[Oxymoron]

You'll recall earlier I gave an argument for atheism here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=167530

In general I am moderately satisfied with the argument as it stands, and was wholly unimpressed by the responses that were made against it.

To strengthen the case for atheism, I want to offer an additional piece of evidence to show that there is no God. The atheistic worldview is even more likely to be true in light of the following reasoning:

I contend that we have never been able to obtain any new information in our attempts to communicate with God. Prayer has never once been shown to give humanity access to any knowledge that didn't already exist in the mind of the person doing the prayer. It is by SCIENCE, not religion, that we advance our understanding of the world. In order for theism to be a plausible worldview, it would need to be shown that we have some direct way of accessing new information through God. This has never been done.

But if you want to argue otherwise, then here is a challenge for you to answer: Show me one instance of an observed phenomenon in which the religious explanation has progressed ahead of the scientific one in terms of plausibility. Unless and until you can do that, then I think we have every reason in the world do believe that there is no God.

Benefit of being right about no God = Nothing
Penalty of being wrong about no God = Eternal pain

Benefit of being right about a God = Everlasting joy or great reincarnation
Penalty of being wrong about God = Nothing.

Thus Atheists are retarded.

[XogGyux]

Benefit of being right about no God = Nothing
Penalty of being wrong about no God = Eternal pain

Benefit of being right about a God = Everlasting joy or great reincarnation
Penalty of being wrong about God = Nothing.

Thus Atheists are retarded.

Actually... Lets assume some god exists:
How do you know the particular religion that you follow is the correct one. If Islam is correct for instance, Christians are screwed... What if all religions are incorrect (if all but 1 are incorrect, it is not an stretch to think all might be incorrect) and there is a god nonetheless... What if this god's "will" is that human uses the gift they received from creation (intellect, free will, ability to doubt) to evaluate the natural word and to become closer to god by researching and understanding the world we were put? What if this god will reward following our "given gifts" and punish those who blindly follow a dogma and reject intellect and reason. Perhaps under this god you are going to hell.
Of course there is no reason to believe such god exists... the exact same way there is no reason to believe ANY god exists. You are taking your myth at face value on faith. Faith is an unreliable path to truth and understanding as well as morals. Furthermore in your equation you are forgetting to include the disadvantages of believing in a god that does not exists...

[Oxymoron]

Actually... Lets assume some god exists:
How do you know the particular religion that you follow is the correct one. If Islam is correct for instance, Christians are screwed... What if all religions are incorrect (if all but 1 are incorrect, it is not an stretch to think all might be incorrect) and there is a god nonetheless... What if this god's "will" is that human uses the gift they received from creation (intellect, free will, ability to doubt) to evaluate the natural word and to become closer to god by researching and understanding the world we were put? What if this god will reward following our "given gifts" and punish those who blindly follow a dogma and reject intellect and reason. Perhaps under this god you are going to hell.
Of course there is no reason to believe such god exists... the exact same way there is no reason to believe ANY god exists. You are taking your myth at face value on faith. Faith is an unreliable path to truth and understanding as well as morals.

Well some shot at being right is better then no shot at all. Especially given that the main 3 religions worship the same god, and might get a pass if either 3 are correct, more so chance then a Atheist.
Point is that there is no worldly or spiritual benefit of being an Atheist.

[XogGyux]

Well some shot at being right is better then no shot at all. Especially given that the main 3 religions worship the same god, and might get a pass if either 3 are correct, more so chance then a Atheist.
Point is that there is no worldly or spiritual benefit of being an Atheist.

The point is that you believe in a god that sets rules for reward/punishment. However you have no clue what those rules are.. You might say oh well the bible or quram but if you follow those to the letter (assuming you can overcome the sheer amount of ambiguity and double meaning) you would end up being arrested or put to death in any modern society as the "rules" of those gods are quite archaic and frankly illegal. Of course modern religions have come with a loophole of saying "well you are not supposed to take this and that literally" but that leaves you in the point where you have no clue what the rules are.
Furthermore it is just as likely that the rules are exactly the opposite (as the example I gave you). Keep in mind that "more people believing in something" does not make for a good argument that that "something" is correct. If you go back 500 years most people believed the earth was flat... just a handful believed otherwise and we all know who turned to be right.
For all you know, god wants heaven to not be overpopulated.
A god such as the one I described earlier, might find it useful to introduce a handful of religions to determine people that are "true followers of the truth via skepticism, science and reason" of those who are open to blindly follow religion and dogma. So if such god existed it makes perfect logical sense to introduce a bunch of religions just to test if people are worthy of joining a heaven as a reward of following reason.

[Oxymoron]

The point is that you believe in a god that sets rules for reward/punishment. However you have no clue what those rules are.. You might say oh well the bible or quram but if you follow those to the letter (assuming you can overcome the sheer amount of ambiguity and double meaning) you would end up being arrested or put to death in any modern society as the "rules" of those gods are quite archaic and frankly illegal. Of course modern religions have come with a loophole of saying "well you are not supposed to take this and that literally" but that leaves you in the point where you have no clue what the rules are.
Furthermore it is just as likely that the rules are exactly the opposite (as the example I gave you). Keep in mind that "more people believing in something" does not make for a good argument that that "something" is correct. If you go back 500 years most people believed the earth was flat... just a handful believed otherwise and we all know who turned to be right.
For all you know, god wants heaven to not be overpopulated.
A god such as the one I described earlier, might find it useful to introduce a handful of religions to determine people that are "true followers of the truth via skepticism, science and reason" of those who are open to blindly follow religion and dogma. So if such god existed it makes perfect logical sense to introduce a bunch of religions just to test if people are worthy of joining a heaven as a reward of following reason.

My point is very simple... lets say what you imply is correct, and we are totally misinterpreting God and his intentions... there is a chance that is correct, lets say its 50/50 even 80/20 towards your side...now being an atheists is 0/100, since taking a chance and believing something is a better odd then believing in nothing.

[Lexington]

Benefit of being right about no God = Nothing
Penalty of being wrong about no God = Eternal pain

Benefit of being right about a God = Everlasting joy or great reincarnation
Penalty of being wrong about God = Nothing.

Thus Atheists are retarded.

"a God"

Do you think He minds which?

[Oxymoron]

"a God"

Do you think He minds which?

He minds more that you call him fake.

[noemon]

1.- It is religion which has created said conflict between widely accepted and sound theories and their particular myths of creation. So, it is up to religious people in general (and symbolically to their leaders) to resolve this conflict. So it is up to the religious leaders to clarify/endorse/explain/etc this.
2.- The POTUS is not a religious leader, it is NOT his job to clarify or resolve a conflict created and fueled by religious fanatics and fundamentalists. IT IS UP TO RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND LEADERS TO DO THIS JOB. The POTUS might need to clarify/resolve/endorse/explain/denounce (as required) conflicts and misunderstanding that occur as a result of a statement/myth/policy created by the federal government (the body/institution which the president leads and represents).
I don't know why you are trying to single out Catholicism. And yes, of course there is evidence. It is the myth that is written in the silly instruction manual for lunacy which is called the bible. And I like to burst your bubble, you are throwing stones to your neighbor when your roof is made out of glass. Yeah... american evangelicals are the "stupid"... who again lead the crussades, inquisition, protects pedophile priests and talks against contraception/condoms and abortions which leads to STDs/overpopulation/famine/abuse? You have big balls trying to throw your lunatic brothers and sisters (evangelicals, Muslim, basically any other religion but yours, whichever happens to be your flavor) but the fact is that you are all the same.

I mentioned Catholicism because you brought it up earlier. Why do the Buddhists and so many others have to apologise for Evangelical creationist non-sense? Your rants do not prove that Catholics have or support a literalistic interpretation of the Bible and as such a literal creationist story. In fact they do not. As such why would those who do not believe in such creationism apologise for it? Your generalisations are invalid. And the change of the goal-posts further confirms your desperation. We has seen that secular states are just as capable of aggressive and defensive wars, of burning literature they disagree with and of atheist people being pedophiles. The fact that you accuse only the religious only demonstrates your lack of historical knowledge. Your ignorance and blame-game only perpetuates these issues because you refuse to address the underlying issues of the human condition by blaming your preferred scapegoats.

As you said:

This is basic, and I suspect you know and understand this, which begs the question why the hell are you making stupid statements which you already know are stupid?

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
"Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."

Larson and Witham present the results of a replication of 1913 and 1933 surveys by James H. Leuba. In those surveys, Leuba mailed a questionnaire to leading scientists asking about their belief in "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and in "personal immortality". Larson and Witham used the same wording [as in the Leuba studies], and sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%.

So you have evidence that 260 scientists do not believe that they have an effective communication with God.

Sure I can. In fact I did, and so have many historians and scholars.

Argumentum ad populum, the fact that you fail to comprehend basic logic is quite evident.

You are the one simplifying a whole people's identity to exclusively religion and nothing else. You are the one committing a gross oversimplification. Unlike you, I happen to believe their cultural identity is much more than simply their archaic religion. Your point seems to be that without religion these people either won't exist or would be some kind of mindless drone. People without religion can have very rich cultures if you have evidence to the contrary please provide it... Like I said before, plenty of religions in the past have gone extinct... the world did not end or become a worse word (in fact arguably it became a better word without many of the archaic religion practices such as human sacrifices, wars, etc that plagued the earlier generation of religions.)

You keep on ranting without saying anything just straws and ad-homs. You lack the historical knowledge to discuss this and you also refuse to read what has been provided to you. When and if you eventually do, tell me how would the Jews exist today without their Rabbis who managed the administrative and legal affairs of their communities. How would their community exist if they had joined another?

That is the biggest bullshit I have heard all week. First your whole logic is flawed and pretty much shit but let's say I accept your flawed logic (I don't) guess what they still believe they have something to gain and some interest (salvation/heaven/etc) so they will act according to their selfish interests. So voila, your logic is twice wrong, one for being flawed and another for being flawed even if it was not flawed to begin with.

Yeah I am sure that if you try really hard you will convince yourself that celibate monks have more material interest to defraud you than corporate boards. If you try really hard you will convince yourself that religion is more intrusive in your life than the current TV. But when you decide to become honest with yourself, then let me know.

[Lexington]

He minds more that you call him fake.

Are you sure?

If I were God one of two things would happen: I'd be kind of pissed off if someone called me by the wrong name. Secondly I would be pissed off because I have apparently made sure that there is no evidence of my existence on Earth.

[Oxymoron]

Are you sure?

If I were God one of two things would happen: I'd be kind of pissed off if someone called me by the wrong name. Secondly I would be pissed off because I have apparently made sure that there is no evidence of my existence on Earth.

Yes very nice attempt at trolling, 8 out of 10

[XogGyux]

My point is very simple... lets say what you imply is correct, and we are totally misinterpreting God and his intentions... there is a chance that is correct, lets say its 50/50 even 80/20 towards your side...now being an atheists is 0/100, since taking a chance and believing something is a better odd then believing in nothing.

You still miss the point. You are "judging" how likely a god scenario vs "no god" scenario might be and you have absolutely no data to judge that likelihood. Furthermore there might exist a god that sends you to a hell exactly for doing what it is written in a bible or Qumran, effectively making the same argument you made but with exactly the opposite outcome.

I mentioned Catholicism because you brought it up earlier. Why do the Buddhists and so many others have to apologise for Evangelical creationist non-sense?

It is funny that you mention Buddhism. Of course you will bring Buddhism, of the "crazy bunch" they seem to be the less crazy, at least certainly compared to Christians and Islamic, so perhaps you can find a bit of sanity in these people but....
You know who said the following?

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

That on itself is a permanent unequivocal endorsement.

Your rants do not prove that Catholics have or support a literalistic interpretation of the Bible and as such a literal creationist story.

There are no rants.

As such why would those who do not believe in such creationism apologise for it?

Apologies are not necessary unless at some point they endorsed it in the past in some way or another (a silent endorsement counts). Think about it... why do you think the pope had to come on in public and said this if he did not consider it to be his duty? Certainly this is a problematic tropic among many religious people he could have very were kept his mouth shut (not like they have a problem with this when it comes to protecting pedophiles anyhow.)

We has seen that secular states are just as capable of aggressive and defensive wars, of burning literature they disagree with and of atheist people being pedophiles. The fact that you accuse only the religious only demonstrates your lack of historical knowledge. Your ignorance and blame-game only perpetuates these issues because you refuse to address the underlying issues of the human condition by blaming your preferred scapegoats.

You are in denial. In denial that you think your religion is a force of good when the reality as evidenced by history is just the opposite. Off course you want to blame some of the evil on of the world on atheist so that you can spread the dirt around and dilute your culprit. The fact is no war in the history of the world has been "In the name of atheism" and many have been "in the name of religion". Sure some atheist have done bad things but it has never been in the name of "no religion" which contrast with religious people that blow themselves (and others) "in the name of Islam" burn people because they are heretics "in the name of god" or go to wars "against the infidels in the name of god" etc. Bad can exist with or without religion, religion just makes bad more efficiently and from sources of good. When enough people have been killed "In the name of atheism" we can have this conversation again. And I know you are dying to bring NAZIs into this (which never did anything in the name of atheism just FYI) do you know what was written in their belts? "GOD WITH US"/ This is a fact, try to make that about atheism.

So you have evidence that 260 scientists do not believe that they have an effective communication with God.

First of all the word is affective (i know because you even quoted it!) not effective, meaning is completely different. Affective refers to moods, feelings and attitude meaning that they are talking about an "interactive" god rather than just a concept of god which could apply to a natural event (such as big bang). Scripture god is a god that is interactive with it's creation so in order to differentiate this type of god from some other kind of definition of god (such as big bang) this parameter is used. Good try though .

Argumentum ad populum, the fact that you fail to comprehend basic logic is quite evident.

Actually you are incorrect. Argumentum ad populum would be a fallacy if I said most people from the general public believed this to be true when I fact I have provided evidence of this to be true (e.g. inquisition/crusades/human sacrifices/etc) and as a cherry on top the agreement of the HISTORIAN community, not some random number of idiots from the general public. So good job misunderstanding logic yourself.

You keep on ranting without saying anything just straws and ad-homs. You lack the historical knowledge to discuss this and you also refuse to read what has been provided to you.

Haha! and you are accusing me of ad-homs. The irony!

When and if you eventually do, tell me how would the Jews exist today without their Rabbis who managed the administrative and legal affairs of their communities. How would their community exist if they had joined another?

Why do you keep assuming that their continued existence as a religious community is of any advantage to the world? For one I can tell you a lot of little boy's penises would be happy that would not have been the case. But again by all means keep reducing a people's whole cultural experience to just religion.

Yeah I am sure that if you try really hard you will convince yourself that celibate monks have more material interest to defraud you than corporate boards. If you try really hard you will convince yourself that religion is more intrusive in your life than the current TV. But when you decide to become honest with yourself, then let me know.

All you trying to do is dismissing all the crazy shit of religion as "well crazy shit happens in all sort of scenario, for instance in Hollywood there are crazy people." Keep lowering the bar for religion further and further. Now the best that it can hope for is to not be as morally corrupt as Hollywood?

[noemon]

It is funny that you mention Buddhism. Of course you will bring Buddhism, of the "crazy bunch" they seem to be the less crazy, at least certainly compared to Christians and Islamic, so perhaps you can find a bit of sanity in these people but....
You know who said the following?
That on itself is a permanent unequivocal endorsement.
Apologies are not necessary unless at some point they endorsed it in the past in some way or another (a silent endorsement counts). Think about it... why do you think the pope had to come on in public and said this if he did not consider it to be his duty? Certainly this is a problematic tropic among many religious people he could have very were kept his mouth shut (not like they have a problem with this when it comes to protecting pedophiles anyhow.)

You claim that religion(in general and abstractly meaning all of them) which means all of them are responsible for the evangelical creationist stories and as such required to counter it:

It is religion which has created said conflict between widely accepted and sound theories and their particular myths of creation.

And I am telling you again why do religious denominations that are not responsible for these evangelical theories required to counter them?

The Pope coming out is nothing more than a publicity stunt. The kind of that he should not be engaged in.

You are in denial. In denial that you think your religion is a force of good when the reality as evidenced by history is just the opposite. Off course you want to blame some of the evil on of the world on atheist so that you can spread the dirt around and dilute your culprit. The fact is no war in the history of the world has been "In the name of atheism" and many have been "in the name of religion". Sure some atheist have done bad things but it has never been in the name of "no religion" which contrast with religious people that blow themselves (and others) "in the name of Islam" burn people because they are heretics "in the name of god" or go to wars "against the infidels in the name of god" etc. Bad can exist with or without religion, religion just makes bad more efficiently and from sources of good. When enough people have been killed "In the name of atheism" we can have this conversation again. And I know you are dying to bring NAZIs into this (which never did anything in the name of atheism just FYI) do you know what was written in their belts? "GOD WITH US"/ This is a fact, try to make that about atheism.

Listen mate, I am tired of your ad-homs and your insults. I can say the very same thing about you that you are in denial that secular governments and people don't do that and all that you said applies to them and you equally. This proves that war, censorship and being an asshole has absolutely nothing to do with the belief in God.

Actually you are incorrect. Argumentum ad populum would be a fallacy if I said most people from the general public believed this to be true when I fact I have provided evidence of this to be true (e.g. inquisition/crusades/human sacrifices/etc) and as a cherry on top the agreement of the HISTORIAN community, not some random number of idiots from the general public. So good job misunderstanding logic yourself.

That would be argument from authority and again a logical fallacy regardless, but you did not use a specific authority you even lacked that kind of nuance instead you made a general historian people claim which means that it is an argumentum ad populum. In either case, it is a logical fallacy, regardless.

Haha! and you are accusing me of ad-homs. The irony!

I have given you a link to read about the subject and instead of addressing its content, you are engaging in ad-homs. If you expect that this will not be pointed out then you are clearly mistaken.

Why do you keep assuming that their continued existence as a religious community is of any advantage to the world? For one I can tell you a lot of little boy's penises would be happy that would not have been the case. But again by all means keep reducing a people's whole cultural experience to just religion.

This does not address your claim that monks are allegedly worse and more effective in propaganda than TV producers. It shows your double-standards.

[david.findley]

I was a teenage atheist, well into my very early twenties.

Then I studied philosophy. Especially Hegel.

Let me help you:


1) Why is there Being, instead of just absolute and total Nothingness? There is no logical response to this question. The very fact that Being IS is logical paradox, (because 'something' cannot come from 'nothing'.) ..So, in a very literal sense, we are living in a fundamentally paradoxical reality.

2) evolution. When we look at Being, we can discern one very fundamental aspect that is eternal: the principle of CHANGE. Nothing is eternal, except Nothingness itself. ...But when we look at the nature of Change, over the course of cosmic history, we see that this Change is not random, but EVOLUTIONARY. Nor is it the case that evolution is random. (In fact, one leading geneticist researcher described human DNA as coming together 'like a tornado in a junkyard' to create something perfect. Tornadoes in junkyards don't usually create perfect beings.)

So, not only are we living in a fundamentally paradoxical reality, but it is governed by a principle of evolution that is guiding the nature of that reality, Chaotically, FORWARD. That is, there seems to be some intrinsic 'purpose' inherent our reality.

I'm not saying that I am religious. I am vehemently anti-religious. Nor do I presume to know the face of God, or have any 'spiritual techniques' to achieve enlightenment. But I am telling you, from a strictly logical, philosophical perspective, that Atheism is irrational.

[XogGyux]

@noemon Looking at time stamps it took you less than 15mins from the moment I posted a very long post to the moment you answered with one just as long. I have nothing against quick replies but considering that your previous post was full of mistakes (including misusing common words such as affective and effective, and misappropriation of logical fallacies) it is clear that you are not really interested in having a fruitful debate but rather you are simply fighting (defending) in the name of religion. I don't care for that. Tomorrow I might check the rest of the post to see if there is anything worthy of debating.

1) Why is there Being, instead of just absolute and total Nothingness? There is no logical response to this question. The very fact that Being IS is logical paradox, (because 'something' cannot come from 'nothing'.) ..So, in a very literal sense, we are living in a fundamentally paradoxical reality.

How do you know there cannot be "something" coming from "nothing"? That is a BIG assumption (which btw still leaves you at the "where did god come from if there cannot be something -god- out of nothing".) This is what it is formally known as an argument from ignorance (that's its name, not calling you ignorant). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Nothing is eternal, except Nothingness itself.

You don't know that. And the meaning of eternal might ultimately have no bearing on this. I explain myself, eternal is a concept that relies on time. However most current theories are consistent with time beginning to exist (beginning might not be the most appropriate word) during the big bang (or a compatible theory). Meaning it might be possible for existence to occur outside of our space/time.

But when we look at the nature of Change, over the course of cosmic history, we see that this Change is not random, but EVOLUTIONARY.

You are mixing two concepts in one. There is a big debate ongoing of whether true randomness really exists or not but at this point this is irrelevant because you are using it incorrectly. Change DOES occur randomly (in this case meaning that it is not the subject to a conscious decision), what you see as "evolutionary" is simply the end result after such change is tested by "natural selection" and you get the final result. In other words, nobody/nothing planned on a Giraffe to have a long neck, many many mutations occurred in a distant (horse like) ancestor. Some of this mutations had no effect, some of this mutations might have made the neck shorter and some of this mutations might have made the neck longer so at some point you might have had 3 "types" of giraffes for a short period of time but because of natural selection only the better one of the three survived to procreate more while the rest faded. This is a very crude example, what I am trying to illustrate is that there was NO concious decision (e.g. giraffes will have a long neck by design, or "a long neck is my goal") but rather it simply happened by chance, and if it happened and was advantageous it remained and if it happened and was disadvantageous (which actually occurs more often) that individual simply fades off/dies or reproduce in far lesser numbers until eventually that trait is eliminated. The problem is you are looking at "all the winners" and thinking well the system is rigged, look at all the winners, but the fact is you are not looking at the loser which are just a numerable!

(In fact, one leading geneticist researcher described human DNA as coming together 'like a tornado in a junkyard' to create something perfect. Tornadoes in junkyards don't usually create perfect beings.)

Whoever said that seems to me that either had very little understanding of how evolution works, or perhaps was misquoted/out of context or deliberately said something that makes no sense.

So, not only are we living in a fundamentally paradoxical reality, but it is governed by a principle of evolution that is guiding the nature of that reality, Chaotically, FORWARD. That is, there seems to be some intrinsic 'purpose' inherent our reality.

What makes you think there is a "purpose"?

I'm not saying that I am religious. I am vehemently anti-religious. Nor do I presume to know the face of God, or have any 'spiritual techniques' to achieve enlightenment. But I am telling you, from a strictly logical, philosophical perspective, that Atheism is irrational.

First: You are wrong in part due to the things I have pointed out above.
Second: You say you are anti-religious so are you saying that you are irrational? and if you are irrational do you think your argument is also irrational?
Finally: If you think that not believing in a god, an entity for which we have absolutely no evidence, (believe me if we did, someone would have already won a Nobel prize for that) is an irrational believe... Does that mean that not believing in gnomes, unicorns, ghosts, etc (another entity for which we have absolutely no evidence for) is also irrational (i.e. we should believe on those to be rational?)?

[noemon]

@noemon Looking at time stamps it took you less than 15mins from the moment I posted a very long post to the moment you answered with one just as long. I have nothing against quick replies but considering that your previous post was full of mistakes (including misusing common words such as affective and effective, and misappropriation of logical fallacies) it is clear that you are not really interested in having a fruitful debate but rather you are simply fighting (defending) in the name of religion. I don't care for that. Tomorrow I might check the rest of the post to see if there is anything worthy of debating.

Now you ad-hom me for being quick in my replies. It has taken me far less to deal with much more interesting and difficult posts than yours.
Once again, everything you keep saying about me is merely a projection of your own self. You keep ignoring the arguments, making logical fallacies and simply accusing your interlocutor. If and when you decide to actually discuss in earnest then let me know.

[david.findley]

OK Xog,

I understand where you are coming from, and I think that you have a lot invested in your current mindset. I completely understand.

You have to look at the fundamental premises that I present a little closer.

1 why is there Being instead of just Nothingness.

You ask 'how do I know that something cannot come from nothing?' This is a very fundamental notion of vast importance. As we look out at our world, everything that IS, has a cause. The principle of causality is immutable. Inherent in this principle of Causality, is the fact that for Change to occur, (in this case, for 'something' to come from 'nothing',) there must be two separate entities acting upon each other. In the hypothetical situation of 'something coming from nothing' to create the universe, this is no such binary. (A total, complete Nothingness implies that there is nothing else to act upon it.)

So in the initial act of creation, when 'something comes from nothing', there is an instance of paradoxical motion. An instance when, from Nothingness, comes something besides Nothingness to act upon it.


-OR-

2 You can also argue that it is simply not the case that 'something can from nothing' in an initial act of creation, and that the universe, our reality, IS ETERNAL, without beginning. This implies that there is a fundamental binary, or a fundamental dualism, underlying our reality, acting upon each-other eternally to create our universe. But the thing about this, Xoy, is that the reality of such an eternally-existing universe is also logically paradoxical, simply that it IS, and is not nothing.

The concept or notion of 'eternality' is fundamentally TRANSCENDENTAL . That is, it does not have it's basis in our objective or analytical observations of the material universe. In other words, we human beings 'create' it, or sort of 'make it up'. ...and so if we are to take this transcendental concept of 'eternity' and apply it to the universe itself, we are bringing logical paradox upon ourselves, because we have no basis to do that without taking a sort of 'leap of faith'. It may or may not be true, but if it is, it is true only paradoxically.

So in this argument of reality, either 1 OR 2, of something coming from nothing or an eternally existing universe, both of which are fundamentally paradoxical.

...further, change leads to evolution. The course of this evolution, however, is not direct, but CHAOTIC, (in the sense of Chaos theory.) That is, there is apparent randomness in the overall process, but a legitimate sense of order underlying it all.

It is about this sense of order, of the evolutionary process, that we practice philosophy and metaphysics. What is this underlying order veering towards? What is our reality blossoming into, because of it? freedom? individuality? ...communistic utopia? ... It is hard to say. Maybe all of that and more.

in short, there is no truly rational argument for the beginning, or existence, of the universe.

[XogGyux]

I understand where you are coming from, and I think that you have a lot invested in your current mindset. I completely understand.

I have nothing invested in this or any other mindset. In fact if there is any compelling evidence or argument to change my mindset I would be very quick to do so.

You ask 'how do I know that something cannot come from nothing?' This is a very fundamental notion of vast importance. As we look out at our world, everything that IS, has a cause.

This is an argument from ignorance (i provided the link for an explanation). This is an invalid argument. It is equivalent to grab a bucket of sea water see that there is no fish and claim that the ocean has no life in it. Just because you have not observed in the past "something coming out of nothing" does not mean it is impossible or even improbable. We have only observed our very very very very very very very tiny part of the cosmos for a very very very very very very very very part of existence with our very very very very very very very incomplete set of instruments to make such a claim for the whole universe or even for the whole of existence (i.e. a multiverse might exist with many diverse universes in terms of physical laws). Furthermore you are still assuming that at some point there was "nothing" which might not even be the case. It might very well that "something" have always existed, more importantly you cannot even assume that such "something" came out of some kind of god/identity. What you are proposing in essence is similar to the Kalam cosmological argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument . If you wish to read more about it I'd encourage you + I also encourage you to watch on Youtube this argument as well as the myriad of counter arguments of why it is pretty bad and flawed.

So in this argument of reality, either 1 OR 2, of something coming from nothing or an eternally existing universe, both of which are fundamentally paradoxical.

I think that you are miss using the term paradoxical here. Furthermore there are more options, for instance something might have come out of nothing. Furthermore, depending on what actually created the universe, considering that time/space has no meaning (as far as we know) outside of the creation of the universe, "eternally" might be meaningless and technically would apply to any universe (e.g. by definition/laws of physics time and space only exists in the context of the big-bang and the universe is then eternal by definition, as in that it encompasses all of time).

What is this underlying order veering towards? What is our reality blossoming into, because of it? freedom? individuality? ...communistic utopia? ... It is hard to say. Maybe all of that and more.

There is value in asking all those questions. Asking question is what drive us to find answer. However understand that not all questions make sense, some or all of those questions might ultimately lack sense. So I approve and encourage to ask questions such as this because the journey towards trying to discover the answer (or alternatively realizing that the question is meaningless) can lead to important truths. However, realize that there is a possibility (perhaps even a strong possibility) that some of the questions that are asked are ultimately meaningless. Example of questions that MIGHT fall into this category are the ones that you stated above and other in the order of: "what is the meaning of life?, why are we here? why there is something instead of nothing?, etc". Just be careful not to get tormented by questions that might have a nonsensical answer.

[david.findley]

woah woah woah, don't link me to that Islamic trash.

Aristotle did it. Aristotle is the founder of the argument, and if Islamic scum want to re-formulate it so they can stake some claim to Aristotle's genius, and bring it into their corrupt sphere of religion, I don't want to see it.


ok. But look, you didn't seem to catch the crux of the argument I presented. I am not saying that 'something can come from nothing' because we have never seen that before, but rather because the metaphysical principles necessarily involved in the motion are mutually exclusive.

So, look again, what does it take for 'something to come from nothing' in this case?

First, absolute nothingness. There is nothing. nothing even to the nothing. eternally.

Now, in order for 'something' to 'become', then there must be something in the nothing.

BUT by the very definition of NOTHINGNESS, there is NOT something in the nothing!

So the 'something' comes from nothing, out of nothing! Wholly spontaneously, without reason, without cause, without purpose. But just randomly.

Really, now, who is being irrational


Now, beyond the paradox of the 'prime mover', if we can skip over that Islamic theft and go back to the source in Aristotle, .. you talk that perhaps there is perhaps more to reality, beyond our universe of space and time. Beyond comprehension, inevitably. Sure, this is wholly possible.

HOWEVER, 'eternity' remains and will always be a purely transcendental notion, and thus forever and completely inapplicable as description to the material universe, WITHOUT taking a leap of faith, that is at bottom, irrational.

[Besoeker]

What if there is no god, no heaven, no hell?
There is zero evidence to support their existence. Zero.

[Donna]

In the final analysis atheism is a Judaizing Protestant sect born out of the Spinoza-Kant-Hegel trifecta. Standing next to Hegel is Feuerbach and next to Spinoza and Kant is Schleiermacher, who was later negatived by Feuerbach. It is [the result of] what happened when German illuminism allowed itself to be influenced by the bodily realism of Jewish mysticism.