OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

Frank believes he does not believe.

 

1; The existence of natural forces, which formed the universe, prior to the universe being formed proves that there is something exists outside the universe.

2; A deistic god is impossible to prove or disprove, since it exists outside the universe. There is no direct evidence of it's non-existence either.

3; It doesn't have to have directly created the universe. It could have happened any number of ways. It doesn't even need to be a divine being. It could easily be a hyper-evolved being from a previous universe which has the ability to alter or create matter, such a being could very well be possible through evolution. It could have simply directly the forces of nature to cause the big bang.

 

You are still assuming that the universe was "created" when there is no evidence at all for that assumption.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, right?

So if the Laws of Physics already existed then creation of matter/energy would have been impossible.

Since matter/energy does exist that means that it must always have existed ergo no creation event occurred.

Without the need for a creation event there is no need for a creator either.

 

Why do you believe there is a possibility that a god exists? Isn't that just a last gasp GodDidIt?

 

Of course matter can be created. Where do you think the elements come from?

 

Wrong, Frank believes he does not know if he believes or if he does not believe. Or to put it more simply he does not know.

 

Guess | Definition of Guess by Merriam-Webster
Merriam-Webster › dictionary › guess
Definition of guess for English Language Learners. : to form an opinion or give an answer about something when you do not know much or anything about it. : to guess (something) correctly : to make a correct conclusion about (someone or something) by chance. : to suppose or think (something)

I think the most relevant part to your giving a guess about the existance of a god is the " to form an opinion or give an answer about something when you do not know much or anything about it" Guess all you want. Those of us with a bit more knowledge don't have to guess, we can look at the available knowledge and make an informed opinion.

 

Ok. So you do believe in god. I don't think that's the main characteristic of modern deism, though. Deism usually is identified today more by the belief that god can be known by observing nature. What you describe sounds to me more like "fideism"

 

This is semantic gibberish. Substitute the word you like for "everything" and answer intelligently.

 

Yes. But I'm not trying to convince Frank... or anybody. Just to give him something he can think about in his own time. I think most people, deep inside, do care about being rational human beings. Despite their apparent rejection of reason.

Frank, the only way in which that might conceivably be possible would be that you do not think about god at all. The fact that you're in this forum proves this is not your case.

So you're just not being straightforward. Not with me, or anybody on this forum. Just with yourself.

 

I have no idea what you are ranting about. None.

Are you implying Diablo's comment is semantic gibberish?
Are you stating my comment "Scientists have posited other universes" is semantic gibberish?

 

The lie of religion is to call God the root cause of the world.
There is no reason for the emergence of the world. Time began 14 billion years ago in a place with the entire universe.

The reason for me is my parents. The reason for my parents' ancestors is the first living organism. The reason for the first living organism is the chemical evolution of inanimate matter. The reason for inanimate matter is the evolution of our planet. The reason for our planet is the evolution of cosmic matter. The cause of cosmic matter is the creation of the universe for no reason, because before the beginning of time there was nothing. Nothing, including God.
The lie of religion is that before the time was not nothing but God.

There is no evidence that before the creation of the universe was a god

 

The elements were not "created" out of "nothing"!

The lighter elements, hydrogen and helium, were formed in the Big Bang.

Heavier elements are formed from lighter elements in dying stars and supernovas.

We have been able to make some heavier elements that don't occur naturally in nuclear particle accelerators so the process is understood and replicable.

Fusing existing elements together to form new elements is not "creating matter" since all of the matter exists before the element is formed. For example if you take a Carbon atom C12 and fuse it with a Helium atom H4 you end up with an Oxygen atom O16. No "new" matter was "created". Existing matter in one or more forms is just fused into another form of matter.

 

Okay, fair enough. However you raise some interesting points in your subsequent posts that I find of interest. It appears that the reason why traditional theism holds on to the omni-nature of god (power, goodness, knowledge, presence, etc.) over deism, is that it seems to be implied in creation arguments. For example, take Aquinas's famous argument concerning necessary and contingent beings. He argues that one has to ask the question about first causes (today that usually refers to the Big Bang), so what causes the Big Bang? Astrophysicists like Lawrence Krauss argue that the Big Bang emerges from quantum mechanics, namely that before the Big Bang there was something rather than nothing: a quantum field (this means that time was not created by the Big Bang). Given the behavior of subatomic particles and an infinite timeline, the Big Bang was a statistical necessity (all probabilities become certainties in infinite time, even infinitesimal ones). But Aquinas's argument would respond (if he had known about quantum theory in the 13th Century) with "why is there a quantum field to begin with?" - why is there something rather than nothing? Here he argues that every contingent event/being requires an explanation (contingent beings/events are things that are not logically necessary and require something outside of themselves to explain them). This utilizes the idea of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (every event has a cause), hence all things not logically necessary must be accounted for with some previous causation. Hence, for Aquinas, this requires that all contingent things must be accounted for, including the universe. Since the universe cannot come from nothing (or the quantum field in Krauss' case) and since all contingent things (again things not logically necessary in all possible worlds) require an explanation, there must be a logically necessary existing creator that has to exist in all possible worlds to account for existence itself. And there, he says, you have god (and hence it is inferred that a necessary being would be that "which nothing greater can be thought" and we have the perfect god of traditional theism). The problem here as I see it is that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is not necessarily true, and we have empirical evidence for this, namely quantum indeterminacy (as well as good philosophical arguments, but I'll leave those out for right now). Subatomic particles seem to pop in and out of existence, behave as particles and waves simultaneously, and so on. It seems then that there is nothing illogical or contradictory in saying that some things may not have an explanation, they just are, and they have always been (multiverse, quantum fields, subatomic behavior, etc.) If this is true, then a necessary being is not necessary after all. Famously, Einstein argued against this line of argument and aspect of quantum mechanics by suggesting that the universe is thoroughly intelligible (causally understandable) including (eventually) quantum behavior - his famous statement that "God doesn't role dice" was in reference to this lack of causal understanding of quantum behavior. But the last half of Einstein's life, spent searching for this understanding of causality (with the hopes of unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics), was unsuccessful, and may always be so. Some things may just be, without explanation, and if that is true, then the argument for a creator god as posed by Aquinas loses its justification.

Sorry to have written a book in response, but the topic is fascinating.

 

So those elements didn't exist until they were created through natural or artifical means. Uranium is not helium, gold is not hydrogen.

 

The matter that formed those elements always existed.

What you are alleging is that you were "created" out of nothing just because you didn't exist. However the matter that comprises you today has always existed and was just formed into you now. The dead don't cease to exist even if they are cremated because the matter that comprised them has simply been recycled. Our bodies are made up of 6 of the most common elements in the universe.

 

If you are blindly guessing that there are no gods...you ought to grow the balls to acknowledge that it is a blind guess and nothing more. To suggest you are doing so because you have more knowledge on that issue than I...is hilarious.

 

I am being a hell of a lot more "straightforward" than you are, Golem.

Here is my agnosticism:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

If you think that is not "straightforward"...you simply do not understand the word.

 

You might as well be trying to get the telesales guy to think about other products on the market in his own time. The telesales guy simply doesn't care about anything else other than making the sale for reward.

 

Since you repeatedly claim that you have no knowledge either way having more knowledge than you is a very low bar indeed.

And I don't guess. My position on the non existance of god is based on a total lack of any evidence that a god or gods exist. I don't claim that a god is impossible, just that it is highly probable based on the absence of any evidence.

 

Actually...it is a very high bar...for those with the integrity to acknowledge what they KNOW versus what they blindly guess.

You KNOW exactly as much as I do that there are no gods...which is to say, you know nothing, Jon Snow.

You blindly guess that there are no gods.

And you also blindly guess that it is less probable that there is at least one god than that there are none.

The notion that you do not guess...is hilarious.

 

"OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist''



There's an old rule about how you cannot prove a negative.

 

One CAN prove a negative...although proving one of this scope is impossible.

In any case...it really should not be, "OK atheists...prove god doesn't exist"...because not all atheists say that gods do not exist.

It should be, "Anyone who asserts that no gods exist...bear a burden of proof for that assertion."

And anyone who asserts, "It is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"...bears that burden also.

It is a burden that cannot be met...and no one should make either assertion.

 

Your comment that the "universe" may not include everything was semantic gibberish because you knew he meant "everything" and yet, like some kind of grammar Nazi dwelt on the meaning of the word universe rather than come up with an intelligent response to the point.

 

Your blind restatement of guess when it has no actual relation to the discussion is hilarious.