If there is no creator

Audie · Dec 22, 2018

LuisDantas said:
Similar to a point.

If you can overcome the arguably supreme hurdle of one side referring to an entity known to the exist (namely the universe) while the other side uses a supremely tentative entity (God) instead.

Maybe it is just me, but I have a real strong dislike for presuming the existence of deities just because.

As language tools, deities are great. As sources of inspiration, they are powerful, delicate ideas to be handled with due care.

As cosmological ideas, though, they are just a distraction.

That is an odd subject matter to address right after addressing the origin of existence with no transition and no context.

There is definitely no reason to presume cosmic significance to humanity. Human evolution is biological and cultural. Those are entirely separate fields from that of cosmology. Arguably, there can be no more distant fields, even.

Zactly. Assuming an undetectable super being that is
greater than the universe, as a way to explain the universe
is really kind of bonkers.

Audie · Dec 22, 2018

LuisDantas said:
You have probably heard this often enough, but just in case: you are seriously mistaken about atheists and atheism.

We simply do not (usually?) connect to belief in quite that way. And I for one have a little more respect for religion than you seem to find deserved.

Any and all religions?

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2018

W3bcrowf3r said:
Most what Atheists believe is just a theory that they blindly believe in and claim to be true. There is no difference between atheists and religious people. Both groups believe blindly.

Ask God to Reveal Himself to you. That's what i am praying for, hopefully one day He will Reveal Himself to me.

Not really. Atheists lack a belief in a God or gods. That is all. They do not believe in something else in way of substitution. And you do not seem to understand what a theory is in the sciences. A. Theory is an idea that has been tested and confirmed countless times. It is actually above a law, if there is any hierarchy.

WalterTrull · Dec 22, 2018

Subduction Zone said:
Theory is an idea that has been tested and confirmed countless times. It is actually above a law,

Interesting, didn't know that. I'm guessing some dissent there.

W3bcrowf3r · Dec 22, 2018

Subduction Zone said:
Not really. Atheists lack a belief in a God or gods. That is all. They do not believe in something else in way of substitution. And you do not seem to understand what a theory is in the sciences. A. Theory is an idea that has been tested and confirmed countless times. It is actually above a law, if there is any hierarchy.

A theory doesn't have to be true.

My point was that most Atheists do not even do their own research. They hear a theory, and boom, they start shouting like religious people.

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2018

WalterTrull said:
Interesting, didn't know that. I'm guessing some dissent there.

Check it out for yourself. This article is not bad:

Difference Between a Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, and Law

A theory never becomes a law. A theory involves a concept that can be tested. A theory has to be able to explain all observations and there can be no evidence against it. A theory may be corrected and tweaked a bit, but the central idea must hold.

And an example of a theory being higher than a law is that of the theory of gravity. Newton 's law is not perfect. There are flaws with it. Einstein's General Relativity is a theory of gravity. It corrected Newton's flaws.

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2018

W3bcrowf3r said:
A theory doesn't have to be true.

My point was that most Atheists do not even do their own research. They hear a theory, and boom, they start shouting like religious people.

A scientific theory has had to be tested and not fail any of those tests. A theory has to be falsifiable. In fact any idea in the sciences has to be falsifiable. If not they are worthless and fall into the category of "not even wrong".

Altfish · Dec 22, 2018

W3bcrowf3r said:
A theory doesn't have to be true.

Unless it is proven otherwise it is the best explanation that we have for a phenomena - Theories are rarely (If ever ??) proved false, they are often 'refined' i.e more detail added. (Take evolution, we didn't know about DNA in Darwin's day)
So I would say a theory does have to be true, otherwise it is not a theory.

W3bcrowf3r said:
My point was that most Atheists do not even do their own research. They hear a theory, and boom, they start shouting like religious people.

Do you know any atheists? Most atheists are also sceptics, ie they take stuff with a pinch of salt.
What you appear to be describing is theists they hear a Bible story and boom...

Rational Agnostic · Dec 22, 2018

Vinayaka said:
One of the ironies of number theory, as I recall, is that there are no numbers. 'It was all Greek to me' was appropriate.

Hmmm. I took a number theory course which was basically the study of the integers and various proofs involving integers, especially primes. I don't recall anything like what you allude to, sounds like you're referring to philosophy of math or something like that.

Vinayaka · Dec 22, 2018

Hubert Farnsworth said:
Hmmm. I took a number theory course which was basically the study of the integers and various proofs involving integers, especially primes. I don't recall anything like what you allude to, sounds like you're referring to philosophy of math or something like that.

Maybe ... to be honest my memory isn't that into the details. It was like advanced algebra, but with Greek symbols for irrational numbers beginning with the number i, and numbers like that. 4th year course though.

Rational Agnostic · Dec 22, 2018

Vinayaka said:
Maybe ... to be honest my memory isn't that into the details. It was like advanced algebra, but with Greek symbols for irrational numbers beginning with the number i, and numbers like that. 4th year course though.

Interesting.

Jose Fly · Dec 22, 2018

Subduction Zone said:
A. Theory is an idea that has been tested and confirmed countless times. It is actually above a law, if there is any hierarchy.

No it's not. There is no such hierarchy where theories are above laws or anything like that. Laws are just more succinct, universal, and usually mathematical, whereas theories are more broad and interpretative.

Milton Platt · Dec 22, 2018

Amanaki said:
Lets say the Atheists view are correct and there was no creator who put everything in motion.
My question would be, what was it that kickstarted the existance? Big bang? yes maybe, but what kickstarted the big bang?
If not Big bang what then?

I donot have an answer to it my self if i try to see it from an atheists POW. But they can ofcourse be correct just like religion can be correct.

The correct answer can be "I don't know". The universe does not owe anyone an explanation. Atheism is not in any way an attempt to answer the question of how our current universe began.

Milton Platt · Dec 22, 2018

Sunstone said:
To clarify, are you assuming that everything must have a cause?

Except when he used special pleading for a god........

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2018

Jose Fly said:
No it's not. There is no such hierarchy where theories are above laws or anything like that. Laws are just more succinct, universal, and usually mathematical, whereas theories are more broad and interpretative.

I should have given a qualifier. I should have said "if there was one". New concepts rarely become "laws" since laws are an observation without an explanation. They were observations from modern science's youth. For example Ohm's law is an observation of voltage drop caused by a resistor without an explanation of why it drops. Today an explanation is almost demanded for any work to be taken seriously. A mere observation may get an "that's interesting" but not much more.

An observation with an explanation is far superior to just an observation, at least in my eyes.

Jose Fly · Dec 22, 2018

Subduction Zone said:
I should have given a qualifier. I should have said "if there was one". New concepts rarely become "laws" since laws are an observation without an explanation. They were observations from modern science's youth. For example Ohm's law is an observation of voltage drop caused by a resistor without an explanation of why it drops. Today an explanation is almost demanded for any work to be taken seriously. A mere observation may get an "that's interesting" but not much more.

An observation with an explanation is far superior to just an observation, at least in my eyes.

In general I agree. Laws and theories serve different purposes. As you note, laws are more descriptive while theories are more explanatory. I just don't see any reason to rank them or anything like that.

Subduction Zone · Dec 22, 2018

Jose Fly said:
In general I agree. Laws and theories serve different purposes. As you note, laws are more descriptive while theories are more explanatory. I just don't see any reason to rank them or anything like that.

That is only because you can use them properly and understand what they are. Far too many people with no education at all in the sciences think that a theory can become a law once it is proven. When it anything it is the other way around. Going back to my General Relativity example. It supersedes the Law of Gravity, at least in certain usages. Newton's laws were accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back, but they aren't accurate enough for the GPS in our cell phones.

Trailblazer · Dec 22, 2018

LuisDantas said:
I once considered converting into the Bahai Faith, but then I realized that the doctrine does not have room to allow for that stance of mine. It is very much an Abrahamic Faith.

What stance?

We Baha'is come in all shapes and sizes and the Baha'i Faith accommodates a lot of stances. I do not fit in very well with the Abrahamic part of it, the idea that God is All-Good and personal. That is difficult for me and that kind of sets me apart from the other Baha'is. But I believe in what Baha'u'llah wrote, and I think the social and spiritual teachings have great value for individuals and humanity, and that is what attracted me to the Faith in the first place, not God. God is still an enigma to me.

Technically speaking, the Baha'i Faith is an Abrahamic religion, since Baha'u'llah descended from Abraham, but after that it parts ways with Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in many ways. The spiritual verities are the same, but the theological underpinning is a lot different, since we believe in progressive revelation. We also believe differently about the soul and the afterlife and we have completely new social teachings and laws and a brand new message, that of the oneness of mankind and world unity.

sayak83 · Dec 22, 2018

Amanaki said:
There is said it is no creator yes, lake a suprime god, but it does not say something did not create the cosmos, Buddha just did not see far enough back in time to see a creator.
But every moment we live is a new creation.

when we are born we have one body, when we die we have a totally different body. cellls arise ad die all the time.

Umm no. Buddha categorically say that there is no creator and that the world is eternal.

LuisDantas · Dec 22, 2018

Audie said:
Any and all religions?

Not all. Religions are much like people by that perspective: some try hard to be worthy. Some succeed. Some fail, perhaps tragically. Some are worthless parasites.

In any case, I do not automatically acknowledge as religious initiatives that claim that descriptor.

Notably, I decided a few years ago that Islaam does not qualify. Nor does Kardecist Spiritism. Nor Scientology.

If there is no creator

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Godfella

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

devotee

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Fisker of men

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Aura of atheification