Coming from nothing

[Syd the Human]

There is no evidence for the 'non-existence of God'.
If anyone is proving that more then anybody, it is atheists and their repeated failures at trying to explain the origins of the universe.

Also, it's funny how Einstein receives veneration, as well as even those with lesser discoveries, but since the founder of the Big Bang theory was a priest, he is not given the same.

It just goes to show the bias of atheists for what it really is; and the conceited nature of secularized science.

I never said there was, there is just also no objective evidence for a god. God is a concept that can't be proven.

Where is it said that the reason people don't give him credit for being a priest?

 

[Skybringr]

I never said there was, there is just also no objective evidence for a god. God is a concept that can't be proven.

Then where did the universe come from?

You're answer is 'I do not know'.

If you do not know, why are you so in arms about the notion of God and not the universe coming from nothing?

Seriously, professed atheists are just rank troublemakers. Anti-theists in sheep clothing. There literally is no other purpose why you all do what you do.

 

[Syd the Human]

Then where did the universe come from?

You're answer is 'I do not know'.

If you do not know, why are you so in arms about the notion of God and not the universe coming from nothing?

Seriously, professed atheists are just rank troublemakers. Anti-theists in sheep clothing. There literally is no other purpose why you all do what you do.

well yes, scientists are still working out the Big Bang theory (I think, I am not at all familiar with many of the concepts surrounding this theory). And I don't think we came from nothing.

But, I am not "in arms" about the concept of a god. I just disagree with it, but religion is a large part of life. Religion has had an impact on a lot of things in society, like politics. So it's natural to want to discuss it. I object to that we're all "anti-theists". I have friends who are theists, and I don't want them to give up their faith at all. They just have a different opinion which I happen to disagree with.

 

[Skybringr]

well yes, scientists are still working out the Big Bang theory (I think, I am not at all familiar with many of the concepts surrounding this theory). And I don't think we came from nothing.

But, I am not "in arms" about the concept of a god. I just disagree with it, but religion is a large part of life. Religion has had an impact on a lot of things in society, like politics. So it's natural to want to discuss it. I object to that we're all "anti-theists". I have friends who are theists, and I don't want them to give up their faith at all. They just have a different opinion which I happen to disagree with.

How do you disagree with something in which you have no basis to do so or otherwise?

That's sort of the contradiction among many atheists.


I know a very compelling theory that attempts to explain the origins of the universe. If I had come on here and told you that, you wouldn't go about it the same way as the notion of God. You'd find it 'interesting', where with a theory on God, which I also know of, you'd say 'nope' in just the blip of a thought.
That's anti-theism.

If there's one thing that aggravates me, it's when people try to reap the benefits of neutrality while attacking an end they don't like.

 

[BL2KTN]

The problem isn't that you assert the universe was created, the problem is you say Yahweh created it. There is evidence that something created the universe... there is no evidence that it was the Canaanite war-god worshiped in Judah known as Yahweh.

 

[Syd the Human]

How do you disagree with something in which you have no basis to do so or otherwise?

That's sort of the contradiction among many atheists.


I know a very compelling theory that attempts to explain the origins of the universe. If I had come on here and told you that, you wouldn't go about it the same way as the notion of God. You'd find it 'interesting', where with a theory on God, which I also know of, you'd say 'nope' in just the blip of a thought.
That's anti-theism.

I disagree with the "evidence" provided. Theists say, "Well everything is evidence!" But that argument, I disagree with. I don't think that a god exists, so I disagree with those who say it does. However, I do know that I cannot prove my position, and neither can you. I have no reason to accept your god or any other god at all. I used to be a theist, in fact many agnostics/atheists used to be theists. The theory of god, unlike as you stated " a very compelling theory", has no compelling evidence. Explain why I should accept something that you basically admitted has no compelling evidence? If that were the basis, I should accept every single thing that I hear.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is no evidence for the 'non-existence of God'.
If anyone is proving that more then anybody, it is atheists and their repeated failures at trying to explain the origins of the universe.

Also, it's funny how Einstein receives veneration, as well as even those with lesser discoveries, but since the founder of the Big Bang theory was a priest, he is not given the same.

It just goes to show the bias of atheists for what it really is; and the conceited nature of secularized science.

Are you serious? Georges Lemaitre is widely lauded with coming up with the big bang model first. Lawrence Krauss even has a nice write up about him in his book a universe from nothing, and even points out he was a catholic priest.

I think you're suffering a bit of a persecution complex.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Then where did the universe come from?

You're answer is 'I do not know'.

If you do not know, why are you so in arms about the notion of God and not the universe coming from nothing?

Seriously, professed atheists are just rank troublemakers. Anti-theists in sheep clothing. There literally is no other purpose why you all do what you do.

Because you also don't know, however you are claiming knowledge when you don't have justification to do so. The time to believe a claim is when you can show it's true.

The "you don't know what happened, therefore god" argument is an argument from ignorance fallacy. While it's not impossible that a god created the universe, we have absolutely no reason to believe it was one or to think the claim has any merit. We certainly have no reason to assert it as truth.

Once evidence is shown that it must have been a supernatural being, then we have reason to give that claim merit. But that hasn't happened yet.

The honest position to take when you don't know the answer is to say you don't know the answer, then go look for evidence. Making up an answer is fundamentally dishonest, and that's why we are opposed to it.

 

[quatona]

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

• As demonstrated by normal experience

We have no "normal experience" with things beginning to exist; actually, we don´t have any experience with that at all.

What we have experience with is change and transformation of that which already exists.



And since you appealed to "normal experience":
"Normal experience" suggests that everything physical has a physical cause, "normal experience" tells us absolutely nothing about the alleged "supernatural" and what effects it has on physics.


If you refer to "normal experience" as the basis of your arguments, you will never arrive at something like "God (or whatever non-physical) breathed the physical world into existence" - not any more than at "the universe created itself", "the universe popped into existence out of nothing", "the universe has always existed", "the universe is a necessary uncaused cause" or whatever other extraordinary claim.

 

[Huntun]

The idea that the universe "came into being" would itself need to be substantiated before a reason for it, or a description of the method by which it happened, were to be demanded. Even then the fact that a person didn't have one would in no way imply that the other person who did have a theory (like "God did it") was on to something.

When people say "nothing existed prior to the big bang" they are just speculating. Did the supposed singularity not exist before it banged? Was there even a "then" in which something could exist or not exist (maybe there was no time "before"). Do we know for a fact that vacuum energy and virtual particles didn't do there thing before the bang? Do we even know for sure the visible universe of expanding galaxies constitutes all the mater and energy out there? We don't even know what half the mass out there is (dark matter and energy) let alone it's connection, or lack thereof, with the so called big bang. It's all the outer reaches of speculation.

 

[bhsmte]

How do you disagree with something in which you have no basis to do so or otherwise?

That's sort of the contradiction among many atheists.


I know a very compelling theory that attempts to explain the origins of the universe. If I had come on here and told you that, you wouldn't go about it the same way as the notion of God. You'd find it 'interesting', where with a theory on God, which I also know of, you'd say 'nope' in just the blip of a thought.
That's anti-theism.

If there's one thing that aggravates me, it's when people try to reap the benefits of neutrality while attacking an end they don't like.

I think the better question is:

Why does it shock you so, some people choose to not agree with something that lacks objective evidence to support it?

 

[Skybringr]

I think the better question is:

Why does it shock you so, some people choose to not agree with something that lacks objective evidence to support it?

I don't have any quarrel with that.

The Church teaches that even an atheist can potentially be saved. It's much harder because Christ augments the soul- but it's possible, as God looks into the hearts of men.

I am fully aware that 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are in truth synonymous. This site does not make that connection, being that you can choose between the two in one's profile.

But I also know agnostic philosophy, and that it does not mesh with anti-theism. Therefore one cannot have a bias against God, at least not in the general principle of a sentient Creator.

 

[Syd the Human]

I don't have any quarrel with that.

The Church teaches that even an atheist can potentially be saved. It's much harder because Christ augments the soul- but it's possible, as God looks into the hearts of men.

I am fully aware that 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are in truth synonymous. This site does not make that connection, being that you can choose between the two in one's profile.

But I also know agnostic philosophy, and that it does not mesh with anti-theism. Therefore one cannot have a bias against God, at least not in the general principle of a sentient Creator.

Yes and no. An agnostic atheist does not believe in god, but admits to having no proof that he exists. A gnostic atheist claims to know for a fact that no gods exist. That is a big difference. However, people will gravitate about being called an atheist or an agnostic, even if their lack of belief is more in-line with the definition of an agnostic atheist. *shrug*

 

[Skybringr]

Yes and no. An agnostic atheist does not believe in god, but admits to having no proof that he exists. A gnostic atheist claims to know for a fact that no gods exist. That is a big difference. However, people will gravitate about being called an atheist or an agnostic, even if their lack of belief is more in-line with the definition of an agnostic atheist. *shrug*

That's all just misdirection.

The textbook definition of an agnostic is one who is ignorant of the knowledge of origin.

I seriously could run laps around this all day. You're talking to somebody who once an agnostic

Do you even know that the concept of agnosticism is what dissuaded the Church from persecuting non-believers?

 

[Syd the Human]

That's all just misdirection.

The textbook definition of an agnostic is one who is ignorant of the knowledge of origin.

I seriously could run laps around this all day. You're talking to somebody who once an agnostic

Do you even know that the concept of agnosticism is what dissuaded the Church from persecuting non-believers?

Agnosticism.

"a" meaning without "gnostic" knowledge. Without knowledge (of a god). There is no knowledge, or how we would say it "evidence", that a god exists.

Why is that last bit important?

 

[Skybringr]

Why is that last bit important?

Because it shows that my definition of agnosticism is historically recognized as such.

 

[Syd the Human]

Because it shows that my definition of agnosticism is historically recognized as such.

So not believing in a god, but just making sure to not try to prove it was the requirement for non-persecution? How does that somehow add to this conversation since we agree on this?

 

[Skybringr]

The idea that the universe "came into being" would itself need to be substantiated before a reason for it, or a description of the method by which it happened, were to be demanded. Even then the fact that a person didn't have one would in no way imply that the other person who did have a theory (like "God did it") was on to something.

When people say "nothing existed prior to the big bang" they are just speculating. Did the supposed singularity not exist before it banged? Was there even a "then" in which something could exist or not exist (maybe there was no time "before"). Do we know for a fact that vacuum energy and virtual particles didn't do there thing before the bang? Do we even know for sure the visible universe of expanding galaxies constitutes all the mater and energy out there? We don't even know what half the mass out there is (dark matter and energy) let alone it's connection, or lack thereof, with the so called big bang. It's all the outer reaches of speculation.

I think it's about time I simply illustrate the notion of an arbitrary universe.

It was proposed by Stephen Hawking, and I'm surprised that not too many people know about it- neither believer or atheist to date has been able to recognize this theory even though there was an entire presentation on the matter.
I'll just get to it:

The universe is entirely positive and negative energy. The positive energy is matter and energy, the negative energy is the vacuum of space.

These two energies are equal and opposite- their equation is zero.
As such, the polar opposites, from infinitely negative to infinitely positive, from zero, pull at each other to produce a 'hologram' of nothing.




It's short, I know. I've become so adept at relaying this theory that it's second nature in explaining it.

 

[Davian]

I think it's about time I simply illustrate the notion of an arbitrary universe.

It was proposed by Stephen Hawking, and I'm surprised that not too many people know about it- neither believer or atheist to date has been able to recognize this theory even though there was an entire presentation on the matter.
I'll just get to it:

The universe is entirely positive and negative energy. The positive energy is matter and energy, the negative energy is the vacuum of space.

These two energies are equal and opposite- their equation is zero.
As such, the polar opposites, from infinitely negative to infinitely positive, from zero, pull at each other to produce a 'hologram' of nothing.




It's short, I know. I've become so adept at relaying this theory that it's second nature in explaining it.

Are you adept at providing a citation on which you base this?

 

[Skybringr]

Are you adept at providing a citation on which you base this?

It came on a program called 'Curiosity', in which Stephen Hawking explained his notions from the ground up.
He also orchestrated this idea at Oxford.