Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Right, you feel that God does not exist but the truth is you don't have any evidence that support this.

Actually? We have some-- the very existence of Evil People who also self-proclaim to be Speakers For God.

If, as everyone such as yourself seem to claim, god is GOOD?

Then? The fact that Evil People who Speak For God exist, proves that such a god cannot exist--because these people do.

Now. If god is NOT good? Then, certainly Evil God-Speakers can exist.

But who cares about a purely indifferent, not-good god?

 

[We Never Know]

Good questions. I have no clue-- and I have never claimed to have a clue.

Perhaps you should ask someone who is

1) worried about it
2) actually qualified

I suggest Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Oh also, does Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson know what no one else does? I'm guessing he may have assumptions but I don't think he "knows". He couldn't even apply the laws to try to find out.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Or the works of the late Stephen Hawking.

Yes! We have a point of Agreement! Yaaays! Celebrate! Have a cuppa Coffee, on me!

 

[We Never Know]

Or the works of the late Stephen Hawking.

And he wouldn't know either but would probably have assumptions as well.

 

[Maximilian]

Theists claim "god is real". Atheist ask: prove it.

And you refuse to prove it.

Since you've sincerely asked for evidence consider the following:

Indirect evidence is frequently and consistently relied upon to ascertain the reality of our world. As a case in point, it's long been widely used to show that our Sun generates power via nuclear fusion, hydrogen is present in it or that our planet features an iron core. In like manner, the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of fulfilled Bible prophecies constitutes irrefutable evidence for the existence of its author, Jehovah God.


This fact is, by far, the most compelling logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over only accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God. Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such illustrious prominence. Because it's literally impossible for any person to foresee with complete precision what's sure to occur from one hour to the next, there's no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin. I kindly invite you to examine for yourself various examples of these specific and accurately fulfilled prophecies.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Oh also, does Dr Neil Degrasse Tyson know what no one else does? I'm guessing he may have assumptions but I don't think he "knows". He couldn't even apply the laws to try to find out.

I tossed out the name of an astrophysicist that was well known.

Pick your own expert, I was just trying to be helpful.

I also selected Dr Tyson because he has demonstrated the ability to simplify Cosmic Discussions, such that pretty much anyone can get what he's describing.

I thought that would be an asset, in this instance.

 

[Road Warrior]

And he wouldn't know either but would probably have assumptions as well.

Yet Hawking was knowledgeable and more open-minded about the possibilities than someone who insists Multiverses can’t exist and that it’s irrational and insensible to discuss them.

 

[Maximilian]

Nope.

So far as you signature is concerned, for your conclusion to obtain you need to prove there is no good reason God might have for temporarily permitting suffering in the world. Can you?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Since you've sincerely asked for evidence consider the following:

Indirect evidence is frequently and consistently relied upon to ascertain the reality of our world. As a case in point, it's long been widely used to show that our Sun generates power via nuclear fusion, hydrogen is present in it or that our planet features an iron core. In like manner, the fact that there are dozens upon dozens of fulfilled Bible prophecies constitutes irrefutable evidence for the existence of its author, Jehovah God..

False. I can sum up your claim very simply: the authors of your "holey" book did not understand where the Sun went at night, therefore? Gawd.

NONE of your "prophecies" qualify as evidence. None. They fail any number of qualifying tests, not the least of which is most were written after the fact.

Of the rest, they are so nebulous as to be devoid of value. "There Will Be War" isn't a very useful "prophecy".

This fact is, by far, the most compelling logical reason why millions upon millions of rational people today the world over only accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of Jehovah God..

Argument From Popularity Logical Fallacy.

Millions upon millions of people used to believe in a flat earth.

Is the earth flat? The bible seems to describe a flat earth!

Simply no other book – religious or not – comes with such illustrious prominence. .

Argument from Authority Logical Fallacy
Argument from Popularity Logical Fallacy.

Fail.

Because it's literally impossible for any person to foresee with complete precision what's sure to occur from one hour to the next, there's no two ways about it: Bible prophecies are not of natural origin. I kindly invite you to examine for yourself various examples of these specific and accurately fulfilled prophecies.

Except that NONE of these ... ahem... "prophecies" are accurate or even prophetic!

Oh Snap!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yet Hawking was knowledgeable and more open-minded about the possibilities than someone who insists Multiverses can’t exist and that it’s irrational and insensible to discuss them.

Projective Straw-Man.

Nice bit of passive-aggressive BS you got going there bub.

I said that it is illogical to discuss things outside the Universe.

You have failed to show that it is possible for anything to exist outside the Universe-- which, by definition, includes everything.

Sad.

 

[Road Warrior]

Projective Straw-Man.

Nice bit of passive-aggressive BS you got going there bub.

I said that it is illogical to discuss things outside the Universe.

You have failed to show that it is possible for anything to exist outside the Universe-- which, by definition, includes everything.

Sad.

I requested that you stop the insults, name-calling and emotional rhetoric but it appears can’t control yourself. Have a nice day, sir.

BTW, thanks for admitting you think it’s illogical to discuss things outside the Universe.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So far as you signature is concerned, for your conclusion to obtain you need to prove there is no good reason God might have for temporarily permitting suffering in the world. Can you?

A mere human parent?

Would never permit his child to be killed, or tortured or other harm, if the parent had the ability to prevent that.

Which automatically makes the human parent MORE MORAL that your god.

Care to refute that? Or will you shift the focus to some other nonsensical topic instead?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I requested that you stop the insults, name-calling and emotional rhetoric but it appears can’t control yourself. Have a nice day, sir.

LOL!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I requested that you stop the insults, name-calling and emotional rhetoric but it appears can’t control yourself. Have a nice day, sir.

And you cannot help but to keep repeating the strawman about what I stated.

Have a nice day indeed.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Which is an Argumentum ex silentio fallacy. Fischer's "Historians' Fallacies" categorically asserts, "Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object is established not by nonexistent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist."


Ex: Absolute, 100% irrefutable evidence Santa Claus cannot exist in reality.


My disbelief in Santa Claus is, demonstrably, driven by positive evidence of his non-existence.


Now try to apply the same approach to God Almighty.

Shifting The Burden Of Proof Logical Fallacy.

YOUR claim. YOU prove god is real.

Until you do? God is not real remains the default state.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And then there's research which shows that 'high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'

I'm guessing there's just no depth too low for you to go when confronted with those who don't share your beliefs, right?

But, let's allow that this very small study is accurate in what it says. The next step, the one you have not taken but absolutely must if you are not just trying to smear others, is to show the studies that demonstrate that "high functioning autism is THE ONLY COGNITIVE PROCESSING STYLE that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism."

And in fact, I can produce (and I will, right now) a much larger study that shows that God belief is associated with lower scores on IQ tests. And this is actually very well attested.

I won't say what I think about this, because I suspect it's much, much more complex than that, and I'm less comfortable than you trying to label other people. But you ought to consider what YOU are doing when you try to label others, as you are.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Right, you feel that God does not exist but the truth is you don't have any evidence that support this.

See my previous post about IQ.

You feel that God does exist, but the truth is, you also don't have any evidence that supports your belief. You have a bunch of notions that could have many, many explanations, but you find it quite sufficient to presume that "God" is the only answer, when in fact that is simply not true. That doesn't stop you believing, but that's okay, because believing is a very different thing from knowing. I allow you your belief. Why do you not allow others theirs?

Now, as to the business of "no evidence to support the non-existence of God" (or anything else, for that matter). If I make an assertion that something exists...let's say a leprechaun or Bigfoot. Now, if you don't believe me, what evidence could I produce to convince you? Well, most obviously I could just haul one in at the end of a leash and say "see for yourself." What else, I don't know, but you if I couldn't produce anything at all, you would be well within your rights to say "sorry, without evidence, I don't believe you."

But now, what if I say to you, "you feel that leprechauns and Bigfoot don't exist, but the truth is, you don't have any evidence to support this." What evidence are you going to bring to prove your non-belief is true? The answer is: you can't. It is impossible.

The difference with a positive claim (like God exists) is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a dog in this room," requires pointing to a single dog, and the argument is over). The inability to give examples for a negative claim ("leprechauns don't exist") merely shows that you have not yet found or noticed any, but not that they do not exist, somewhere, hidden in ways you don't yet understand.

 

[shunyadragon]

Disbelief is a belief. It is certainly not neutral. The second the Atheist adopts the position of disbelief, there are evidentiary assumptions being made, a stance adopted and an evidentiary burden being assumed.

As long as this burden is not satisfied just how can anyone deem their position to be rational?

I am not an atheist, but you are making to strong a demand for the criteria of non-belief to be an atheist. I can easily turn the tables that theists make evidentiary assumptions and the stance adopted that God exists, and an evidentiary burden being assumed, As long as this burden is not satisfied just how can anyone deem their position to be rational?

.Based on your line of reasoning the only viable choice is agnosticism.

 

[Road Warrior]

So far as you signature is concerned, for your conclusion to obtain you need to prove there is no good reason God might have for temporarily permitting suffering in the world. Can you?

Not to mention that it's a disputed quotation lacking any actual evidence that Epicurus actually wrote it: Epicurus - Wikiquote

Note the irony of someone who constantly demands hard evidence of everything using a disputed quote which lacks evidence of being real as his signature.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Something always comes from nothing.