Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Same as empirical evidence for anything else, there is no rational reason for the god claim get to be an exception.
@Super-Sonic-Sausage
Like White said, if you want to continue slinging your slop, you need to soar your bacon-butt over to the new site area. Otherwise, you will be left here talking to yourself from now on. Be advised, however, I would imagine security there is considerably more stringent than it has been here, so I'm guessing it will be questionable as to whether or not you would even be able to get past flight control. Anyway, just thought you might want to know in case you have not yet been fried and sizzled enough. Oh, and don't expect any further replies from me here in this area. (Gee, I know how much that will break your heart.) I will be playing in our new home from now on.
Why don't you just demonstrate what you have, instead of playing dishonest games in an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. Unless of course you have none, in which case why should the atheists here believe theistic claims?
I don't believe claims in any other context, when they're asserted without a shred of objective or empirical evidence, so why would your version of one deity be an exception?
@ TheFlyingPig
"Give some examples of what you would consider to be empirical evidence for God ."
As the claimant, it is incumbent on you to prove your god. How you prove a god is also your problem.
For example, if I claimed pig can fly, then I must be able to exhibit a pig flying.
I don't believe in a god, so how can I even begin to formulate any plan to provide evidence? But I can test the god hypothesis. This god is supposed to be able to answer prayers. But a study on that subject has definitively proven that a coin flip has better odds. So by my method, no god proven.
I have no understanding of infinities; however, Hilbert's Hotel "Paradox" does not appear to be a paradox at all but an equivocation fallacy as he treats infinity as a total sum and then turns around and treats it as the boundless and endless concept it is. Infinity + Infinity = Infinity. He then creates a set of full rooms and sneaks an empty room into the set of full rooms??? WTF???
In the set of infinite rooms, there can be rooms both empty and full. There is no paradox regardless of the rooms or customers added. There will always be rooms available empty and full.
In the set of all infinite full rooms, there are no empty rooms. Moving a guest out of a room would make the room empty and therefore no longer a part of the infinite set of all full rooms. The question arises, can you subtract 1 from an infinity and still have an infinity of rooms. YES. That's because infinity is a concept and not a finite number. Any empty room can not be included in the set of fully occupied rooms. One room is no longer a member of the set of fully occupied rooms. When rooms are occupied they can be added infinitely to the set of all occupied infinite rooms. Hilbert's Paradox, asserts that all the full rooms can be empty rooms at the same time while he asserts they are all full as the people move from room to room. He then asserts, that by emptying rooms, they can remain in the set of all full rooms until they are filled. Furthermore, that by emptying rooms and moving people a new empty room is magically created in the infinite set of all full rooms. This is just weird. What did I miss?
There are no empty rooms in the set of infinite full rooms. A room can not be emptied and then filled again. If it is empty, it is not a part of the set of all full rooms. On the other hand, once a room is filled, it can be added to the infinite set of full rooms. Perhaps the customer brought his own room?
I listened to WLC assert that infinities do not occur in reality. I found this.... WLC Does not Understand Infinity. (Probably... neither do I).
https://boxingpythagoras.com/2015/10/16/wlc-doesnt-understand-infinity/
It's an interesting read....
I go with Schrodingers Cat ... both alive and dead at the same time ... an infinity of “flux” rooms both empty and full
...I don’t know if it exists in “reality” (infinity) - haven’t finished measuring it yet :)
Edited to add: real world example “quantum computers” ie 0&1 simultaneously “fucking mind blowing”
Shyamchung,
The attached link is from The Unbelievable show. It Includes a debate between Sir Roger Penrose and William Lane Craig. Penrose is a mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosophers science at the University of Oxford.
https://youtu.be/9wLtCqm72-Y
WLC, in repeated public boasts about the depth of his Christianity, has admitted, if even faced with undeniable incontrovertible evidence that disproved any tenet of his faith, he would emphatically deny it and stand by scripture. There can be no point discussing much less debating anyone more obsessed with theoretical logic than seeking truths.
Empirical evidence? Christians performing miracles, restoring sight, hearing, emptying cancer wards of patients, und so weiter, as Albert would say, as promised in doctrinal scripture. I don't demand this, but it has been offered and never delivered.
Shyamchung,
The attached link is from The Unbelievable show. It is a debate between Sir Roger Penrose and William Lane Craig. Professor Penrose is a mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science at The University of Oxford. Penrose is an atheist.
https://youtu.be/9wLtCqm72-Y
If time and matter came into being with, or as part of the big bang, then there was no time before the big bang. That means that there could be no change prior to the big bang, to bring on the big bang itself. So any god could not have created the universe, except by completely unevidenced "magic", (rename it "miracle" if you like).
Furthermore the evidence is that the universe has existed since time began, so In effect the universe has always existed, (within time), so no need for infinite regression, whether infinite regression of time is possible, or not.
Is the origin of the universe a mystery? Yes. But goddidit merely adds a bigger mystery to the mystery, solving nothing, except some people's need to have a god in existence.
Mutorc
So Kalamity Kraig has not only treated science as a branch of apologetics in duplicitous ways, but he's now trying to treat pure mathematics as a branch of apologetics too?
That is NOT going to work out well for him. It might impress his gullible fanboys, but it'll simply result in yet more educated people regarding him as the charlatan he is.
Oh - yea logically ones ... bowing only to the left side of the brain!!!! LOL
“God” created the universe (I say one ‘cause I’m not going “there” in this thread) by BREAKING through the whole time/space for the “sake”
of creation - DIED - and we have been just observing the body parts!!! Body parts are too broad a word - the intense energy signature that “caused” the first disturbance within the quantum field- setting in motion a series of events that, (since “god was dead it could no longer control”) after billions and billions of years resulted in “PLASTIC”!
Fuck!!!! Fuckiddy fuck!!! I made a “Claim”
Re: “ the intense energy signature that “caused” the first disturbance within the quantum field- “
I take this claim back!!!! Damn it. Shit.... goddam standards for “evidence”...
And I just took it Star Wars sending me insight “...I feel a disturbance in the force...”
I’m an old dog learning a new trick!!!!
Getting the hang of the NEW forum layout!
THANKS - (I think....)
Wow, William Lane Craig... surprised that pillock is still kicking about after the arse kicking he got when trying to debate Sean Carroll.
WLC is not trying to win any converts, he is just reinforcing his position with his deluded followers.
He's succeeding on both levels.
No, YOU give some examples, since it's your fantasy, not ours.
Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 seconds works for me .
I don't care what "works for you", your spiel sound like an unevidenced delusion, and since you brought it here, to an atheist debate forum, what works for you is irrelevant.
Now, please explain how does that evidence a deity? Or is this just yet another meaningless bare claim from you?
So you refuse to give an answer then . Because you have no answer . I’ll give you one more chance to be positive. God is a perfectly logically answer has to why this happened - "Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 “ . You can disagree with my answer but you have no answer at all as to why this happened . Go on , instead of saying why God isn’t the answer give us an alternate reason why this happened , there are an infinite amount , take your pick and let me critique your choice , fairs fair right ?
Please explain how the statement "Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 “evidences a deity?
You already have my answer, it has never changed throughout this thread, and lying that I haven't given one just implies you're not really a christian, but a troll.
I find it to be a perfectly logical answer to the question of how creation began . If you believe there was a creation then there must a force doing the creating .As I said before that doesn’t make it true but without any other empirically proved answer then God works for me .
Now run it by me again what your answer was to what caused “. Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 “ to happen . Remember I nominate a First Cause - Creator - God as the agent responsible for the above and your answer is ?
I apologize if you posted your answer and I missed it , all your answers seem to be focused on what I believe without any explanation for what you believe about what caused “Existence's manifesting from a point one-trillionth the diameter of a proton in 10^-36 “ to happen .
@ Mad as a pork chop
It is not necessary for Sheldon or anyone else to raise either a counter argument against your assertion, or indeed, produce any other explanation for your unevidenced claims.
Shelley may, like me, have no answer, which is as good as an explanation as any your fetid imagination or immature need may conjure. My "no answer. but I disbelieve your claim" is not evidence for your god in any way, shape, form or logic, whichever way you may try to wriggle it.
Reading your argument..such as it ius you do seem to have made the elementary mistake we see often in these exchanges, viz: you have mistaken your mouth for your arsehole and it is just dribbling shit,
Do try the new forum.
Why would anyone believe this if they have no evidence? And as I have repeatedly pointed out this is a known logical fallacy, it is by definition irrational.
What evidence have you for this claim?
I have made no claims about the origins of the universe.
You are using a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. I've explained this multiple times. The idea your claim is remotely valid because there is no contrary evidence simply isn't true, it is by definition irrational. Dont take my word for it, google common logical fallacies, and see for yourself.
Why is it so important for you to maintain this belief in the absence of any evidence?
I have stated several times that God as the agent of the cause of creation may not be true . However , in the absence of any other empirically proven cause then believing in a First Cause is a perfectly logical explanation . The fact that you disagree with it is totally irrelevant. God as an isolated concept could be discounted but the fingerprints are everywhere , as Wigner famously said -
"The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve."
- "[...] the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them."
No it isn't logical. As I have explained multiple times, ffs.
One more time then..
Nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as logical...
You are using a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. I've explained this multiple times. The idea your claim is remotely valid because there is no contrary evidence simply isn't true, it is by definition irrational. Dont take my word for it, google common logical fallacies, and see for yourself.
Seriously can you not read, or do you genuinely not understand the difference between disbelief of a claim, and contradicting a claim? Your claim is based on a known logical fallacy, thus it breaks a basic principle of logic, ipso facto it is BY DEFINITION irrational, you do know what rational means right? Here's a clue, whether I or anyone else agrees or not is entirely moot. Again do you think the principles of logic are going to change if you simply keep repeating your fallacy or refuse to acknowledge it is a fallacy? I didn't create the principles of logic, so its beyond dishonest for you to pretend my observation is remotely subjective.
Sigh, how does this evidence a deity? It's another piece of quote mined rhetoric, unless you're claiming science evidences a deity, in which case can you explain why the entire scientific world has missed this paradigm shifting event? Not one word in any global news network either, Hell even the catholic church seems to be unaware of it.
Dear oh dear....are you being deliberately obtuse?
Well that’s just a load of bollocks isn’t it , straight out of the “Atheism For Dummies “ handbook .
Let’s get this sorted first - Is it possible , no matter how remote , that there could be a First Cause - Creator - God ?
What evidence have you to support the claim it is possible? I'm not aware of any objective evidence that any deity is even possible, let alone that it created everything, and all you have offered is bare assertion, and plagiarized illogical fallacies.
If you think the principles if logic are "bollocks" why did you claim your irrational unevidenced argument was logical? Are you saying you think your argument based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy was bollocks?
If so I'd have to concur, one thing it absolutely is not, is logical, as anything containing or based on a known logical fallacy is by definition illogical or irrational. So your claim that an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic, created the universe, is validated by the lack of another option, is demonstrably an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Why you think you can keep ignoring this isn't clear, but it isn't going to change the principles of logic.
You can't claim your argument is rational, and simply ignore the fact it is is fallacious, well not without appearing dishonest anyway.
Why do you keep quoting that gibberish? Why do you keep demanding that others give an explanation for that gibberish?
Pages