal effect in the creation of the Universe is one thing. Recognizing that our's is a one-shot Universe, at least according to the latest evidence, is equally mind-provoking. If our's was an Oscillating Universe, then it would be easy to believe that the cycle kept infinitely repeating itself. A one-shot Universe that ends in a "Big Chill" instead of a "Big Crunch" doesn't fit as neatly into the Atheist belief system.

 

They can be Hindu pantheists then. Hindus believe the universe is a cycle. Big black hole type event but universe encompassing, return to singularity, then expansion again.

 

Unfortunately, the Hindus are wrong.....at least according to science.

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-fate_of_the_universe.php

 

You exist because matter exists. Matter was created.

Well lets get to creative force, then I will show you moral philosophy is the same thing as religious moral philosophy. Or we can go on to how every last one of you prays, whether or not you will admit it.

 

I asked you to show me how you know that the universe was created and all you seem to be doing is stating that the universe was created in different ways. I know that you are claiming that the universe was created, I want to know how you know that.

Also you seem to be bringing morality and values into this which constitutes a completely different ballgame, and even then I agree with you that religious people and secularists have similar morals. Yet the fact that we derive our morality based on rational thought, and a prudent application of the golden rule makes all the difference between our moralities.

When you say that we pray, do you mean that we try to communicate with a higher intelligence?

and I still don't understand how morality has any bearing on whether or not there exists a higher intelligence.

 

Know one knows how the Universe was created. Science has proven the Big Bang, but no one knows what happened before the Big Bang.

 

I am saying no such thing, I am saying if you believe a god can pop into existence, why do you not believe a universe can't do the same

I mean if a universe is so complex it needs a god to create it, then how complex must the creator of God been and his creator and his creator... at some-point, something has to begin from nothing

I do believe in a higher power, a oneness of everything.. a God if you like, that we are all a part of... we are God... God is everything (we are created IN Gods image, as in we are a part of God)

.

 

eh - Christianity is fading away in the West. Islam is the bigger issue - the faith is more logical than Christianity and it's followers are more zealot.

it is going to be hard to convince the Muslim world the advantages of at least agnosticism, but in a couple hundred years I see Islam calming down as well

 

I am not arguing the accuracy of any religion, just that atheists believe Ina a creative force that built the universe and is a part of all of it and it gave birth to consciousness and eventually man. Just like all religions believe.

 

Science has a guess as to why the fox is more successful when facing North ... But doesn't like to guess about some other things.

[video=youtube;D2SoGHFM18I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2SoGHFM18I[/video]

 

In that you and I are agreed.

 

I do believe it can just pop into existence, I am the one who believes in a "god/creative force" and can admit it, remember?

You make strong arguments in my favor.

Oh,so you agree then? I started this reply thinking you disagree.

 

I live in it, and have observed that "yes, a universe exists"

Agreed, lets take this step by step. First lets get that we all agree on the creation event, and that life and consciousness are a result of that event. Then we will get to how you all pray, then the morals thing.

You don't base your morals on rational thought at all. According to your morals, if you and your family can become wealthy beyond imagination and secure...if only you killed a man, and you knew you couldn't be caught...would your morals tell you to do it? If not, they are not rationally based. A rational atheist will see man as an animal like any other and free too be used to for their own profit just like any other animal. If rationality and survival were man's only concerns, our moral philosophy would look very different.

The golden rule... Nice reference to religious moral philosphiy

Have you agreed on the creation thing yet? My prayer argument is long, but it has to do with meditation,reflection, goal setting, and hope. Hope is not rational. Wishing is not rational. We all do it whether we call on a specific "God" or a force separate from the usual circumstances, or even if we don't know what we are wishing or hoping too. It is all the same in practice, the only thing different, is religious people say "god", and organized religious people say a set of prayers that bind them together as a community, or if you just hope to yourself, and meditate on consequences of your actions. It is all the same. Otherwise, explain the rationality behind Atheist hoping and wishing. Only a liar will say they do not hope or wish.

Because it is not based on rationality, but the expansion of consciousness.

 

Why is "I don't know" not a sufficient answer?

The God of the Gaps is a pretty pathetic logical fallacy.