Atheism means that you say you are 100% certain there is no god. A-Theism. It’s the word.
The problem is that there is still no clear evidence for the origins for time and the universe. You cannot start claiming god doesn’t exist without having clear evidence for it
You say that, but you’re alive. So I’m assuming that you do somewhat appreciate being alive since you haven’t unalived yourself. You might even think it’s pretty neat.
That God is the reason for my/your/our/Our existence, seems clear enough, you can refer to Aristotle or pretty much any other theologian on this topic.
See, believing in God was never irrational after all, you were just brainwashed by modernity(, on this topic as well).
Also, God is the Greatest being, by definition(, see St.Anselm ٱللَّٰهُ أَكْبَرُ), so S…He is also my/(y)our/Our/the Guide/Example/Light(house)/…
They didn’t say everything is superfluous, they said God is. You’re conflating “God” with “everything”, but understand that is far from a universal understanding of how the universe works. If you’re not sure how the other person feels about this you need to ask instead of assuming they share the same definitions you do.
Your two neurons seem to not grasp the idea that if a god exists, something must’ve made it so, which means we’re back to the same problem as if no god existing. If such a god exists, they’re no more important than random quantum fluctuations, and infinitely more sadistic.
Well if you insist on pedantry, “atheism” doesn’t mean a belief that gods don’t exist, it’s a lack of belief in gods. Think “asexual”: it’s not an aversion to sex, just a lack of sex drive. You are describing antitheism, and many self-described atheists are actually antitheists.
You cannot start claiming god doesn’t exist without having clear evidence for it
Incorrect, you are the one with the spectacular claim and the burden of proof lies on you. Prove that gods exist.
A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
This entire comment chain is focused on banning religion and being 100% certain that god doesn’t exist.
If you want to ban religion and claim god doesn’t exist then the burden of evidence to disprove god lies with you. But you can start by creating something from nothing or reversing time.
Everybody (except some religious people) are agnostic about most things. That’s why phenomema like gravity or electromagnetism are explained by “theories”. God isn’t even a theory in that sense.
It’s scientifically close to impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Even green elephants.
As for time and space… I don’t see the slightest evidence of “god did it”. For me, the chance of finding a green Elephant seems way higher. Because it seems at least possible.
Green elephants are not a requirement for our existence.
The beginning of space and time are.
For that something outside of space-time must exist that created space-time.
Unless you are denying that we exist I am asking you to present another possible way that our universe has been created. Because according to thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Yet our universe does seem to contain energy so where did the energy come from? If you say energy can come out of nothing you’re disagreeing with everything we know about physics.
Disagreeing with our current understanding of physics is certainly a take.
i’m not disagreeing, i’m reiterating that scientific knowledge changes according to evidence. unlike other belief systems, like religion. i’m agnostic, i believe that we can’t know for sure god exists with our current knowledge of reality, but i also believe if god existed he would talk to everyone the same, and he hasn’t spoken to me yet, so organized religion is bullshit, in my humble opinion.
Scientific knowledge does indeed change according to evidence. The existence of the universe ironically breaks our entire scientific understanding of it.
As for your second point, there are books which claim to contain the word of God which you can read. Why would God personally need to converse with every human born each 0.2 seconds? 8 billion people at the same time on the God hotline? Do the laws of a country also not apply unless the president personally tells everyone about them?
From one of the books:
Those who do not know say, ‘If only God would speak to us, or a sign would come to us.’ Thus said those who were before them. Their hearts are alike. We have made the signs clear for people who are certain.
breaks our CURRENT scientific understanding of it.
dam another ftfy.
also, books don’t make something more believable. after all they were written by men that claim to hear a voice i believe (have faith in organized religious slang) either speaks to everyone or no one.
That’s the entire point of God. An eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space nor time. Without beginning and without end.
Unless we find a scientific explanation for problems such as 'an infinite past can never reach the present", or energy coming out of nothing, straight up denying the possibility of the existence of God seems like premature celebration.
I dare you to present your idea of God, as the creator of the big bang and absent since then, to any member of a current religious group. You are moving goalposts pretty far and if you really want to argue about such an absent universe-starter god, then what’s really the point?
Unless we find a scientific explanation for problems such as 'an infinite past can never reach the present", or energy coming out of nothing, straight up denying the possibility of the existence of God seems like premature celebration.
Why do you need a scientific explanation for that, but you don’t need a scientific explanation for “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Sounds like you’re just replacing what you believe to be an* unprovable claim with your own unprovable claim, which just seems like a huge cop out.
Btw, there are tons of hypotheses on how the universe started “from nothing”, including
It didn’t, our big bang was the result of a previous universe collapsing
the universe was all dark matter, then some yet-to-be discovered reaction started converting the dark matter to “normal” matter
Reactions between matter and anti-matter created the energy needed for the big bang
The point though, is that your base premise is just wrong. Science doesn’t say that the universe started “from nothing”, it says “we don’t know exactly how the universe started, but we’re trying to figure it out”.
This does not explain time starting at a point where time didn’t exist. It just defers the problem. If we came from a different universe then where did that universe come from? And the one before that? If we go on infinitely we can still never reach the present.
If there was dark matter, or energy, or gas, wherever did that come from and what was before it? From nothing to something? If that dark matter existed infinitely before, how can we even reach the present?
God being almighty and eternal is a solution that solves this dilemma of an eternal past, because God can create time.
This does not explain time starting at a point where time didn’t exist.
It doesn’t try to. Science is still trying to figure it out, which is the whole point.
It just defers the problem.
You say “defer”, I say “still trying to figure it out”.
If we came from a different universe then where did that universe come from? And the one before that? If we go on infinitely we can still never reach the present.
We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.
If there was dark matter, or energy, or gas, wherever did that come from and what was before it? From nothing to something? If that dark matter existed infinitely before, how can we even reach the present?
We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.
God being almighty and eternal is a solution that solves this dilemma of an eternal past, because God can create time.
A solution, but is it the solution? Until demonstrable evidence is presented, it’s just a hypothesis like all the others. The difference is the other hypotheses give us something to test. Yours would have us just throw up our hands and say “idk, must be God I guess”, which doesn’t really fly in the world of science.
Edit: And you still haven’t answered the question: Why do you need a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe, the beginning of time, etc., but you don’t need one for the existence of “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Why hold up scientific rigour in one case, but accept with blind faith in another?
Atheism means that you say you are 100% certain there is no god. A-Theism. It’s the word.
The problem is that there is still no clear evidence for the origins for time and the universe. You cannot start claiming god doesn’t exist without having clear evidence for it
If a god exists, they’re completely superfluous, unnecessary and not worthy of praise.
You say that, but you’re alive. So I’m assuming that you do somewhat appreciate being alive since you haven’t unalived yourself. You might even think it’s pretty neat.
What absolute brainless nonsense is this? What’s that even supposed to mean?
That God is the reason for my/your/our/Our existence, seems clear enough, you can refer to Aristotle or pretty much any other theologian on this topic.
See, believing in God was never irrational after all, you were just brainwashed by modernity(, on this topic as well).
Also, God is the Greatest being, by definition(, see St.Anselm ٱللَّٰهُ أَكْبَرُ), so S…He is also my/(y)our/Our/the Guide/Example/Light(house)/…
Delete your account, low life troll. Your kind is not welcome in this world.
You say that everything is unnecessary and unworthy of praise which equals saying life has no worth and is meaningless.
Yet you are still living so you seem to be finding worth and/or meaning in it.
They didn’t say everything is superfluous, they said God is. You’re conflating “God” with “everything”, but understand that is far from a universal understanding of how the universe works. If you’re not sure how the other person feels about this you need to ask instead of assuming they share the same definitions you do.
He is saying that creating life and the universe isnt’t worthy of praise IF god exists.
Or am I misunderstanding this sentence?
Your two neurons seem to not grasp the idea that if a god exists, something must’ve made it so, which means we’re back to the same problem as if no god existing. If such a god exists, they’re no more important than random quantum fluctuations, and infinitely more sadistic.
cancer is alive, just saying…
Well if you insist on pedantry, “atheism” doesn’t mean a belief that gods don’t exist, it’s a lack of belief in gods. Think “asexual”: it’s not an aversion to sex, just a lack of sex drive. You are describing antitheism, and many self-described atheists are actually antitheists.
Incorrect, you are the one with the spectacular claim and the burden of proof lies on you. Prove that gods exist.
Agnoticism is the word you are looking for. or “being agnostic”.
agnostic
This entire comment chain is focused on banning religion and being 100% certain that god doesn’t exist.
If you want to ban religion and claim god doesn’t exist then the burden of evidence to disprove god lies with you. But you can start by creating something from nothing or reversing time.
Everybody (except some religious people) are agnostic about most things. That’s why phenomema like gravity or electromagnetism are explained by “theories”. God isn’t even a theory in that sense.
It’s scientifically close to impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Even green elephants.
As for time and space… I don’t see the slightest evidence of “god did it”. For me, the chance of finding a green Elephant seems way higher. Because it seems at least possible.
Green elephants are not a requirement for our existence.
The beginning of space and time are.
For that something outside of space-time must exist that created space-time.
Unless you are denying that we exist I am asking you to present another possible way that our universe has been created. Because according to thermodynamics energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Yet our universe does seem to contain energy so where did the energy come from? If you say energy can come out of nothing you’re disagreeing with everything we know about physics.
ftfy
Disagreeing with our current understanding of physics is certainly a take.
Do call me when you figure out how to create energy out of nothing. It sounds like you almost figured it out.
i’m not disagreeing, i’m reiterating that scientific knowledge changes according to evidence. unlike other belief systems, like religion. i’m agnostic, i believe that we can’t know for sure god exists with our current knowledge of reality, but i also believe if god existed he would talk to everyone the same, and he hasn’t spoken to me yet, so organized religion is bullshit, in my humble opinion.
Scientific knowledge does indeed change according to evidence. The existence of the universe ironically breaks our entire scientific understanding of it.
As for your second point, there are books which claim to contain the word of God which you can read. Why would God personally need to converse with every human born each 0.2 seconds? 8 billion people at the same time on the God hotline? Do the laws of a country also not apply unless the president personally tells everyone about them?
From one of the books:
Those who do not know say, ‘If only God would speak to us, or a sign would come to us.’ Thus said those who were before them. Their hearts are alike. We have made the signs clear for people who are certain.
dam another ftfy.
also, books don’t make something more believable. after all they were written by men that claim to hear a voice i believe (have faith in organized religious slang) either speaks to everyone or no one.
I was certainly not referring to our past scientific understanding you are right about that.
If you are referring to our future scientific understanding, I did not expect you to solve the time problem so soon. Congratulations.
Now if you could present this future-knowledge to me, of which your faith seems to be unwavering. I would love to see it…
I already disagree with the term “created” here.
In your world, what brought the “something” outside of space time into existence?
That’s the entire point of God. An eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space nor time. Without beginning and without end.
Unless we find a scientific explanation for problems such as 'an infinite past can never reach the present", or energy coming out of nothing, straight up denying the possibility of the existence of God seems like premature celebration.
I dare you to present your idea of God, as the creator of the big bang and absent since then, to any member of a current religious group. You are moving goalposts pretty far and if you really want to argue about such an absent universe-starter god, then what’s really the point?
Why do you need a scientific explanation for that, but you don’t need a scientific explanation for “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Sounds like you’re just replacing what you believe to be an* unprovable claim with your own unprovable claim, which just seems like a huge cop out.
Btw, there are tons of hypotheses on how the universe started “from nothing”, including
The point though, is that your base premise is just wrong. Science doesn’t say that the universe started “from nothing”, it says “we don’t know exactly how the universe started, but we’re trying to figure it out”.
This does not explain time starting at a point where time didn’t exist. It just defers the problem. If we came from a different universe then where did that universe come from? And the one before that? If we go on infinitely we can still never reach the present.
If there was dark matter, or energy, or gas, wherever did that come from and what was before it? From nothing to something? If that dark matter existed infinitely before, how can we even reach the present?
God being almighty and eternal is a solution that solves this dilemma of an eternal past, because God can create time.
It doesn’t try to. Science is still trying to figure it out, which is the whole point.
You say “defer”, I say “still trying to figure it out”.
We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.
We don’t know yet, but science is trying to figure it out.
A solution, but is it the solution? Until demonstrable evidence is presented, it’s just a hypothesis like all the others. The difference is the other hypotheses give us something to test. Yours would have us just throw up our hands and say “idk, must be God I guess”, which doesn’t really fly in the world of science.
Edit: And you still haven’t answered the question: Why do you need a scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe, the beginning of time, etc., but you don’t need one for the existence of “an eternal and all powerful creator that is not bound by space or time”? Why hold up scientific rigour in one case, but accept with blind faith in another?