.

I wish I could ignore you, unfortunately you use the admin acct instead of a user acct. And no, warning others is not too much. I've been on the internet since before it was called the world wide web and I can't remember any other forum where the admin used the actual admin account for trolling and threadshitting. Not once. And I'm not the first person to call you out so don't clutch your pearls and act surprised. And there are at least 2 other accounts that speak in the same voice so I'm pretty sure you have socks so use them, then I can ignore you. 

ps...


Every so often, someone makes the suggestion that I should use a regular user account when not doing admin stuff, and my argument has always been that if they know I'm the admin, it wouldn't matter, and if they don't, then I'm being deceptive. I saw no good reason to make a normal account. Until now. You're right, you should be able to put me on block when I'm not posting in an administrative capacity. So I'm going to make a sock. The only question is whether or not I should tell everybody. I'm thinking I probably should. What do you think?

None of those things are remotely solved by positing "God". You are just adding one more link to the chain and declaring that for no actual reason whatsoever, that link doesn't need to be explained. You still have something from nothing, you still have self-creation, you still have infinite regress. If you want to make an argument that there is no infinite regress with "God", then I can point out that there's no infinite regress without him, either. But if ever there was, it's with God - because with God, you have infinite existence.



I actually hate that statement - it is a cheap and unconvincing attempt at a cop-out, as I see it. And yes, it is usually heard from atheists. If you "merely" lack a belief in X, but at the same time do not have a belief in non-X, then you have no opinion on it whatsoever - you are completely on the fence. I am an atheist not so much because I lack belief in gods, but because I believe in the non-existence of gods. I wouldn't have a near-complete lack of belief in gods without believing in their non-existence. Even theists lack belief in gods, it's just not that much of a lack. When you know of an entity X, your opinions on its existence is filled with "I believe it exists" and "I believe it does not exist". The more uncertain you are, the more equal those two positions are. The more certain you are, the more one has dominance over the other. Try this on for size:

"So you're an atheist, right?"
"That's right."
"So you don't believe God exists?"
"I sure don't."
"You don't believe any gods exist?"
"Nope. Invisible magic man in the sky? Don't be absurd."
"Ok, so if you believe that no gods exist..."
"What?? No, that's not what I'm saying at ALL!"

Not very, shall we say, believable, is it?



What is someone who rejects rejection? I don't know, but it's not the issue - the reason you reject atheism doesn't have anything to do with atheism, but with your theism. All of the issues you have with atheism are actually issues with science, because you are essentially rejecting naturalism. Science makes no statement on the existence of God, but you have taken exception to their non-inclusion of God. Atheists are happy to rely on science alone - you are the one who says science is not enough. And sure, we all agree that science can't explain everything, but atheists are the ones who are willing to say "I don't know" to what isn't known. You are the one who posits God, and then say "I don't know" to all the questions that raises. Atheists - and I among them - would like to point out that adding God as that extra link only raises more questions than it answers - and without actually explaining anything. Ok, God did it - how did God do it? By what processes? And just what is a "God" anyway? If you do not know, then how do you justify using him as an explanation?



As many atheists, I used to be a Christian. I can tell you why I believed, and also why I stopped. I believed first and foremost because I was raised to believe. It isn't random that I turned out a Christian, having been raised in a Christian family. It isn't random that Muslim families raise children who become Muslim. I believed because all my adult role models believed. And when I was old enough to ponder the questions myself, I believed because of my desire that everything should be alright in the end. It gave me a very comforting feeling to "know" that God was looking out for me, that even if things were bad for lots of people he'd make sure they'd be alright in the end. Ultimately, I was comforted by the thought that death was not the end, that I would see my loved ones again in the next life, and that in the next life, all my questions would be answered. It also filled me with a tremendous sense of awe to look at all creation, the mountains, the sea, the sky, "knowing" that all this, all I could see, God had created.

The reason I started doubting was the realisation that there were other religions out there, whose adherents were just as sure that they were right, as I was sure that I was right. This was a profound realisation when it hit me, because it taught me that feelings of certainty was no indication whatsoever of veracity of one's beliefs. It was indeed possible to be completely wrong about something I "knew" to my very core. Now, you could say that the difference in belief between a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu etc. are trivial; that "god is god is god" and the differences merely colourful variations, but the details are nevertheless subject to absolute and unquestioning belief. Even if you do not subscribe to specifics, there are plenty who do. And they believe them - to use a word - religiously. As did I. Those details helped me imagine God, and gave me just as much of that fuzzy feeling as the concept of God itself. All the details of God, when looking at all the religions in the world - past and present - they couldn't all be right. But they could be all wrong.

My transition towards atheism took me through omnitheism, and in a very naive sense. I started believing that all religions were true at face value; that Christians went to Christian heaven, Muslims went to Islamic heaven etc. This stage didn't last very long, as I quickly realised that this was all so much wishful thinking.



Do you believe that no one is going to win tomorrow's lottery, though? If I'm playing golf and I hit the ball, sending it to the green far, far away, the odds of that ball hitting any specific blade of grass is infinitesimally small. But the odds that some blade of grass will be struck is rather great. And no matter where the ball lands, you could marvel, "cor, what were the odds of THAT?" The odds are just as small regardless. You never marvel when someone hits the lottery, do you? But you would marvel if you did, because then it would feel unreal. Even though the odds were no different for all the others, for whom you wouldn't marvel. In other words, just because you can't believe something - due to the odds - doesn't make it implausible.

I'm not trying to solve them; I'm merely withholding belief pending convincing evidence, and I'm happy to agree that the First Cause argument doesn't prove God. But if it's possible to prove something using only logic and reason, then it most certainly proves a first cause. The argument has never been, "God exists, and here's the proof." It begins with no preconceptions, no bias, no agenda, and lets the laws of nature (as we know them!) dictate the argument. The conclusion describes a prime mover, which some call God. Others call it the universe itself. Any way you slice it, you're going to end up with something that appears to violate the laws of physics. That's a big problem for naturalism.



On whose part? If I had to guess, I'd say neither of them believe God is an invisible man in the sky. At any rate, there's no fence. Agnostics don't believe, which makes them atheists, full stop. And if you find a theist who claims to KNOW God exists, I have a burden of proof just for him.



Don't be silly, you can't reject rejection. lol

The reason I reject atheism has to do with my refusal to abandon logic, reason, and science within the framework of the universe in which we live and breathe.



Religion is a different animal. I don't support it. If I have to gain favor with God to avoid a default position of eternal suffering, then I'd say all religions are on the wrong team.

Believing in God gives me no comfort. I'm totally indifferent about it. But the notion of God as the ultimate arbiter of eternal souls scares me to death, as does the concept of universal salvation.



Oh, I believe someone will win, sure. I just don't believe it's going to be me. Prove me wrong!

I'm not sure what you mean. It's been a long day, I'm probably just stupid right now. But again, belief only requires sufficient reason, and I don't think it's reasonable to believe that the chain of causes in the universe regresses infinitely, that something can come from nothing, or that there exists anything that created itself. After all, aren't those some of the reasons to not believe in God? Something that exists but never began to exist? That's only crazy talk when we talk it about God.



The universe works in mysterious ways?

If something is not bound by the laws of physics, it would be supernatural by definition.



It's clearly just a debate tactic to avoid a burden of proof that I don't think applies anyway.



I don't like boxes, especially small ones.



Oh, I see. Since atheism is a rejection, I'm rejecting rejection by rejecting atheism. That's clever, but once atheism is rejected, what's left? An imaginary fence?



Oversimplified and germane to this conversation, infinite regress is scientifically impossible according to physics, and it's neither logical nor reasonable to assert that the universe created itself. Are we going to go quantum now? heh



Yes, Karl, I believe because I don't want to.

Assuming the existence of eternal souls and the traditional concept of heaven and hell, I'd say God isn't the one who decides.

Those who say it's turtles all the way down.



His definition of "nothing" is "something." (See Chapter 9 of his book, "A Universe from Nothing.")



Do you know many theists who believe God created himself? If so, try telling them that if it was created, it isn't God. I tell those who asked what caused the first cause the same thing. It's not unusual for those chats to turn into debates about infinite regress. Are you sure you've never heard anyone assert that the chain of causes in this universe regresses infinitely? It's a fairly common argument. Case in point:

IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/5659586/thread



Who's making things up out thin air? You're saying that singularity is the first cause.




An unmoved mover violates the laws of motion. But an atheist won't call it supernatural because that opens the door for God. So we just say we were wrong about the law, or make an exception for those quantum particles without calling it special pleading.



And you don't have to put me in one.




Right. I'm a theist not because I have proof of God, but because I reject atheism. I'm open to a third option, but agnosticism is an illusion. There is no fence to sit on.




Atheism makes no claims about anything, but theism must contend science?



I've already told you why I reject atheism. Your response was to separate atheism from science and redefine supernatural.

Beyond pooped over here. Thanks for the civil discussion.

It does matter, as the admin account is not allowed to be blocked, therefore it should not be presenting opinions, it should simply be used for admin duties, if you want to present your opinions, and get into the inevitable circular argument on semantics that you enjoy, Sarge is saying you should do that in an account he is allowed to block so that he can safely ignore you and carry on without getting censured for blocking admin.

Honestly its also a power trip to engage in this board as an admin account, it sets up a dynamic that you may censure people around disagreement as opposed to breaking the rules.

You asked who says the universe regresses infinitely. It's often used as a counter to the first cause argument. In fact, it's the only counter. But it's irrelevant whether it's an atheist or a theist saying it.





It's fair to say that when we talk about nothing, it is the subject of discussion and therefore we are talking about something. But when you're looking forward, what do you see behind you? If you say "nothing," you would be absolutely correct. Try telling a blind man that he's really seeing something when he sees nothing. (Nope, not even black.)

"There's nothing there!"
"Then what are you looking at?" /strut

All boiled down, it's just clever bullshit. But hey, who am I to argue with the prestigious? I'm just a lowly layman.



Believing X is eternal isn't the same as believing it was created, let alone that it created itself.




Had it been on the ticket, he would have voted for it. So, yeah. Besides, that post came as no surprise to me because I've gone plenty of rounds with him about it. At least I think it was him. I'd have to search a bit, and I would if I thought it mattered, but it doesn't. The point is that there are plenty of people who contend infinite regress. Whether or not they actually believe it, however, is not something I can comment on. Gun to my head, I'd say they don't.



Krauss answered that question, remember? There is something rather than nothing because nothing is something that has always existed. Just don't call it a turtle.



Is "practically nothing" not actually something?

You said the singularity is the earliest thing that we can trace. Now you're saying existence itself is traced back to that singularity. And I'm the one trying to have it both ways? I'm probably misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that if it came from somewhere (or something), then we haven't traced back far enough. You may as well say the ocean is only as deep as we can go.



Rude.



I'm not asking to have it both ways. If it's one or the other, to reject one is to accept the other by default.



So we've come full circle, right back to burdens of proof. I can't speak for other theists, but this one has never made any such claims.



Seems like a good time to answer this question directly:

"Who says anything about something not bound by the laws of physics?"

Everyone who knows what it means...

supernatural (adj): Not subject to explanation according to natural laws

That’s not how science, logic, or burden of proof works in rational argumentation. Your argument is full of fallacious reasoning and erroneous assumptions.

For one thing science hasn’t proved a god because science doesn’t investigate the supernatural, and “God” is an unfalsifiable claim. Secondly, there is no evidence pointing to a creator of the Big Bang, and cosmology does not even assert that the Big Bang is the beginning of everything which exists. The Big Bang is only the beginning of an expansion time and space (as we begin to measure it) and matter and energy (as it appears in our local presentation), which is the observable universe. What we don’t know what happened elsewhere, nor do we know what happened before, nor do we know why it happened, nor do we know how many times it’s happened.

The fact that you find the universe “complex” and “incredible” doesn’t say anything about the likelihood of it being a creation of any god. If it did, then it would necessarily follow (by your own logic) that God must also be “created” since he is claimed to be infinitely more complex and incredible. More to the point, this is an argument from incredulity. The fact that we do not understand how or why something exists does not mean it must have been created. And complexity would NOT be a hallmark of “intelligent design” - simplicity would be!

The notion that the universe was “randomly created out of nothing” is a strawman argument. This is not the position of most atheists and it’s not a claim of cosmologists either. What you’ve done is create a false dichotomy whereby the ONLY two options are either the god that you believe in created the universe OR the universe was randomly created out of nothing. My position as an atheist is neither of these things. When you say “people should keep an open mind”, does that include you? Have you ever considered the possibility that the universe is part of a natural, cyclical process which is the result of natural laws which have always existed? That something has ALWAYS existed and the universe was inevitable? That possibility doesn’t necessitate a god.

Science does not have to prove that the universe was created “randomly” because that’s not something cosmologists claim. So there is no burden of proof for cosmologists. Theists are claiming that a god did everything, which means that theists carry the burden of proof. And there is no proof that any god created anything. In order to prove that the universe was “designed”, you have to demonstrate the designer! You don’t demonstrate the designer by pointing to something, asserting that it was “designed”, and then concluding that your idea of a creator designed it. That is a circular argument and a begging the question fallacy.