Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
The idea of creating a car and micro chip is not the same as universe. Micro chips and cars are made out of rearranging already existing materials. When we are taking about universe we are talking about matter coming into existence from nothing. They are not the same. Also cars and microchips are man made objects, you have seen humans make those objects same as you have seen bees make honey thats why if we see those in a desert, we know they didn't come out of nothing. But what about rivers, mountains and oceans? (Have you ever witnessed a God make those things or make the universe?)Do you ever wonder when you see a mountain that someone put it there? No because we know they are formed by naturally occurring processes. So we cannot compare artificial objects to natural ones as it will make it a false analogy.

No one is saying that it happened on its own. We know that everything we observed after the big bang has natural explanations and all the matter was rearranged by natural processes to form galaxies and stars. But what happened before big bang we do not know. We just have ideas about what may have happened but we do not know for sure.

Also there is a major flaw in the argument that if something is complex therefore it has a creator as this will create an infinite loop of creators and creations and there is no way out of it without special pleading which is also a fallacy.
What you are asking is the old village atheist question "If God created the universe then who created God?". Its so simple that except for some simpleton atheists , the question has been largely given up. Who created God and then who created his creator and so on would lead one into "infinite regress" and hence there would be no Big Bang and the universe. Per Ocam's Razor , just one omnipotent God is enough to explain the origin of universe and its fine tuning so you don't need to go beyond that.
As far as , what kinds of things need an explanation for their existence or a creator , everything that possibly (contingent) exists need an explanation for their existence whether as simple as an algae or as complex as the universe. Their are other entities which necessarily exist and hence they don't need an explanation of their existence. Like the numbers , no one made them and they solely exist due to the necessity of their existence. The same goes for God.
 

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
No I am not, I am taking mine from oxford dictionary. Atheism is simply lack of belief in God. It is not a claim that a God does not exist. That claim would be illogical as it is not possible to disprove a non falsifiable proposition. Don't be dishonest.

It doesn't matter what some atheists say, every atheists has different beliefs as I keep repeating you cannot group people based on common disbelief. Some atheists believe in Aliens so does it mean all atheists believe in Aliens?

atheism
NOUN
mass noun
  • Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
You are all over the place. The point was that atheists have historically dwelled into discussion about the origin of universe , something which you were avoiding by citing the dictionary definition of atheism. As far as your claim that the concept of God is unfalsifiable so it would be meaningless to disprove it , that's wrong. The God of Abrahamic faiths , especially Islam and Judaism , is a very clearly defined being with a set of attributes and functions. You just need to disprove the functions and you have disproved God. For example , God says that in the begining their was nothing but him and then He said let there be light and the universe was formed. You just need to come up with an alternate explaination for the origins of universe to disprove God. So the concept of God is much different from that of a unicorn or tooth fairy and is falsifiable.
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
You cannot make a rule (complexity requires design), then squeeze your way out of your own rule by arbitrarily applying an attribute (special pleading fallacy)

Numbers are a mathematical construct that we use in language, they are not objects that exist. I have heard this illogical arguments time and time again that try to run away from the responsibility to provide evidence for their claim. Its a waste of time.

What you are asking is the old village atheist question "If God created the universe then who created God?". Its so simple that except for some simpleton atheists , the question has been largely given up. Who created God and then who created his creator and so on would lead one into "infinite regress" and hence there would be no Big Bang and the universe. Per Ocam's Razor , just one omnipotent God is enough to explain the origin of universe and its fine tuning so you don't need to go beyond that.
As far as , what kinds of things need an explanation for their existence or a creator , everything that possibly (contingent) exists need an explanation for their existence whether as simple as an algae or as complex as the universe. Their are other entities which necessarily exist and hence they don't need an explanation of their existence. Like the numbers , no one made them and they solely exist due to the necessity of their existence. The same goes for God.
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
The idea of creating a car and micro chip is not the same as universe. Micro chips and cars are made out of rearranging already existing materials. When we are taking about universe we are talking about matter coming into existence from nothing. They are not the same. Also cars and microchips are man made objects, you have seen humans make those objects same as you have seen bees make honey thats why if we see those in a desert, we know they didn't come out of nothing. But what about rivers, mountains and oceans? (Have you ever witnessed a God make those things or make the universe?)Do you ever wonder when you see a mountain that someone put it there? No because we know they are formed by naturally occurring processes. So we cannot compare artificial objects to natural ones as it will make it a false analogy.

No one is saying that it happened on its own. We know that everything we observed after the big bang has natural explanations and all the matter was rearranged by natural processes to form galaxies and stars. But what happened before big bang we do not know. We just have ideas about what may have happened but we do not know for sure.

Also there is a major flaw in the argument that if something is complex therefore it has a creator as this will create an infinite loop of creators and creations and there is no way out of it without special pleading which is also a fallacy.
You know these are man made objects only because you know man made them What if some person totally isolated from modern earth saw a car or a chip, what would he think? And my questions remains ( not a false argument btw ) if the probability of a simple thing like a microchip is less than nothing then what is the probability of life and intelligent life forming on its own after all you said numbers don't lie, so are they lying here ?

How come we not see even slightly complex structures, objects with moving parts etc etc in nature unless they were made by some living creature.

Your argument is unless you see God making something its not his creation and since you can't see him making anything hence he does not exist. Then you truly do nor understand the concept of god.

Its like a flat earther ( excuse me for the insult since I think they are the dumbest creatures to ever walk the earth ) who stands on the surface of the earth and says see I told you the earth is flat, its flat as far as the eye can see all this globe earth thingy is mumbo jumbo. All those pictures from "space" are just NASA CGI ! Water doesn't stick to a sphere and always finds its level.

We as humans are nothing in this vast universe, are you familiar withe Hubble deep field image? (If you don't and want to feel real small and irrelevant then look it up )yet there is only life here on earth ( as far as we know ) in billions of galaxies each with billions of starts with billions of planets. Why hasn't this accident occurred anywhere ( that we know of yet )
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Yes but do you agree that you are not required to disprove something in order to not believe in it?

If I told you that there is a golden unicorn somewhere in this universe that writes stories... Do you necessarily need visit every corner of the universe to make sure there is no unicorn in order to not believe my claim?


You are all over the place. The point was that atheists have historically dwelled into discussion about the origin of universe , something which you were avoiding by citing the dictionary definition of atheism. As far as your claim that the concept of God is unfalsifiable so it would be meaningless to disprove it , that's wrong. The God of Abrahamic faiths , especially Islam and Judaism , is a very clearly defined being with a set of attributes and functions. You just need to disprove the functions and you have disproved God. For example , God says that in the begining their was nothing but him and then He said let there be light and the universe was formed. You just need to come up with an alternate explaination for the origins of universe to disprove God. So the concept of God is much different from that of a unicorn or tooth fairy and is falsifiable.
 

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
Yes but do you agree that you are not required to disprove something in order to not believe in it?

If I told you that there is a golden unicorn somewhere in this universe that writes stories... Do you necessarily need visit every corner of the universe to make sure there is no unicorn in order to not believe my claim?
I agree that you don't need to disprove something which is unfalsifiable , whats next?
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
There were wild pacific islanders during world war 2 and they saw planes fly over them and couldn't explain what they were. When the Americans later visited those Islands they saw the islanders make idols of the planes and worship them. Whenever humans don't understand something, they say magic or god. Whenever we study something it turns out to be natural phenomena.

Nothing is more complex than our eyes, brains and other organs and they are all products of natural process. Complexity can and does come from nature. Intelligent life did not form on its own, it was formed by natural selection. Eyes were created atleast 44 times by independent divergent evolution in different animals and flight at-least 4 times in birds, reptiles, insects and mammals.

I am not saying that unless we see God we cannot prove he exists. We did not see the big bang yet we have conclusive evidence that it happened and we can measure its effects. The seeing argument was to show you that your analogy of comparing man made objects to natural objects was false.


You know these are man made objects only because you know man made them What if some person totally isolated from modern earth saw a car or a chip, what would he think? And my questions remains ( not a false argument btw ) if the probability of a simple thing like a microchip is less than nothing then what is the probability of life and intelligent life forming on its own after all you said numbers don't lie, so are they lying here ?

How come we not see even slightly complex structures, objects with moving parts etc etc in nature unless they were made by some living creature.

Your argument is unless you see God making something its not his creation and since you can't see him making anything hence he does not exist. Then you truly do nor understand the concept of god.

Its like a flat earther ( excuse me for the insult since I think they are the dumbest creatures to ever walk the earth ) who stands on the surface of the earth and says see I told you the earth is flat, its flat as far as the eye can see all this globe earth thingy is mumbo jumbo. All those pictures from "space" are just NASA CGI ! Water doesn't stick to a sphere and always finds its level.

We as humans are nothing in this vast universe, are you familiar withe Hubble deep field image? (If you don't and want to feel real small and irrelevant then look it up )yet there is only life here on earth ( as far as we know ) in billions of galaxies each with billions of starts with billions of planets. Why hasn't this accident occurred anywhere ( that we know of yet )
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Then why do I need to come up with an alternative explanation to disbelieve in God claim due to lack of evidence? I can just say I do not know where the universe came from and that is a valid answer. Rather than making up my own explanation which has no evidence backing it.

I agree that you don't need to disprove something which is unfalsifiable , whats next?
 

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
You cannot make a rule (complexity requires design), then squeeze your way out of your own rule by arbitrarily applying an attribute (special pleading fallacy)

Numbers are a mathematical construct that we use in language, they are not objects that exist. I have heard this illogical arguments time and time again that try to run away from the responsibility to provide evidence for their claim. Its a waste of time.
You just need rationality 101 to understand this argument. The only way you have for cop out it is to appeal to a purely materialistic stance and you can try taking that position as well. As far as your claim that applying infinite regress to God is special pleading of some sort , substantiate your claim with a clear example.
 
Last edited:

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
Then why do I need to come up with an alternative explanation to disbelieve in God claim due to lack of evidence? I can just say I do not know where the universe came from and that is a valid answer. Rather than making up my own explanation which has no evidence backing it.
What? Lets be clear. Earlier on you were implying that the concept of God is unfalsifiable so one does not need to disprove that. Now here you are saying something entirely different from that. What you are saying is that you wanna remain agnostic in relationship to the origins of Universe and hence hold your judgment about it. Fine ,but that has nothing to do with unfalsifiability , rather its an argument from your personal incredulity.
Let's say you are agnostic about the origins of universe and have no opinion on that , how about I give some arguments about the origins of universe in relationship to God and you deconstruct those arguments.
PS , the argument from God from the origin of Universe (The casmological argument) is not the only argument for the existence of God. There are various other arguments and my favorite one is the 'Ontological argument'. We can discuss it if you wish.
 

Citizen X

President (40k+ posts)
There were wild pacific islanders during world war 2 and they saw planes fly over them and couldn't explain what they were.
And we are exactly like those islanders stuck on this remote island called earth in a vast sea that is space. And our knowledge of things only extends as far as we can see. And kudos to us we can see pretty far but even then its not even a fraction of how big this universe is, And whats beyond our visual range we have clue about i,e the known observable universe. So what rules out there is "god" out there.

Nothing is more complex than our eyes, brains and other organs and they are all products of natural process.
Yet it cannot create even simple things.

Complexity can and does come from nature.

Name one non living complex object which has moving parts? The earth has been around for 4 billions years and in the habitable zone in our solar system and all sorts of life on it. Surely in such perfect condition with odds in its favour nature must have come up with at least one non living complex thing
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
We do not have a clue about what is beyond the range, just as the islanders did not have a clue what the airplanes are. So just as they made up an explanation that its a God without evidence, so do we make up an explanation that beyond the observable universe is a God. Our genetics are no different than the Islanders, we fill blanks in our knowledge with supernatural beings as they do.

And we are exactly like those islanders stuck on this remote island called earth in a vast sea that is space. And our knowledge of things only extends as far as we can see. And kudos to us we can see pretty far but even then its not even a fraction of how big this universe is, And whats beyond our visual range we have clue about i,e the known observable universe. So what rules out there is "god" out there.


The solar system and the galaxy is a complex object on a vast scale with each star moving around the blackhole and each planet moving around the star and each moon moving around the planet.

Name one non living complex object which has moving parts? The earth has been around for 4 billions years and in the habitable zone in our solar system and all sorts of life on it. Surely in such perfect condition with odds in its favour nature must have come up with at least one non living complex thing
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I have studied all those arguments that have been repeated for centuries with slight variations. Unless you have something new and unique then there is no point to waste time on this. Also an argument is not enough to support an extra-ordinary claim, you need actual evidence to support the argument which is no where to be found.

What? Lets be clear. Earlier on you were implying that the concept of God is unfalsifiable so one does not need to disprove that. Now here you are saying something entirely different from that. What you are saying is that you wanna remain agnostic in relationship to the origins of Universe and hence hold your judgment about it. Fine ,but that has nothing to do with unfalsifiability , rather its an argument from your personal incredulity.
Let's say you are agnostic about the origins of universe and have no opinion on that , how about I give some arguments about the origins of universe in relationship to God and you deconstruct those arguments.
PS , the argument from God from the origin of Universe (The casmological argument) is not the only argument for the existence of God. There are various other arguments and my favorite one is the 'Ontological argument'. We can discuss it if you wish.
 

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
I have studied all those arguments that have been repeated for centuries with slight variations. Unless you have something new and unique then there is no point to waste time on this. Also an argument is not enough to support an extra-ordinary claim, you need actual evidence to support the argument which is no where to be found.
On the same token , what I have heard from you is nothing but the regurgitated cliches of internet atheists ,lacking any philosophical or scientific sophistication. On the other hand , even if these arguments are centuries old and you have been hearing them since long ,does not entail that they are false or invalid. You might have failed to comprehend them. Anyways I shall give it a try as the discussion proceeds
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Those arguments were made by christian philosophers and rejected by the same Christian philosophers. In the end they settled on the premise that they cannot prove God and you need faith to believe in God. Faith meaning belief without proof or evidence.

The only people that still use them are dishonest creationists in US or people who are late to the party. Thats why I said if you have something new then lets discuss it but if its the same beaten up arguments that were used and discarded hundreds of years ago then theres no point.


On the same token , what I have heard from you is nothing but the regurgitated cliches of internet atheists ,lacking any philosophical or scientific sophistication. On the other hand , even if these arguments are centuries old and you have been hearing them since long ,does not entail that they are false or invalid. You might have failed to comprehend them. Anyways I shall give it a try as the discussion proceeds
 

Prince of Dhump

Senator (1k+ posts)
We do not have a clue about what is beyond the range, just as the islanders did not have a clue what the airplanes are. So just as they made up an explanation that its a God without evidence, so do we make up an explanation that beyond the observable universe is a God. Our genetics are no different than the Islanders, we fill blanks in our knowledge with supernatural beings as they do.
are u saying there can be a third and fourth status for things other than they being created and uncreated
 

Vitamin_C

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
We do not know what possibility is out there, there can be a whole world of options that we do not even know of... Maybe everything about our perception of time and space is wrong and beginnings and endings do not exist outside of our perception of reality... Or maybe we are in a simulation.

Answer is we do not know and we cant say for certain. That would be the most honest answer rather than trying to make up explanation to fill in the blanks of our knowledge. Or maybe we will never know? The universe doesn't owe us an explanation.


are u saying there can be a third and fourth status for things other than they being created and uncreated
 

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
Those arguments were made by christian philosophers and rejected by the same Christian philosophers. In the end they settled on the premise that they cannot prove God and you need faith to believe in God. Faith meaning belief without proof or evidence.

The only people that still use them are dishonest creationists in US or people who are late to the party. Thats why I said if you have something new then lets discuss it but if its the same beaten up arguments that were used and discarded hundreds of years ago then theres no point.
This is just another uninformed cliche from you. The Casmological argument was developed by Muslims. Anyways , what you are regurgitating here are internet atheists cliches and the rhetorical lines of Christopher Hitchens et al. I don't think so that you can go on with a scholarly debate.
 

Prince of Dhump

Senator (1k+ posts)
We do not know what possibility is out there, there can be a whole world of options that we do not even know of... Maybe everything about our perception of time and space is wrong and beginnings and endings do not exist outside of our perception of reality... Or maybe we are in a simulation.

Answer is we do not know and we cant say for certain. That would be the most honest answer rather than trying to make up explanation to fill in the blanks of our knowledge. Or maybe we will never know? The universe doesn't owe us an explanation.

it confuses me where u want to take this discussion..
what is ur goal here
why do u discuss these things..at times u feel like an atheist then u sound like an agnostic

when u say there might be no time space outside our reality..what does that mean for us as human..
when u say we are in a simulation..what is ur basis for it other than it being fanboyish..what do u intend to find beyond this simulation..and doesnt it beg the question who created it. lets say its a simulation..as a human i break this simulation and enter another world..wouldnt i be going in circle and ask these same question

we are humans and we have been blessed with brains either by a Creator or evolution and we will always try to find explanation and fill in the blanks either through science or through logical reasoning..u cant run away from it
 

Lord Botta

Minister (2k+ posts)
it confuses me where u want to take this discussion..
what is ur goal here
why do u discuss these things..at times u feel like an atheist then u sound like an agnostic

when u say there might be no time space outside our reality..what does that mean for us as human..
when u say we are in a simulation..what is ur basis for it other than it being fanboyish..what do u intend to find beyond this simulation..and doesnt it beg the question who created it

we are humans and we have been blessed with brains either by a Creator or evolution and we will always try to find explanation and fill in the blanks either through science or through logical reasoning..u cant run away from it
He is all over the place. He ranks himself an atheist but quickly shifts to agnosticism when encountered. Francis Bacon once famously said "A little philosophy inclines one's mind to atheism , depth of philosophy leads one to religion". Vitamin is a man of little philosophy. All what he has in his stock are rhetorics of Hitchens , sweeping statements and agnostic outbursts