Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[Road Warrior]

Not a belief, not an opinion.

Simple fact.

IC is infested with logical fallacies, as has been demonstrated hundreds of times by now.

In fact, it's amazing that this nonsense still keeps coming up in discussions, considering how often it's been refuted, debunked, falsified to hell and back.

If your beliefs are truly factual then you should be able to prove them. Go for it. I'll wait.

There is exactly zero added value in claiming that "god" created the universe and its laws.
It makes no difference whatsoever in the study of these laws and the universe and everything it contains. Not a single shred of difference.

If anything, the only thing such an assertion might accomplish, is preventing progress....
Because someone who claims that, and truelly believes it, won't be asking and investigating the question "where did the universe come from?" or "how did the universe come to be?" or similar.

Why would they - they already have their answer: "god dun it".

This is why in science, we never assume the answers before asking and investigating the questions.

BTW, you might want to inform @Bob the Unbeliever about not assuming answers.

 

[Road Warrior]

There is a difference between pragmatic proof, and ultimate proof.

In the case of god-claims? Pragmatically speaking? The 100% lack of proof for any god, is pragmatic proof that no such things exist.

Science operates in this way, actually-- typically, statistics are utilized to pragmatically indicate a given hypothesis is quite good enough, to model whatever it is scientists are attempting to model.

That's the beauty of it: In actual science? It hardly matters if the model is Actual Reality or not-- if the model works well enough, for useful predictions? The model stands.

Until some experiment comes along that requires altering the model or causing it to be replaced with something more accurate.

So. Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence? Yes, practically speaking.

Pascal's Wager is pure bull exhaust.

Correct. There's also logic and theoretical physics. Why do you think Hawking didn't accept his own theory about Multiverses?

Do you think Earth is the only planet in the Universe with life on it? Why? Why not?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Correct. There's also logic and theoretical physics. Why do you think Hawking didn't accept his own theory about Multiverses?

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory?

 

[Audie]

But. Burning kerosene does take the temper out of steel-- which is rather a form of melting it. Complex alloys are not like water-- you do not suddenly go from solid to liquid--- there is a wide range of temperatures in which the steel becomes plastic-- think, soft modeling clay or even stiff mud.

If the steel is absolutely required to be solid, relatively rigid and strong-- or else what it is holding up? Won't stay up....

... hey! Whatyaknow? It didn't stay up...

The "kerosene melt steel" thing is so dumb.

Whatabout "charcoal does not melt steel".
See, my grill is not melted!

And as you noted the steel did not even need
to melt for the building to collapse.

 

[Audie]

Not a straw man when you said it yourself:

The idea is both rational and sensible. It's also logical to accept the idea that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's just an unproved idea. You're asserting that it's impossible and cannot be without single shred of evidence. So who here is the irrational and insensible one?

What, never?

 

[Road Warrior]

Yet another Straw Man....

You keep saying that, but you don't seem to know what it means. Here, let me help:
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I've quoted the salient points twice, yet all you've done is stomp your feet and scream "straw man". You really don't see the connection between Hawking's Multiverse theory and your declaration that discussing anything outside the Natural Universe is irrational and nonsensical?

While you may not see the connection, I'm certain others do.

 

[Wandering Monk]

You keep saying that, but you don't seem to know what it means. Here, let me help:
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I've quoted the salient points twice, yet all you've done is stomp your feet and scream "straw man". You really don't see the connection between Hawking's Multiverse theory and your declaration that discussing anything outside the Natural Universe is irrational and nonsensical?

While you may not see the connection, I'm certain others do.

His mulitverse HYPOTEHSIS.

 

[Road Warrior]

What, never?

Never what? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's no sign of life in the Universe. Do you truly believe there isn't life on other planets simply because of an absence of evidence?

 

[Road Warrior]

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory?

Yes.

His mulitverse HYPOTEHSIS.

Yes and, if you are truly following the conversation, then you'll know that some here consider Stephen Hawking to be irrational and insensible because of that hypothesis.

 

[Audie]

You are free to translate it into anything you desire, Audie, but that doesn't make it true just like it's not true that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence as most of the atheists posting on this thread indicate.

I am sure it is not how you meant it. But it is now
it translates to the audience.

As for this absence of evidence" thing there is no
absolute rule for it.

Nobody has been able to find a living mammoth.
The lack of evidence for their survival into the present
certainly is very strong evidence that they are now
absent from the biosphere of planet earth.

Proof? Beyond any reasonable doubt, yes.

Now, if by any chance you actually have some
evidence that they live on, by all means
present it.

Likewise, if you have evidence for "god", great.
Present that too.

Meanwhile, that absence of any evidence for living
mammoths, or your "god" are in fact evidence for
their absence. Add Batboy's secret lab on the moon
as another "evidence of absence" thing.

Not proof, mind you, but pretty darn good evidence.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Yes.


Yes and, if you are truly following the conversation, then you'll know that some here consider Stephen Hawking to be irrational and insensible because of that hypothesis.

That I can see, but to uses the word theory rather than hypothesis is giving in to their ignorance and using their language.

 

[Audie]

Never what? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's no sign of life in the Universe. Do you truly believe there isn't life on other planets simply because of an absence of evidence?

This is among the world's more tiresome arguments, along
with "slippery slope" and some others.

Read a bit on your own, dont waste our time. I wont
comment further.

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudoscienceswhere it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

science would have you believe.....all things remain still
unless something causes a movement

if the primordial singularity was a simple bang
it would also a hollow sphere of energy ever expanding

but that's not what we see when we look up

so....the rotation had to be in place BEFORE the bang

that would be the pinch and snap of God's fingers

so to speak

Such a mish mash of misunderstanding.

I really don't know where to begin. What rotation are you talking about? Are you referring to Kent Hovind when he totally screwed up the Big Bang?

At any rate this is all a dodge. You did not answer the questions asked of you:

Why do you assume that there was a creator? Can you even begin to show that one is necessary?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If your beliefs are truly factual then you should be able to prove them. Go for it. I'll wait.


BTW, you might want to inform @Bob the Unbeliever about not assuming answers.

I'll repeat my observation of your assumptions: Pascal's Wager is not a valid argument.

Your "argument" with respect to Multiverse? Is in the same style as Pascal.

I simply said it's not rational to presume something can exist "outside of the universe".

You are projecting all sorts of BS into that simple statement; you assume that is something I believe, and other Straw Man projections.

It is an observation only. Show me evidence for anything outside the universe, and I'll listen.

Until you can do that? It isn't rational to presume such things.

 

[Road Warrior]

I am sure it is not how you meant it. But it is now it translates to the audience.

As for this absence of evidence" thing there is no
absolute rule for it.

Nobody has been able to find a living mammoth.
The lack of evidence for their survival into the present
certainly is very strong evidence that they are now
absent from the biosphere of planet earth.

Proof? Beyond any reasonable doubt, yes.

Now, if by any chance you actually have some
evidence that they live on, by all means
present it.

Likewise, if you have evidence for "god", great.
Present that too.

Meanwhile, that absence of any evidence for living
mammoths, or your "god" are in fact evidence for
their absence. Add Batboy's secret lab on the moon
as another "evidence of absence" thing.

Not proof, mind you, but pretty darn good evidence.

Thanks. Perhaps. We're all somewhat biased to a degree, I just strive to keep my bias down as little as possible. That said, I may not always be able to see my posts in the same light as others. OTOH, obviously my posts irritate the angry Atheist believers just like many of my posts irritate the Bible-thumping theist believers. Hopefully the majority of readers will view my body of posts and not just a single post or small group of posts.

FWIW, you may want to talk to an unbiased scientist about your "absence of evidence" ideas.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Correct. There's also logic and theoretical physics. Why do you think Hawking didn't accept his own theory about Multiverses?

Do you think Earth is the only planet in the Universe with life on it? Why? Why not?

WHAT? Sheesh, man... you make the most IRRATIONAL LEAPS OF PROJECTION I HAVE SEEN, for someone that isn't a theist....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory?

I do not think he does.... in fact.

 

[Road Warrior]

This is among the world's more tiresome arguments, along
with "slippery slope" and some others.

Read a bit on your own, dont waste our time. I wont
comment further.

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudoscienceswhere it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

Since you've stated that an absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence, we've reached an impasse on discussion. You are free to translate that however you wish.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You keep saying that, but you don't seem to know what it means.

I know exactly what it means: The construction of a FALSE STATEMENT from someone's actual statements.

Or deliberate (or accidental) miss-interpretation of someone's statements.

you are guilty of BOTH.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Never what? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's no sign of life in the Universe. Do you truly believe there isn't life on other planets simply because of an absence of evidence?

Wrong. Pascal's Wager is horse exhaust.

Practically speaking? Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Especially if the phenomena being claimed, is of Universal Scope, i.e. the Ultimate Creator of the Universe.