Atheist give me a reason to believe?

Atheist give me a reason to believe?

Other urls found in this thread:

phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) Thus the universe has a cause

Atheist here.

It's comforting to some and as long as your belief doesn't cause you to make harmful mistakes in life it's harmless.

>>Thus the universe has a cause

a cause does not need to be a god
atheists still believe in a cause

Ok, so we agree the universe has a cause. What can we deduce about this cause?

Firstly, it must be immaterial, as it created all matter. If it's not immaterial then we simply have a bigger universe which we need to explain.

Secondly, it must be itself uncaused, else we need a cause for this cause and so on into infinite regress.

So we have something timeless and immaterial. This can only be two things: an abstract concept like a number or a logical statement, or a mind. But numbers and logical statements don't cause anything. They just are. What we are looking at here is a mind.

Further, it created all of existence, so must be a particularly powerful mind!

What we have is a timeless, immensely powerful, disembodied mind which created the universe.

And I'm sure you'll agree that with such a description it is fair to call that God.

Thanks for playing.

>being this bad at philosophy.

I'm not on either side of the argument. But this is just awful, holy fuck.

your sentence is so grammatically fucked I don;t know what you just asked

Me:
>Explains clearly and logical each of my deductions, showing how they lead to my conclusion in a manner which is convincing an easy to follow
You:
>Insults

Who is the better philosopher again...

Anyone can play that game !

The Koran has a passage about beautiful boy servants in heaven for you.
Since Sup Forums is festering with trap loving faggots you'd think Islam would be an easy sell for these degenerates.

you're whole argument there comes down to

>>What we have is a timeless, immensely powerful, disembodied mind which created the universe.

>>And I'm sure you'll agree that with such a description it is fair to call that God.

powerful yes but a mind no

See paragraph 4 for why it must be a mind.

I think there's no god. Therefore I am an atheist.

>logical

No.

Given the budding of understanding into the natural of quantum physics, it is possible that the universe always has and has never existed at the same time. Perhaps, it is a condition of what we understand as 'existence' that 'nothing' cannot exist. And so something must be. These are assumptions. But they have some grounding in what we are beginning to understand about quantum physics.

But! Even if that is all false, there is zero reason to assume any sentience was involved in the creation of the universe.

Immaterial things do not exist by definition, and if they did, explain how they could 'cause' or effect things that are material.

Time is essentially the progression of states, itself. If a thing is timeless, it is without progression and by extension, action. It would not be able to 'cause' anything.

Even if a being possess all these qualities AND can function contradictory to its inherent nature (which one has to assume would be the case, as pointed out above) what about these faculties allow it the ability to create anything?

At best, given the attibutes, it would just somehow exist (outside of existence lol) 'forever' ( also lol). Where the fuck does the jump happen to having x and y qualities and having the ability to create things from apparently nothingness? Please explain.

>you cant.

there does not need to be a mind, we just assume that there has to be something to create something

as hawking states

If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes

Your first paragraph makes very little grammatical sense to perhaps try rewording that again. I am very familiar with quantum physics and the implications it has and does not have for the Kalaam Cosmological, so do feel free to use some jargon if you need to.

>immaterial things do not exist by definition
This is a failure to understand basic philosophical terms. The number 3. Logical statements. Minds. These things are immaterial but exist timelessly (not just infinitely. Literally separate from time.)

Your next sentence confuses timeless with past-infinite.

>we just assume that there has to be something to create something

Well it's called the principle of causality, and it is fundamental to all of science and scepticism, so you might want to think twice before doubting it! As the famous atheist David Hume once said, "I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as something coming into existence without a cause."

...Are you trolling? Probably.

Minds, numbers and other things do exist as ideas extended from physical engines.

They are not necessarily immaterial in the way that abstracted sentient beings that contradict all faucets of existence do. Surely you understand the difference.

Kalam has been absolutely shat on continuously for the last 10 years and people still act as though its valid.

A 2 year old thinks they know everything.

Why should I care about what you believe?

>Atheist give me a reason to believe?

In what? Fuck off with this meaningless spam. A zealot trying to convert the unredeemed. Take it elsewhere, psycho.

unless it a self repeating entropy
and with you're argument god would need a cause

who said you should you clicked and replied

Take an interest in science and if you don't like science and have more with philosophy then theology maybe more your thing but the problem is that people interpret religion like more than it is the holy book and everything like it are historical accounts mixed with creative writing to create analogs for social problems from the time it's a book about living rules and morality codes Wich can be quite interesting if viewed and thought about in the right way

>"mind number and other things do exist"
and from the last post I replied to
>"immaterial things do not exist"

Look. Just go away, get yourself a proper, more consistent view of the topic, and learn to word your arguments as clearly as I have, and then you'll have a chance. At the moment you're just bumbling around trying to oppose me but we're not really getting anywhere are you?

The problem with this is that you're trying to use a monkey brain that evolved to deal with hyper local concepts, and which is not great at dealing with concepts outside of that scope. It was of greatest importance that your ancestors had a grasp of basic distances, colors, shapes, and had predictive movement cognition and communications ability. But that's not very useful for understanding something like the planck unit, the speed of light, or how far it is to the moon.

For instance: We all know the universe is expanding. However, there's a cognitive problem here in that your monkey brain compels you to ask what medium the universe is expanding within. And the answer is "nothing". It's even weirder, in fact. There's not just nothing outside of the universe. There IS NO outside of the universe. Another good example of counter intuitive problems that confuse our monkey brains is the notion of time. There is no time, but rather spacetime. And it is a product of the big bang. Thus, we can only conclude there WAS NO "before" the big bang!

Trying to define the mysteries of the universe with brains that only evolved to deal with basic Newtonian physics simply will not work. There was no "before" the universe, and we're not even sure if the singularity is infinite or not. "Cause" has no meaning in that context.

As an atheist I think it is fair to call "there is no god" a belief. But it's a very sound one. Most of us don't claim to know for a fact that there's no creator deity, rather we suggest there is no evidence to prove there is. And there in lies the rub for theists of any color.

Those who make positive claims have an ethical responsibility to provide proof. Atheism does not make a positive claim. It does not say anything is in existence. Theism does, in its claim that a god does exist.

TBC!

>Who is the better philosopher again...
him

Nope. God is timeless so thus did not ever begin to exist. The argument holds.

I always find people who ask questions think they know every thing

or you triggered so bad

haha. Perhaps I should have just said "atheists are fags lol" and thus be the best philosopher in your eyes then.

Incredible.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

Continued!

Simple logic is all we need to understand why it it is on Theists, then, to provide proof for their claim. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist; not just a god, but anything at all! That which does not exist necessarily cannot leave evidence of its non-existence. The dog who didn't walk through my living room can not leave non-fur for me to not-find, or non-paw prints to not-exist on my tiles.

Proof requires evidence.

So yes, unless you claim to know for a fact that god does exist, we are dealing with a belief structure here. And if you do make that claim, present your evidence. I wish you only the best of luck with that one.

All we can say for sure is that while absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, there is also truth that, at some point, the lack of evidence becomes damning to a supposition when nothing ever shows up. We didn't have evidence for silver back gorillas for a long time, and they were considered cryptids...until one day we found them. We've been looking for god for the whole of our existence and no one to date has offered a single piece of reproducible evidence to suggest one exists. That's about as damning a dearth of evidence as any scientific problem has ever had...

Because they exist insofar as they arent independent of physical things.

You are using 'immaterial' as a blanket term for things that do not have tangible form and ignoring the difference between abstractions independant of physical engines and concepts that exist through physical engines (such as thoughts).

You are literally retarded.

why not agnostic?

Theres not enough evidence to prove or disprove god existence. Thus agnostic

so you are holding the universe to rules but not god
which you have no defined knowledge on
the universe could be self repeating from zero and back to zero,

so in you argument for a cause you have a undefined factor which you are using in a hypothesis which kinda de-values it

Psychedelics greatly help understand one's place in the universe. And are not so wordy.

Anyone who is an atheist is retarded, and is just following another religion.
The lonly logical solution is to be agnostic

I'm bored.

Blow me
Also I found this old book that says that an all powerful being in the sky dictates you follow our precepts our you will suffer eternal punishment in the afterlife.

>you are using immaterial as a blanket term for things that do not have tangible form
Such is its definition, yes.

>you are literally retarded
And there it is. The atheist's last bullet. All he really had all along. No philosophical or scientific arguments? Just shout "retard." Embarrassing, to be honest.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

Oh boy, that is the clumsiest and most pretentious definition of "a mind" I have ever seen... A mind cannot be timeless, as a thought process or state is essentially of Markovian nature, thus requires a time update to generate new priors from previous posterior distributions of states.

You are a fucking retarded theist faggot trying to build a fake deduction towards a previously stated conclusion. Believe whatever you want, but DO NOT TRY TO JUSTIFY IT RATIONALLY, there is nothing rational about religion.
You suck at pseudosicence and metaphysical shit. You try to mix pseudo-mathematical concepts with epistemology and several other philosophical bullshits that no STEM educated person would consider useful. Don't bother.

Following a religion? I don't believe in god simple as that. Get over yourself.

Incorrect, I am holding them both to the same rules. The rule is this, as I stated it in my first post:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This applies to both the universe and God. The universe began to exist, so has a cause. God did not begin to exist, so does not.

Try again.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

there no disprove that a huge 400000000000000000000 foot shoe lives just outside our universe spewing small cows

but that does not mean I have to be agnostic about it

COrrection on my first statement: Trying to use the basic reasoning ability of brains that evolved only to deal with matters of newtonian physics will not work. For those problems we need mathematics, a language we use to render a counterintuitive concept graspable to our brains. Obviously we can understand these problems, but not without that mathematical infrastructure. It's pointless to just try and reason these things out on your back porch with a mint julep.

>2) The universe began to exist
Fail.

If you believe that no god exists and one cannot exist you're following religion under another name.

1.) Can you prove that something needs a cause in order to exist?

2.) If a God is responsible for creating the universe then what caused the God to exist? What caused the God's cause? And the cause of that cause?

There are many proofs for this, both scientific and philosophical.

For example, if we assume the universe to be past-eternal we could not have ever reached our current point. There is an inherent paradox in this. This was sufficient for philosophy, but then we recently have the scientific proof by way of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.

So yes,

2) The universe began to exist

Is true.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

1) Yes. It's called the principle of causality.
2) God is timeless. See this post for more:

Troll confirmed.

Ignores 80% of statements. Don't waste any time.

Someone who sides with this idiot:

Please explain how being timeless and uncaused results in the ability to create things.

>Arguments for atheism
Scientific method
Any form of rational and material proof
Chemistry biology physics and astronomy?

>being atheist
>not being agnostic

So you just believe there is no god. That's also an religion (atheism)

For starters, you cannot just be "agnostic". It's a qualifier that means you possess no evidence. You could be a theist agnostic, or an atheist agnostic, meaning you believe in your respective position but don't know for sure that it is fact. There is no such thing as "agnostic" on its own.

Second, Your reasoning is dangerous. You have no reason to believe I'm not outside your house with a knife staring in the windows right now. But I might be! Or I might not be. At the end of the day, you're playing a game of probability, which is a damned poor metric by which to measure something as profoundly serious as life.

You may as well be playing yahtzee. You need to base your assumptions on empirical fact as much as is possible, and there are produced exactly 0 facts in support of the pro-god argument despite our search for him for the entirety of our existence. If that is suitable for you to hold even a nominally acceptable attitude towards pro-god beliefs, you then MUST logically accept that I am outside of your house with the knife, that santa exists, that my unicorns exist and piss rivers of cola that won't make you fat and that girls will like you some day.

ALL of those things are orders of magnitude more probable. When you figure out why you reject them, you will understand why you should reject god without evidence.

you have no proof of god not beginning
like no proof that universe is not infinite loop never needing a cause

there is quite a few theory of how the universe was created not needing a creator
so that would be a argument for atheism

and just because you don't know the reason for something does not mean, the few theory's you have are right including god

I have replied to a lot, but remember that atheists regularly perform what is called the "Gish Gallop" where they post many many lines of falsehoods and I cannot possibly respond to all.

If your first sentence contains an falsehood I will demonstrate that and call it a day. If your first sentence is correct and second contains a falsehood I will debunk that instead.

This means if you wrote out 10 paragraphs, then bad luck, but I'm not going to further than your first error.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

>Chemistry biology physics and astronomy?
None of that supports nonexistence of god

>scientific method
Doesn't disprove God or support lack of god

There is also no proof of a lack of god

How about a "code" that just creates universes randomly, and we just happen to live in one where life is possible. thus making us think about or cause when there really might be none

>no proof of God not beginning
This is true by definition. See:

>0 facts in support of the pro-god argument
What is golden ratio, perfect pitches, or even DNA?

>I don't have a hobby. I don't even collect stamps
>So you do have a hobby then, not collecting stamps

Please explain the mechanism behind how god is able to create things.

Or how a timeless being can take actions that require time to perform.

If you cannot, shut the fuck up.

Do not dodge the inquires. Explain.

This is a very strong counterargument which I have heard previously. The issue I have with this is that code cannot generate anything 'new'. It is not 'creative' in the way a mind is.

>So you just believe there is no god. That's also an religion (atheism)

religion -
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
a particular system of faith and worship.
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

none of these cover
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


just because people are atheist does not make them a religion

DIfferent poster here.

The principal of causality cannot help theists because the "god" answer doesn't actually explain anything. You say that the universe must have a cause, and that cause is god. Then what caused god? And what caused the cause? And what caused the cause's cause? Ad infinitum. All you've done is propose additional unverifiable layers onto known cosmology. This is nothing to be a smart aleck about.

If god can be timeless, why can't the universe? In fact, there is mathematical evidence that suggests the singularity that expanded is in fact infinite.

it really not at all

This is retarded.

Religion is a status not a hobby. It's more like, say, marital status. You can be married, widowed, single,...

You don't then say "I don't have a marital status" you say you're single. You don't say "I don't have a religion" you say you're an atheist.

>the belief in disbelieving or having a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

There you go, retard.

Well your inquiries firstly assume the B-model of time, which I personally reject.

But also, God is a mind. He creates things the same way our minds do.

I'm getting so tired of these shitty arguments, they have been used for literally hundreds of years and have been debunked often enough too.
"Firstly, it must be immaterial, as it created all matter. If it's not immaterial then we simply have a bigger universe which we need to explain."
If we are talking about something "before" the big bang, this sentence probably doesn't even make sense.

"Secondly, it must be itself uncaused, else we need a cause for this cause and so on into infinite regress."
Maybe, but you drawing that line at your god is completely arbitrary.

"So we have something timeless and immaterial. This can only be two things: an abstract concept like a number or a logical statement, or a mind. But numbers and logical statements don't cause anything. They just are. What we are looking at here is a mind."
Ah, so you are putting the conclusion of your argument into your premises, huh? Make an argument for why it's a mind.

"Further, it created all of existence, so must be a particularly powerful mind!"
Why? The laws of nature don't seem "fine tuned" to me, so even if it were a mind, it might as well have been a dumb one. You are deducting a powerful mind because you assert intention behind our universe and existence itself.

The rest doesn't hold up because everything before that was utter bullshit.

>Then what caused God
You have not shown that God needs a cause. If he is timeless, then he does not.

>if God can be timeless, why can't the universe?
Because basic philosophy and science have proved the opposite, many times over. Most recently, the borde-guth-vilenkin theorem has proved the universe is not timeless.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

Well dont belive in god, but dont go saying that gos does not exist because (and i remind you that the nonexistence of proofs is not proof of nonexistence) you do not have proofs for that and the same for the theist neither you nor them have one.
And maybe we will never haver one.

Cognitive bias, and emergent order by way of biochemistry. Sure, in theory god could be behind those things, but we live in a universe in which he is not required as an answer to why those phenomena exist. And that is a huge problem for you, because all it does is place another layer of doubt onto the question, it doesn't actually answer the question.

Nope, sadly, you are retarded.

If you don't have a religion, you aren't an atheist. Atheism is the belive in the nonexistance of God. If you were an an atheist, you couldn't call yourself non-religious because you are still following the tenants of Atheism.

>make an argument for why it's a mind
Haha it's like atheists cannot read. Far from just making an argument, this came just after he quoted me PROVING that it is a mind! Amazing.

We have never observed minds bring things physically into existence. Certainly without prior material to work with.

Shitty explanation. As expected.
Done here.

...

>2017
>not being an apatheist

I'll never understand.

Totally incorrect. Your mind can create stories, hormones, electrical pulses, music.

Well, maybe not yours personally, as you are an atheist after all! But rest assured most do.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

Theist, give me a reason to believe a reason is needed to live. Also saged reported etc.

>You have not shown that God needs a cause. If he is timeless, then he does not.

Correct. YOU suggested the principal of causiality was in play. I demonstrated that it is not necessary to make that assumption about the universe's existence, or god for that matter.

>Because basic philosophy and science have proved the opposite, many times over.

Incorrect. The theorum is unproven and scientific orthodoxy leans towards the singularity having existed an infinite amount of time.

It is a pity you are unwilling to actually have a conversation here.

>2) The universe began to exist
>Is true.
You don't know this.
No one does.
Understood physical laws break down before the Planck epoch, and phenomena before it are speculative.
Some physicists say the universe may have always existed.
phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

yes and if all of us did not believe in Santa would that be a religion


kids these days no brains and they feel need to insult its sad
awwww

>God exists
>let's people know he's loving and allpowerful
>creates people who are literally to stupid to understand he exists just to fuck with them
>can't be either loving or allpowerful

Checkmate.

Don't sage it. Yes, the defending theist is a tard-o, and we'll get no where with him because he's an under the bridge level troll, but someone else with a brain and with a hunger to explore the concept may be reading.

>without prior material

Not understanding the difference between chemicals and concepts that require either physical or past reference to 'create' (more like reshape) and literally bringing matter into existence without any prior reference or material to work with. Something from nothing, basically.

Later guys. The autism is deafening.

You might THINK...

But fail to study, observe, examine anything.

You are the victim of Propaganda, & Psy-Ops.

"This can only be two things: an abstract concept like a number or a logical statement, or a mind"
If you are talking about this, you call this prove?
You haven't even proven that a mind can be immaterial and all the evidence we have about minds points to them being a physical phenomenon.
Show me an example of an immaterial mind.

Just a quick rewind as you do not seem to know what the principle of causality is. It is the following:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

This was my proposition 1. Importantly it is not this:

Everything has a cause.

That would imply that timeless things, such as logical statements or abstract concepts need a cause, when obviously they do not.

I am willing to have a conversation but you are largely just bouncing off your own misunderstanding of things in attempts to find contradictions in my reasoning when there are none.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

If it's timeless then how can it exist? Explain to me something that exists for 0 seconds.

Cognitive Bias doesn't work at all to explain perfect pitches

>Psy-Ops

You're not helping. You might think you are, but you're not.

I have proven 2 to be true in two different ways in this very thread. Try again.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

No. You don't think. Thats why you are a atheist.

It is said that our universe began life as just a single chemical element. Our own brains can create a much wider and richer array of things than that.

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

...

When you decide to behave reasonably we can talk. Until then, have a good day.

Timeless is not the same as existing for 0 seconds. In fact, it's the very opposite of that!

>Arguments for theism
Many, some of which are particularly strong
>Arguments for atheism
None

All you need to know.

>I have proven 2 to be true in two different ways in this very thread. Try again.
You can't. Try again.
If the professionals can't, then you definitely can't.