Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[SkepticThinker]

How would you know what I got,? Show me your poof, you just have your belief about it.

Because you don't know things that nobody else knows. What you have is belief.

 

[leov]

Because you don't know things that nobody else knows. What you have is belief.

Very poor excuse. And you wrong about "nobody else knows". You say you have no proof and I 100% agree with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you know what I got,? Show me your poof, you just have your belief about it.

Because rational people tend to support their claims if they have a valid reason for what they believe. And shifting the burden of proof is simply another way of admitting that you are wrong.

You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. The more extreme a claim is the stronger the evidence that is needed. When we can all see that you are avoiding supporting your claims the observations of people is more than enough to support that claim. But stating that one knows a magical being exists puts a much larger burden of proof upon the person making that claim.

Sagan standard - Wikipedia

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Very poor excuse. And you wrong about "nobody else knows". You say you have no proof and I 100% agree with that.

It's not an excuse, it is reality. You can't know things that nobody else knows, especially if you can't even demonstrate what you supposedly know to anyone else.
That is not knowledge; it is belief.

 

[leov]

Because rational people tend to support their claims if they have a valid reason for what they believe. And shifting the burden of proof is simply another way of admitting that you are wrong.

You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. The more extreme a claim is the stronger the evidence that is needed. When we can all see that you are avoiding supporting your claims the observations of people is more than enough to support that claim. But stating that one knows a magical being exists puts a much larger burden of proof upon the person making that claim.

Sagan standard - Wikipedia

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why 93 % of theisst would have burden of proof to explain 7% of spiritually defective that theistic position is default human state?

 

[leov]

It's not an excuse, it is reality. You can't know things that nobody else knows, especially if you can't even demonstrate what you supposedly know to anyone else.
That is not knowledge; it is belief.

Go argue with scientists who think that multiverse or hologram theories may be valid. I say that some have connection within them with multiverse dimensions and you claim that there is no proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Go argue with scientists who think that multiverse or hologram theories may be valid. I say that some have connection within them with multiverse dimensions and you claim that there is no proof.

Why would I do that? When and if they have the evidence to back it up, they will present it. Science deals in evidence.

We're talking about your assertions that you know things that nobody else knows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why 93 % of theisst would have burden of proof to explain 7% of spiritually defective that theistic position is default human state?

More nonsense. Now you just took on another burden of proof. You need to prove that atheists are "spiritually defective". I think that I could make a much better case proving that you are the "defective" one . But that would amount to a personal attack. Sometimes when you find yourself in a hole it is best to quit digging.

 

[We Never Know]

Inflation theory, certain incarnations of string theory and certain interpretations of quantum theory.

Inflation theory probably being the most important one, as string theory so far is more intellectual masturbation then anything else.

This article here seems a clear enough explanation in somewhat layman terms

What Is (And Isn’t) Scientific About The Multiverse - Medium

Although I must admit I didn't search very long. You might be able to find better explanations by digging a bit deeper.

When searching for "inflation theory multiverse", you should have no problem finding all kinds of resources.

Unproven predictions aren't evidence of anything. Not only that, we are using the laws of our universe. Another universe, if it exists, may have different laws.

From your link...
"There are plenty of theoretical consequences that are inevitable, but that we cannot know about for certain because we can’t test them. The multiverse is one in a long line of those. It’s not particularly a useful realization, just an interesting prediction that falls out of these theories.
So why do so many theoretical physicists write papers about the multiverse? About parallel Universes and their connection to our own through this multiverse? Why do they claim that the multiverse is connected to the string landscape, the cosmological constant, and even to the fact that our Universe is finely-tuned for life?
Because even though it’s obviously a bad idea, they don’t have any better ones."

 

[Hop David]

"End of the Italian Renaissance

...(snip)...

Most damaging was the May 6, 1527, Spanish and German troops' sacking Rome that for two decades all but ended the role of the Papacy as the largest patron of Renaissance art and architecture.

...(snip)...

So, you are correct, I overstated my case, and for that I apologize. I do not, however, back down from my contention that the church, and a return of religious control over human choice in cultural and intellectual pursuits, played a major part, as shown above.

From you're quoting of Wikipedia I left in the paragraph suggesting the Renaissance ended when the sacking of Rome ended Papal support.

Which supports my opinion -- that it was the Church that made the Renaissance happen.

The church preserved and copied books. Taught literacy. Built schools, hospitals, observatories, libraries and universities. The Catholic Church patron to many scholars, artists and architects.

Besides the Catholic Church, Muslim clerics also contributed a lot.

I'd imagine you'd like to focus on Savonarola and ignore the other things the church has done.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know, this is mystery I accept.

???

People being mistaken, isn't exactly very mysterious imo.

O well.

 

[leov]

???

People being mistaken, isn't exactly very mysterious imo.

O well.

Mistakes have no consequences really non issue, I am free.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unproven predictions aren't evidence of anything. Not only that, we are using the laws of our universe. Another universe, if it exists, may have different laws.

In the multiverse predicted by inflation theory, every universe has its own laws.

From your link...
"There are plenty of theoretical consequences that are inevitable, but that we cannot know about for certain because we can’t test them. The multiverse is one in a long line of those. It’s not particularly a useful realization, just an interesting prediction that falls out of these theories.
So why do so many theoretical physicists write papers about the multiverse? About parallel Universes and their connection to our own through this multiverse? Why do they claim that the multiverse is connected to the string landscape, the cosmological constant, and even to the fact that our Universe is finely-tuned for life?
Because even though it’s obviously a bad idea, they don’t have any better ones."

Yes, so?

Fact remains...
This multiverse is not invented out of the blue by anyone. Instead, this multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation theory. Inflation theory is an attempt to explain the big bang, from what I understand.

Nobody said that this is a "proven" theory or one that is accepted by consensus. These are the frontiers of science, it's just one of the options on the table right now.

None of this is relevant. It doesn't even matter if inflation theory turns out accurate or not. The point is, the multiverse wasn't invented out of thin air. It is a prediction, from a scientific theory. That alone puts it in a different league then any religious claim of the supernatural.

And since this whole conversation is primarily about you asking me what makes the multiverse idea an idea worth exploring... well: that. The fact that it is predicted by scientific models.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mistakes have no consequences really non issue, I am free.

Disagree.
I think holding false beliefs is the number one cause of bad decision making.

 

[We Never Know]

In the multiverse predicted by inflation theory, every universe has its own laws.




Yes, so?

Fact remains...
This multiverse is not invented out of the blue by anyone. Instead, this multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation theory. Inflation theory is an attempt to explain the big bang, from what I understand.

Nobody said that this is a "proven" theory or one that is accepted by consensus. These are the frontiers of science, it's just one of the options on the table right now.

None of this is relevant. It doesn't even matter if inflation theory turns out accurate or not. The point is, the multiverse wasn't invented out of thin air. It is a prediction, from a scientific theory. That alone puts it in a different league then any religious claim of the supernatural.

And since this whole conversation is primarily about you asking me what makes the multiverse idea an idea worth exploring... well: that. The fact that it is predicted by scientific models.

Multi-universe is as out of the blue as god is. Anything beyond this natural limited known universe is nothing more than speculation, also known as belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why 93 % of theisst would have burden of proof to explain 7% of spiritually defective that theistic position is default human state?

Not all religious people are theists, indeed you can be religious yet an atheist. I am religious, yet not a theist. Further for all theists, it is so that not all of them can agree on what exact God it is there is. The default human position is to believe in something greater that what appears in the common sense. That is it, but because all belief is subjective, you can observe variance in what is believed, it is, that is greater than humans.
So I am not going to ask for proof of a God. I am going to point out, that if there is a God, it doesn't follow that it is the God you believe in. The same apply for me and my religious beliefs.
Indeed it just might be that there is no proof, evidence, reason and logic possible for what reality is beyond the human experience, i.e. ultimate reality. So for everyday life I navigate using what I experience in a common sense. But for how I believe about ultimate reality I use my beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because rational people tend to support their claims if they have a valid reason for what they believe. And shifting the burden of proof is simply another way of admitting that you are wrong.

You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. The more extreme a claim is the stronger the evidence that is needed. When we can all see that you are avoiding supporting your claims the observations of people is more than enough to support that claim. But stating that one knows a magical being exists puts a much larger burden of proof upon the person making that claim.

Sagan standard - Wikipedia

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Yes, I know that one. So I don't use proof or evidence. I use the following observation, it is a fact that some humans have religious beliefs and that they work in some sense. E.g. my religious beliefs give me comfort, i.e. they are a crutch for me. But I have figured out that I need that crutch, so I keep it. So where is the problem in that?

In other words, as for rational people, I am at least in part irrational, but I am rational enough to admit that. Further I don't demand of you that you believe like me, but I do demand that you accept that I am religious as such, because it is a fact of how the world works, that I am religious.

So in effect, you are doing a form of ethics. You demand a certain behavior of other humans, but you can give no evidence or proof of that, because ethics is not rational nor open to evidence. It is emotions in the end. I am playing with you, because if we take this to the end, you are in effect evaluating rationality as better that being irrational. But that is not science, evidence or proof. That is a form of ethics, so here it is: I have a good life being religious and as long as I don't judge you with Objective Authority as for the value of your life and behavior, where is the problem?
A valid reason in science, logic and math, is not the same as it is in ethics.

 

[leov]

Disagree.
I think holding false beliefs is the number one cause of bad decision making.

Agree to disagree, you have no base to judge false or not, it is your opinion only. I decide if my inner process is false or not.

 

[leov]

Not all religious people are theists, indeed you can be religious yet an atheist. I am religious, yet not a theist. Further for all theists, it is so that not all of them can agree on what exact God it is there is. The default human position is to believe in something greater that what appears in the common sense. That is it, but because all belief is subjective, you can observe variance in what is believed, it is, that is greater than humans.
So I am not going to ask for proof of a God. I am going to point out, that if there is a God, it doesn't follow that it is the God you believe in. The same apply for me and my religious beliefs.
Indeed it just might be that there is no proof, evidence, reason and logic possible for what reality is beyond the human experience, i.e. ultimate reality. So for everyday life I navigate using what I experience in a common sense. But for how I believe about ultimate reality I use my beliefs.

"something greater", aka God, Spirit, title does not matter.

 

[leov]

Yes, I know that one. So I don't use proof or evidence. I use the following observation, it is a fact that some humans have religious beliefs and that they work in some sense. E.g. my religious beliefs give me comfort, i.e. they are a crutch for me. But I have figured out that I need that crutch, so I keep it. So where is the problem in that?

In other words, as for rational people, I am at least in part irrational, but I am rational enough to admit that. Further I don't demand of you that you believe like me, but I do demand that you accept that I am religious as such, because it is a fact of how the world works, that I am religious.

So in effect, you are doing a form of ethics. You demand a certain behavior of other humans, but you can give no evidence or proof of that, because ethics is not rational nor open to evidence. It is emotions in the end. I am playing with you, because if we take this to the end, you are in effect evaluating rationality as better that being irrational. But that is not science, evidence or proof. That is a form of ethics, so here it is: I have a good life being religious and as long as I don't judge you with Objective Authority as for the value of your life and behavior, where is the problem?
A valid reason in science, logic and math, is not the same as it is in ethics.

Atheists have no working communication system, it the same as a blind would state that there is no red color.