Atheists: Account for existence

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]This of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!
For instance, thought.[/b]

thought?

Have you ever thought of anything outside of the universe? You'll claim god at this point, but the concept of god is within the universe, as are all the things that you can conceptualise. Likewise, thought is a property of the brain - again, within the universe.

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is sound, we believe it is real, because it is real, therefore there
is proof.
Kelly

No. Get over the word 'belief'.

What Xanthos said is this;

"the universe is real, which proves that the universe is real. nothing more"

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, then I propose open season! I figure if we don't have to justify our statements in fact then we're free to say anything in this debate! Go to it people, make outrageous statements, and whenever anyone challenges you, just give them the thumb!

I'll start!! Hal - Jesus loves being sodomised by a transvestite latino!

What?! Have someone explain formal logic to you and how the existence of God can be an a priori assumption in my exchange with whitehead, because you've just made me sick. LJ, I'll reply to you later, I'm taking a time out from this thread before I say something I'll regret later.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
as rwingett points out you could substitute the word "universe" for the word "god" in your discourse and it'd largely make (more) sense. (and more science)

So the universe is eternal now! Hmm...and there was silly old me thinking that there was some scientific evidence that it might be finite not eternal. If it was eternal why would need a big bang anyway? Why bother with entropy or decay or the creation of time itself? Why not just exist without cause? Why have a beginning at all? Why have stars that run out of energy when you could have eternal stars that never go out ? Funny this this 'eternal' universe...I was expecting so much more as well...how dissappointing! Oh well , I must have been such an irrational idiot for thinking that eternity might be something else a bit more permanent than this ! I must be looking at the wrong universe!

Originally posted by rwingett
The only knowledge we have is from our natural universe. Never once have we been able to authenticate a natural effect as having a supernatural cause. It is never rational to resort to supernatural explanations for natural effects. Never.

Even if we can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow, we know that it is extremely probable that it will do so. We have ...[text shortened]... an the universe. You don't need a god to explain away the hard problems you can't figure out.

If the universe had a cause? This is debatable? Sure, you're right but you have to appeal to some pretty absurd logic to assume that the universe came out of 'nothing' which means you would have to twist back on the very rationality you subscribe to.

The reason to infer something supernatural or 'beyond nature' is because the universe appears to lack the eternal qualities needed to account for life. So unless you think the universe came out of nothing, which seems less rational than thinking there might be something in life that has no beginning, then you've got a bit of a problem.
But I wouldn't expect you to accept this because you've already dug your trench about anything existing beyone nature anyway.

Originally posted by Halitose
What?! Have someone explain formal logic to you and how the existence of God can be an a priori assumption in my exchange with whitehead, because you've just made me sick.

A village idiot doesn't have the luxury of moral outrage. Time for a new forum title?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So the universe is eternal now! Hmm...and there was silly old me thinking that there was some scientific evidence that it might be finite not eternal. If it was eternal why would need a big bang anyway? Why bother with entropy or decay or the creation of time itself? Why not just exist without cause? Why have a beginning at all? Why have stars that run ...[text shortened]... ht be something else a bit more permanent than this ! I must be looking at the wrong universe!

If you take "eternal" to mean "for all time" then yes, the universe by definition is eternal.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If the universe had a cause? This is debatable? Sure, you're right but you have to appeal to some pretty absurd logic to assume that the universe came out of 'nothing' which means you would have to twist back on the very rationality you subscribe to.

The reason to infer something supernatural or 'beyond nature' is because the universe appears to la ...[text shortened]... his because you've already dug your trench about anything existing beyone nature anyway.

You just don't bother to listen do you? You can't have a "before the universe". It's not possible. Time didn't exist. Time only exists within the universe. If there was anything that existed in what current science would understand as before the universe, then it too would be part of the universe. Universe - go look it up.

Originally posted by Halitose
What?! Have someone explain formal logic to you and how the existence of God can be an a priori assumption in my exchange with whitehead, because you've just made me sick. LJ, I'll reply to you later, I'm taking a time out from this thread before I say something I'll regret later.

Well, if your version of formal logic allows you to make baseless statements and then treat them as solid fact, I'll stick with my informal logic. My poor quality logic (having to rely on facts that can be backed up and all) is obviously good for getting letters after yer name though, so i'll stick with it. I nearly got more letters after my name than in it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So the universe is eternal now! Hmm...and there was silly old me thinking that there was some scientific evidence that it might be finite not eternal. If it was eternal why would need a big bang anyway? Why bother with entropy or decay or the creation of time itself? Why not just exist without cause? Why have a beginning at all? Why have stars that run ...[text shortened]... ht be something else a bit more permanent than this ! I must be looking at the wrong universe!

Oh, and i did say "largely".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If you take "eternal" to mean "for all time" then yes, the universe by definition is eternal.

Nope ...that's not what I mean by eternal. I'm not sure it can even be shown that the universe is infinite let alone eternal. Eternal means without beginning or end or dimension or time in anyway. I think your ideas about eternity are too limited and restricted by your concept of time but then you do seem more interested in wordplay than any deep thinking about this. I'm sorry if this sounds dismissive but it's the impression I get. Think about eternity and let your jaw drop a bit at the awesomeness of this concept , then you will be getting there.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How do you define these words? The definitions offered seem pretty reasonable.

Except his definition for "universe" which is quite dodgy. How do scientists postulate a multiverse or parallel universes?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]My main problem with the folks who require substantial and irrefutable evidence to justify a belief in anything is that they cut the heart out of the human soul leaving only the cold, frigid yet calculated mind.

Appeal to emotion fallacy, I think.[/b]

Appeal to emotion fallacy, I think.

Of course. 🙂 Nobody likes being considered heartless - not even Scott.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You just don't bother to listen do you? You can't have a "before the universe". It's not possible. Time didn't exist. Time only exists within the universe. If there was anything that existed in what current science would understand as before the universe, then it too would be part of the universe. Universe - go look it up.

Sorry..but wrong again....what you 'just don't get' is that I DO infact get what you are saying about 'time' and 'before' the universe. I understand you perfectly well. But as I have said before I don't think this is an 'invalid' question just because we don't have the right words to describe it properly.

The universe is basically a massive explosion(or bang) of matter and energy etc and you're saying that it's invalid to speculate how that explosion came about? Curious...

Scientists use the idea of a 'string' or loop to describe string theory even though they know that this is really an inadequate or invalid way of describing it , but they've got no choice, it's all they have. Does this make string theory invalid? Obviously not. You are being obstructively pendantic and it leaves me wondering why you want to stop the debate before it starts.You'll be saying we can't talk about wormholes next because they aren't any worms in space! What are you afraid of? Go on ..have a speculate...it won't kill you!

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, what I continue to fail to understand is why you consider it unreasonable to demand some justification in favor of my putting 'trust' in another. I doubt you would entrust the care of your children, for example, to some complete stranger on the street who promises to 'take real good care of 'em, ya hear'; but surely you might conceivably entrust th ...[text shortened]... much to ask when it comes to belief-building. But I think I get your jist...

Well, what I continue to fail to understand is why you consider it unreasonable to demand some justification in favor of my putting 'trust' in another. I doubt you would entrust the care of your children, for example, to some complete stranger on the street who promises to 'take real good care of 'em, ya hear'; but surely you might conceivably entrust the care of your children to a well-known relative. Why is that Halitose?

This is the inverse proportionality of trust as opposed to risk. When there is the risk of losing something very important to you, e.g. kids, then you demand justification to merit trust.

Isn't it the case that you often shell out or withhold 'trust' in something based on the available evidence and inductive principles? My putting 'trust' in my wife is not the same as one's blind faith in adopting unjustified beliefs.

True, but as noted above, your merited trust is also contingent on the risk involved. I don't consider my belief in the supernatural as "blind". Each person has their own threshold where evidence becomes justifiable; regard me as naive if you like. 😏 Once you make that concession, it opens up a whole new world, believe me.

If you think my 'No' answer above demonstrates that I go around willy-nilly pulling beliefs out my arse, then I disagree.

Don't worry, I hope I don't come across as one swinging from extreme to extreme. 😛

In that case, you'll need to explain to me how my putting 'trust' in another is necessarily an act of blind faith.

Consider it a mental compromise. It’s like a man who’s grown up on a tiny island who concedes the possibility that a large flat expanse of sea with a tiny spit of land may not be all that’s “out there”.