Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[stevevw]

It is a belief that people find fulfilling and meaningful.



Without making a value judgement, we can ask what they did differently. From my experience, atheists put faith to the side and asked for evidence and reason. Theists relied on faith and put reason and evidence to the side. In the end, atheists put more value on what is true instead of what one wants to be true.

I dont think a believer puts reason and evidence to one side like they are not using these at all. I think they use reason and evidence as much as anyone for many things in life. I just think for certain things like the meaning of life and is there anything beyond our reality that can have an affect on ones life for that meaning thats where faith steps in. But to get to all those points and operate a life in this world we will use as much reasoning and evidence for things as anyone.

 

[variant]

BVG Theorem put an end to this argument, the Physical Universe can't be past eternal even if it was quantum fluctuations it demanded a beginning. Cyclic Universes was debunked also by Entropy and Thermodynamics.
Either the Universe had a transcendent cause or it popped out of Nothingness like magic, the Universe is Deterministic therefor it was pre-determined to be created, you can't have Randomness to Determinism, its a paradox, therefor Nothingness as a Creator not only is illogical because it doesn't provide a cause but it is random, nothingness is the absence of laws, constants, materialism, its pure Randomness, not only that but in the last 13.8 billion years we haven't observed something from Nothing. The right answer would be is the transcendent cause a Mind or something mindless?

The BVG shows the inflationary universe has a finite beginning which I did not deny in that senario.

 

[JimFit]

Are you referring to BVG or Craig's misinterpretation thereof?



Given that creatio ex nihilo is literally magic, why would that be problematic for you?



Where did you get that idea from?



That's incoherent. In what way is nothingness random?



So how this count as evidence for creatio ex nihilo?

BVG Theorem states that the Universe had a Cosmic beginning, even the author of the theorem Vilenkin agrees
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”

ex nihilo is a theological expression made by Catholics, its a fallacy, if there was God how it is ex nihilo? Its not out of Nothingness but out of God.

Nothingness is Randomness because it doesn't obey any laws, anything can happen.

 

[JimFit]

The BVG shows the inflationary universe has a finite beginning which I did not deny in that senario.

If something physical has an absolute beginning how can it exists in another form? In which form? Even quantum fluctuations aren't strong enough to be past eternal.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

BVG Theorem states that the Universe had a Cosmic beginning, even the author of the theorem Vilenkin agrees
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”

Which I don't deny.

ex nihilo is a theological expression made by Catholics, its a fallacy, if there was God how it is ex nihilo? Its not out of Nothingness but out of God.

So creatio ex deo then?

Nothingness is Randomness because it doesn't obey any laws, anything can happen.

No, nothing happens. There's nothing to randomly fluctuate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If something physical has an absolute beginning how can it exists in another form? In which form? Even quantum fluctuations aren't strong enough to be past eternal.

In a timeless, spaceless form.

 

[variant]

If something physical has an absolute beginning how can it exists in another form? In which form? Even quantum fluctuations aren't strong enough to be past eternal.

I'm saying that time starts, not that the past is eternal.

 

[JimFit]

Which I don't deny.



So creatio ex deo then?



No, nothing happens. There's nothing to randomly fluctuate.

I don't like Latin, i prefer Greek, it is

Δημιουργία απο τον Αιώνιο Θεό

If Nothing happens then the Universe had a transcendent cause.

 

[JimFit]

I'm saying that time starts, not that the past is eternal.

Space without time? How is that even possible?

 

[variant]

Space without time? How is that even possible?

Who said anything about space?

 

[JimFit]

Who said anything about space?

No space and no time = transcendent universe

 

[variant]

No space and no time = transcendent universe

Transcending space and time I suppose.

 

[quatona]

I'm already lost in these exchanges. Two points:

1) See my "Venn Diagramming This Mess" thread for my views on knowledge.

No, sorry. You made the claim here, you defend it here.

2) When we define the ISD or God as a creator of the universe, then by definition we have qualities such as timelessness and spacelessness. My point is that once you consider the ISD to have these qualities, you're just choosing more emotionally-laden and ridiculous-sounding qualities instead of God, which is irrelevant because we're defining the same phenomena.[/quote]
So there´s another paragraph addressing a point I never made and on which I explicitly corrected you at least two times.
It really looks to me like you don´t read my post.

And if you claim that the ISV didn't create the universe, then your use of the term is a red herring.

How so? The criterium for unfalsibiability is "supernaturality", not "creatorship". So my question to give me the criteria/standards by which the "truth value" of claims concerning the existence of supernatural entities can be discerned is not on a valid one, but actually hits the very mark.

 

[JimFit]

Transcending space and time I suppose.

You can't have transcending space and time because space and time measure something measurable..

 

[variant]

You can't have transcending space and time because space and time measure something measurable..

I'm not sure I follow your point.

 

[KCfromNC]

2) When we define the ISD or God as a creator of the universe, then by definition we have qualities such as timelessness and spacelessness.

Not always. The Christian god, for example, isn't timeless or entirely beyond space since it is claimed to interact with the world at specific places and times. So maybe when you define a god to be a creator it means beyond space and time (whatever that's supposed to mean) but not everyone who defines god as such agrees. How are we to tell which of you is correct?

 

[JimFit]

I'm not sure I follow your point.

You can't follow me because what you said is illogical, if something has space then it has time even if it is dimensionless.

 

[JimFit]

Not always. The Christian god, for example, isn't timeless or entirely beyond space since it is claimed to interact with the world at specific places and times. So maybe when you define a god to be a creator it means beyond space and time (whatever that's supposed to mean) but not everyone who defines god as such agrees. How are we to tell which of you is correct?

That doesn't remove from God that He is timeless and beyond space, if God wants to interact with our Universe He doesn't need to "touch" it.

 

[variant]

You can't follow me because what you said is illogical, if something has space then it has time even if it is dimensionless.

That much I understand but what is the problem with having neither space nor time?

 

[variant]

That doesn't remove from God that He is timeless and beyond space, if God wants to interact with our Universe He doesn't need to "touch" it.

We don't know what properties god can or can not possibly have except they can be anything we wish.