• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What type of atheist are you?

Altfish

Veteran Member
Because with "we don't know" what you actually mean is "we dont know, but we know God isn't the cause of the universe"


That possition requires a burden proof...... How do you know that God is not the cause of the universe?
No, what I mean is


We don't know but science is currently working on it.

The god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller

When you answer the question "Where does god come from?", you will begin to understand how I know god is not the cause of the universe.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So can you provide a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that is equally good than "God" but simpler?
"God" is not an explanation of anything. God is a proposed agent. Science explores a mechanism. Religion proposes an agent. Apples and oranges.

How many times do we have to point this out, Leroy?
Do you have a proposed mechanism that's better supported and more explanatory than a Big Bang?
Do you have any explanation at all?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Ok so what is your point with okams razor?....... Do you have an explanation for the origin of the universe that is more parsimonious than "God"?



The only point that i whant to make is that there are good empirical conclusive arguments that suggests that parents (and not Santa Clause) are the cause of gifts

So... if... You whant to compare God and Santa Clause claiming that both ideas are equally ridiculous you most provide good conclusive arguments for say a naturalistic origin of the universe and show that this explanation is better than God..in the same way one can show that parents are a better explanation for gifts than Santa Clause... If you cant do that then you shouldn't compare God with Santa Clause.
No I don't have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and nor does anyone. The reason is simple: lack of data on which to base any hypothesis. No data, no hypothesis. Simple.

Science, as has so often been pointed out to you on this forum, is not in the business of providing explanations regardless of the justification behind them. If we don't know and we have no data, we say so. We do not lie to ourselves and fabricate a hypothesis for the sake of saying we have an answer, when we don't.

Saying "God did it", with no physical definition of what God is and with no objective physical evidence of a God fitting that definition, is just a medieval cop-out, a non-explanation.

In medieval times, people were in the habit of attributing any natural phenomenon they could not explain to an act of God. What we learned progressively, as a result of the Scientific Revolution, is that there actually were evidence-based explanations for more and more of them, which did not need to invoke the hand of God intervening. This is why science does never resorts to invoking the hand of God. It is anti-scientific to do so.

Of course, you and I might feel, aesthetically, or for reasons of culture, that we prefer to attribute the cosmos to a Creator. That's fine, as a personal choice. But don't pretend there is any scientific argument for it.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
No, what I mean is


We don't know but science is currently working on it.

The god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller

When you answer the question "Where does god come from?", you will begin to understand how I know god is not the cause of the universe.

From there doesn't follow that science can answer it.

In fact for a naturalistic universe religion is as natural as gravity. Even with a theory of everything it couldn't stop humans from being religious.
In neutral and naturalistic terms there is nothing false about religion. It is a natural behavior in some humans.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
From there doesn't follow that science can answer it.

In fact for a naturalistic universe religion is as natural as gravity. Even with a theory of everything it couldn't stop humans from being religious.
In neutral and naturalistic terms there is nothing false about religion. It is a natural behavior in some humans.
Still no answer to my question ...

Where does god come from?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Still no answer to my question ...

Where does god come from?

Don't go there. It is unknown what reality is as independent of your mind. Nobody have solved the problem of solipsism:

So here it is for your kind:
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46]

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

  1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
  2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]
  3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[48][49] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[52] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[50]
  4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[49] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[54] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[55]
  5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[49]
  6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[49]
  7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[49] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[56]
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Now prove that you have solved solipsism or shut up about what the world really is. I don't know and nor do you. I just believe differently that you. Welcome to the club of believers.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What are people talking about or expecting when they say "knowable creator of the universe"?

For me, a creator we can have actual knowledge about. Where a person could make a claim about such a entity and anyone could verify it for themselves.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Can you hypothetically describe what you imagine what this would be?

Consistent results. If you prayed or made an offering, whatever you asked for would be given. Whatever prophecy was given to you could be 100% relied on to happen.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What do you think that kind of universe would look like?
How-Can-We-Humans-Return-to-the-Life-in-the-Garden-of-Eden.jpg
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
For me, a creator we can have actual knowledge about. Where a person could make a claim about such a entity and anyone could verify it for themselves.

Yeah, but what knowledge is, is not that simple and you are not "we" and nor am I. So what reality is to you, don't have to be exactly the same to me as it is you or in reverse. Unless you are going to play objective knowledge and truth.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, what I mean is


We don't know but science is currently working on it.

Ok but in the case of Santa Clause.... We know that Santa is not the cause of gifts

So the implication is that God and Santa are not comparable because in the case of Santa "we know"..... In the case of "God being the cause of the universe we dont know"

The god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller

Can you name a single scientific discovery from the las 100 years that made the Gap smaller?

]When you answer the question "Where does god come from?", you will begin to understand how I know god is not the cause of the universe.

Ohhhh so which one is it?

1 Do you know that god is not the cause of the universe? (in the same way we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts)........

Or

2 you dont know

Which one is it, 1 or 2?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
"God" is not an explanation of anything. God is a proposed agent. Science explores a mechanism. Religion proposes an agent. Apples and oranges.

How many times do we have to point this out, Leroy?
Do you have any explanation at all?


So do you know that God is not the cause of the universe? (in the samecway we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts in the Christmas Tree?

Do you have a proposed mechanism that's better supported and more explanatory than a Big Bang?
Strawnman..... I dont reject the big bang.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No I don't have a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and nor does anyone. The reason is simple: lack of data on which to base any hypothesis. No data, no hypothesis. Simple.

.
Ok no data therefore we don't know if God is the cause of the universe or not....... Agree?...... Does that represent your view?

Or would you say that there is data / evidence that strongly and conclusively show that God is not the cause of the universe.... In the same way there is conclusive data that shows that Santa is not the cause of presents in the Christmas Tree?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
What type of atheist are you?

Which of these 3 alternatives better describes your view?

1) God is like Santa Clause: there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of Santa Clause, Analogous to there are good positive reasons to reject the existence of God


2) God is like Aliens: There are no good and conclusive arguments for or against the existence of Aliens. Let’s simply avoid/hold belief in Aliens until good evidence is presented….. Analogous to there is no strong evidence for nor against God I will hold my belif in good until someone presents evidence…


3) God is like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs: there are good arguments for the asteroid theory and good arguments against the asteroid theory … you simply belive that the argumetns against are stronger…… Analogous to there are good arguments for and against God, the arguments against are better.
"God?" Just the one? o_O
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Has the original Santa Claus been found in Turkey?



The discovery of DNA, you may of course deny it but is is absolute evidence that evolution is occurring.
How does that make the gap smaller?


Before the discovery of DNA atheist had the "hope" that life is fundamentally simple.... Now we know that DNA is complex abd its getting more abd more complex as new discoveries and reaserch is being made...... So i woukd say that DNA made the Gap much bigger.


But ill give you the oportunity to defend your claim..... How does the discovery of DNA made the existence of god less likely (made the gap smaller) than before such discovery?
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Ok but in the case of Santa Clause.... We know that Santa is not the cause of gifts

So the implication is that God and Santa are not comparable because in the case of Santa "we know"..... In the case of "God being the cause of the universe we dont know"

I keep saying, and you fail each time to give me any counter evidence....There is more evidence for Santa than for god.

Can you name a single scientific discovery from the las 100 years that made the Gap smaller?

Are you serious???
3 examples without thinking about it ...
  • DNA
  • The Big Bang
  • Techtonic Plates

so which one is it?

1 Do you know that god is not the cause of the universe? (in the same way we know that Santa is not the cause of gifts)........

Or

2 you dont know

Which one is it, 1 or 2?
I admit and I don't know how many times I have to say this, "I DO NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE"
But by involving god in the sequence you are adding an unnecessary step for which you have absolutely no evidence apart for Genesis 1.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I think many see him as a stern, judgemental father figure.

I think that's how they see themselves in relation to their environment. If they do something bad, they feel all bad people deserve to get punished. So, when they do "sin" they feel they are worthy to be punished. The inherent sin factor leaves them in a state of avoiding judgement. It has less to do with an anthropomorphizating father being and more to do with father as an authority of judgement as would him to a child not an unseen being.
 
Top