My view on god and atheism versus creationism

[Vapid]

Everything is choice.

 

[Takure]

Spoiler

There are contradictions in both science and religion.
Evolution:

You must be registered for see links

The Big Bang Theory:

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

Takes quite a lot of faith to believe in theories that are impossible.

I won't bother getting into the contradictions in religion. You seem to be the kind of person who only fishes for inconsistencies in one side of the circle and not the other. I bet you're well versed in religious contradictions.

"The European Space Agency recorded slight fluctuations in the temperature of the universe and found that the cosmos contained imprints of radiation that matched predictions made in the Big Bang theory. Obviously this creates a discrepancy in the astrophysicists' research."

"Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)

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 net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes."

Sure, we don't know when we come from, yet. It's only a matter of time before we find out. Though, evolution does not claim that it knows how life started, only the process of evolution.

Spoiler

You seriously think "God," can be defined? If there is a God, said God would be beyond our understanding. Your quote before this disproves this quite adequately actually. Disproving something is dependent on the materials at your disposal. How can you disprove something that's very nature is beyond our Universe?

I'm not trying to disprove that God exist. The scientific method states that if we cannot disprove something, it'll like that it's based in truth, or is the truth.

Spoiler

Typical atheist ideology. You wouldn't understand jack about morality if you lived in a perfect world. In fact, can you, as an atheist, define a perfect world?

I'm not an Atheist, nor is there such thing as a perfect world. Nor did I claim there was.

Spoiler

Then read the Bible? Read the Quaran? Book of Mormon? You're asking for things that are laid out right in front of you. Maybe you should pull your head out of that dictionary and read up on the issues you're trying to delve into.

I have. I don't like basing my conclusions on one source of information.

Spoiler

Atheists claim "God does not exist," all the time.

They claim God doesn't exist, because they're devoid of belief in such things. Atheism is not based on fatih, but on evidence, even if it's contradictory. I understand what you're saying though.

You seem to be highly religious, so I'm going to step away because I don't feel like arguing over philosophical things on NB.

 

[~Sky~]

Spoiler

"Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)

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 net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes."

I take more issue with inflation that with Dark Energy. Gravity is still very mysterious, but we can at least make deductions about it.

Inflation is strange to me because the math seems to not add up where it's in question. I don't know if you read the articles I posted, I didn't really expect you too, but it's said that Inflation requires density that the Big Bang couldn't really have achieved.

Spoiler

Sure, we don't know when we come from, yet. It's only a matter of time before we find out. Though, evolution does not claim that it knows how life started, only the process of evolution.

Evolution is pretty problematic too. Macroevolution specifically, it's largely unsupported and I also take issue with the idea that all life derived from one species.

Spoiler

I'm not an Atheist, nor is there such thing as a perfect world. Nor did I claim there was.

Then our world being imperfect can't really be used as an argument against God.

Spoiler

I have. I don't like basing my conclusions on one source of information.

What other source of information do you have in mind? You're not going to define the nature and characteristics of God through science, that's for sure.

Spoiler

They claim God doesn't exist, because they're devoid of belief in such things. Atheism is not based on fatih, but on evidence, even if it's contradictory. I understand what you're saying though.

Which is my problem with the Atheism vs Religion debate. They are in different fields of thought.

Spoiler

You seem to be highly religious, so I'm going to step away because I don't feel like arguing over philosophical things on NB.

I'm not religious really. It would be a non-sequitur for me to assume the bible is true because I take issue with mainstream scientific theory.

I just believe there are things beyond our understanding.

1. The universe created itself

2. The universe has always existed or

3. The universe had to be created

None of those really make much sense to me at all.

 

[Autism]

I believe seperated the light from the darkness and saw that it was good in genesis meant the light of the universe and the dark matter. Just me.

 

[Jas]

I want something to add.

- A professor once asked us in class:

His question: Why do we take on the seat belt when we're getting into our car?

Students answered:

1. We are taking the seat belt on because it's more secure. If an accident occurs.
2. We want to avoid getting billed by the policeman.
3. YOLO - I am not taking on dat seat belt yo`

The professor accepted answer 1 and 2. Answer 3 was pointless to him. So he said. What if there was a God, but we kept telling ourselves that he did not excist? Yet 98% of the class puts on their seat belts before they start driving their car because they are either scared to get into an accident or getting busted by the police.

All students in the class was in total silence.

The professor suddenly said, "We prepare ourselves for something we know that may occur because we have seen it happen to someone else. So we decide to put on our seatbelts for safety". So why not decide and start believing in God and be on the safe side? You wont lose anything."

I got inspired by his words.

 

[GamakichiTheUsurper]

Myth: "You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith."

Spoiler

Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is the same as disproving them.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.

Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists - in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place.

One cannot prove or disprove the existence of another level of existence other than a thinking one.

Not empiric proofs (senses sometimes fool us) nor even logical contradictions (people sometmes err even with the most simple logical issues; and what if a perfect entity is fooling us with his omnipotence) can prove or disprove anything.

In other words, we humans can only study the reality how it is presented to us (how we see, touch... or what we are thinking); i.e, it is certain to me that I think that am writting this text, but it is uncertain whether I am actually doing so.



Other than our own thinking is just an assumption, and thus requires an act of faith to believe in it. Everything; with no exception¡¡¡.





I don't know if you misunderstood me (I don't think you did, but even so, I want to make it clear), but at any moment I am justifying religious organiszations to act the way they sometimes act (you know what I mean), nor I am supporting the fact of teaching creationism at school and such. This is a completely different issue since ethics are involved here. I am just talking from an strictly metaphysical perspective.




Sorry for the late response, but it was extremely late in my country the day before yesterday, and yesterday I was a bit bussy.

Also, thank you for this discussion, I am really liking it *_*

 

[shuu]

Abrahamic religions are for the easily influenced of heart and mine :/

 

[Lightbringer]

I want something to add.

- A professor once asked us in class:

His question: Why do we take on the seat belt when we're getting into our car?

Students answered:

1. We are taking the seat belt on because it's more secure. If an accident occurs.
2. We want to avoid getting billed by the policeman.
3. YOLO - I am not taking on dat seat belt yo`

The professor accepted answer 1 and 2. Answer 3 was pointless to him. So he said. What if there was a God, but we kept telling ourselves that he did not excist? Yet 98% of the class puts on their seat belts before they start driving their car because they are either scared to get into an accident or getting busted by the police.

All students in the class was in total silence.

The professor suddenly said, "We prepare ourselves for something we know that may occur because we have seen it happen to someone else. So we decide to put on our seatbelts for safety". So why not decide and start believing in God and be on the safe side? You wont lose anything."

I got inspired by his words.

Have you ever heard of Pascal's wager? What you said reminded me of it a little.

If God exists then theists will enjoy eternal bliss, while atheists will suffer eternal damnation.

If God does not exist then theists will enjoy finite happiness before they die, and atheists will enjoy finite happiness too, though not so much because they will experience angst rather than the comforts of religion. Regardless of whether God exists, then, theists have it better than atheists; hence belief in God is the most rational belief to have

 

[Jas]

Have you ever heard of Pascal's wager? What you said reminded me of it a little.

If God exists then theists will enjoy eternal bliss, while atheists will suffer eternal damnation.

If God does not exist then theists will enjoy finite happiness before they die, and atheists will enjoy finite happiness too, though not so much because they will experience angst rather than the comforts of religion. Regardless of whether God exists, then, theists have it better than atheists; hence belief in God is the most rational belief to have

You're right on it man. You deserve a reputation for that post.

 

[shuu]

Have you ever heard of Pascal's wager? What you said reminded me of it a little.

If God exists then theists will enjoy eternal bliss, while atheists will suffer eternal damnation.

If God does not exist then theists will enjoy finite happiness before they die, and atheists will enjoy finite happiness too, though not so much because they will experience angst rather than the comforts of religion. Regardless of whether God exists, then, theists have it better than atheists; hence belief in God is the most rational belief to have

That assumes that one experiences angst.
To some, lack of belief in a deity is comforting.

 

[Lightbringer]

That assumes that one experiences angst.
To some, lack of belief in a deity is comforting.

Well from my experience, religious people are more optimistic. I honestly don't see how anyone could be comforted with the idea of oblivion and that all of your experiences, memories, suffering, and happiness would have meant nothing and forgotten.

 

[Anorien16]

Well from my experience, religious people are more optimistic. I honestly don't see how anyone could be comforted with the idea of oblivion and that all of your experiences, memories, suffering, and happiness would have meant nothing and forgotten.

You must be uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping, right?

 

[Lightbringer]

You must be uncomfortable with the idea of sleeping, right?

Actually I am, I have insomnia and I hate having to sleep. If I had the choice I would stay up all the time and never waste a night to sleeping.

But at least with sleeping, I know I'll wake up and I dream most of the time, thus I am aware that I still exist which is better than facing an eternal abyss.

 

[Wabbit]

Have you ever heard of Pascal's wager? What you said reminded me of it a little.

If God exists then theists will enjoy eternal bliss, while atheists will suffer eternal damnation.

If God does not exist then theists will enjoy finite happiness before they die, and atheists will enjoy finite happiness too, though not so much because they will experience angst rather than the comforts of religion. Regardless of whether God exists, then, theists have it better than atheists; hence belief in God is the most rational belief to have

Well,eastern religions don't really care if you believe in God or not. Atheist is better one because he believes what he sees,he is assured and is not blindly believing in something.It will be stupid if someone is pure and beyond human will make someone suffer eternally just because he did not believe/thought he did not exist. He really is not God then Lol.

 

[Anorien16]

But at least with sleeping, I know I'll wake up and I dream most of the time, thus I am aware that I still exist which is better than facing an eternal abyss.

You dream only during light sleep .... when your are truely asleep, you ARE in the abyss: you know nothing, feel nothing, can do nothing. If people are not afraid of sleeping, they are not afraid of sleeping forever one day.

Well,eastern religions don't really care if you believe in God or not. Atheist is better one because he believes what he sees,he is assured and is not blindly believing in something.It will be stupid if someone is pure and beyond human will make someone suffer eternally just because he did not believe/thought he did not exist. He really is not God then Lol.

Kinda yes .... in the Brighter side of Eastern Religions focuses on good deeds, actions and way of life as the basis of afterlife. Faith is more of a bonus.

 

[Lightbringer]

Well,eastern religions don't really care if you believe in God or not. Atheist is better one because he believes what he sees,he is assured and is not blindly believing in something.It will be stupid if someone is pure and beyond human will make someone suffer eternally just because he did not believe/thought he did not exist. He really is not God then Lol.

Well not all people who believe are blind. They are open to possibility, but they still hold faith for something better. I don't think anyone who's religious never faced any doubt in their beliefs.

Well considering I'm not Christian, I can't argue through their viewpoint; but what I can say is that technically everything originated from God. So in a sense, those laws don't apply to him for he beyond good or evil. We cannot comprehend such a being nor define him.

Someone once made a good point saying it is not God who punishes but it those you choose not to believe. If you don't believe in God, you reject him, and only those who accept him may enter his kingdom. It is not his choice to send to hell, it's yours.

So how does one become one with God if they don't believe in him? God believes in free will and if you don't believe in him, then you don't believe in heaven. Hell is defined to be the place farthest from God.

That's one way of looking at it.

 

[Lightbringer]

You dream only during light sleep .... when your are truely asleep, you ARE in the abyss: you know nothing, feel nothing, can do nothing. If people are not afraid of sleeping, they are not afraid of sleeping forever one day.

Well like I said, most people are certain that they would wake up from sleep. When they die, they know it's permanent. So there's a difference.

 

[Anorien16]

Well like I said, most people are certain that they would wake up from sleep. When they die, they know it's permanent. So there's a difference.

Except people sleeping dont know anything ..... Only people falling asleep know they might wake up. There is a reason 'passing away durring sleep' is the most peaceful way to die. Its not a horrendous concept to people who are realists .... but you I think is more afraid of life being taken away than you are afraid of death.

 

[Lightbringer]

Except people sleeping dont know anything ..... Only people falling asleep know they might wake up. There is a reason 'passing away durring sleep' is the most peaceful way to die. Its not a horrendous concept to people who are realists .... but you I think is more afraid of life being taken away than you are afraid of death.

To sum it up, if I had knowledge that when my life ends that there would only nothing, then yes I would be afraid. That's actually my biggest fear.

Sure it might be peaceful when we would be oblivious, but anything before that while conscious would be filled with dread.

So with original point saying that athiests are more cynical than religious people, I think that would correct(obviously not all, but a majority). They have no hope.

Old people are a prime example. At that age they already accept their mortality, but I've never met an atheist Old Man who was happy about it as opposed to those with faith who look forward to something better.

 

[Anorien16]

To sum it up, if I had knowledge that when my life ends that there would only nothing, then yes I would be afraid. That's actually my biggest fear.

Sure it might be peaceful when we would be oblivious, but anything before that while conscious would be filled with dread.

So with original point saying that athiests are more cynical than religious people, I think that would correct(obviously not all, but a majority). They have no hope.

Old people are a prime example. At that age they already accept their mortality, but I've never met an atheist Old Man who was happy about it as opposed to those with faith who look forward to something better.

Well would a realist be happy about upcoming death? Death is not a happy thing .... its unavoidable and one has to make peace with the terms, but none can be happy about it. As for looking forward to something better, Children too are fed various stories and look forward to things with zeal, for eg: A kid who believes in Santa will look forward to Christmas with more zeal than a kid who doesnt .... but the end result is the same for them.

Also one does not have the knowledge of his own death precisely because that is the point of life ..... no point in running a race if u know the results, isnt it?