[Besoeker]

Atheists claim that "god does not exist."

Atheism is the absence of a belief in any deity. Quite a different thing.

[Besoeker]

If you claim to be an atheist, you consequently believe that "god does not exist," which is a fallacy, as I have shown previously.

You have singularly failed to provide one iota of objective, testable evidence. When you do so, I might give your claim a degree of credibility that it does not merit as it currently stands.

[Atlantis]

Atheism is the absence of a belief in any deity. Quite a different thing.

You are just playing with words.

[Besoeker]

You are just playing with words.

It's actually quite an important difference.
Never mind.
Have you got any repeatble, objective evidence that god exists?

[Atlantis]

Have you got any repeatble, objective evidence that god exists?

You sound like a robot. No wonder you don't understand what you are being told.

[Besoeker]

You sound like a robot. No wonder you don't understand what you are being told.

All I'm asking for is some evidence that is objective.
If you have none, that's fine - and no surprise.

[Besoeker]

Three days and no takers.......

[anasawad]

Like really all this discussion and you got nothing from it ?

[Besoeker]

Like really all this discussion and you got nothing from it ?

Not a single shred of repeatable, objective, testable evidence.
Care to remedy that?

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker
I mentioned many theories that are tested over and over and proved, and scientists all came to a conclusion that the universe came from an external force.
Your ignorance of those theories and studies done in the past decades doesn't mean they doesn't exist.

And your insistence doesn't mean that they do exist.

[anasawad]

By rules of logic you can not have infinite regression. i.e there must be a begining, a source.

[Besoeker]

By rules of logic you can not have infinite regression. i.e there must be a begining, a source.

You have already shot yourself in the foot on that one.

[anasawad]

Hardly since all your argument was ignoring everything and keep asking a question that is by pure logic impossible to answer.
Infinite regression is simply not possible.

You ask for scientific evedince. Science is about studying the universe, it does not give answers to what is before, beyond or external to the universe because it is simply not possible. Since we're limited to it.

[Besoeker]

You ask for scientific evedince. Science is about studying the universe, it does not give answers to what is before, beyond or external to the universe because it is simply not possible. Since we're limited to it.

So your statement:

See, as we discussed many times before the universe is a result of something external to it.

is nothing more than speculation even by your own standards. No logic involved.

[anasawad]

@Besoeker
Are you serious man ? You think this is how discussion works ?

Infinite regress is logically not possible, it is a principle in logic and philosophy if you bothered searching it up.

Scientifically, i have already pointed out why there are things external to the universe.
The singularity of the big bang is one of them. And philosophically speaking, this is the most acceptable scenario because almost every other one has tons of faults excepts that this scenario solves all the problems. And now science proves it.


Now, so far all the times we "discussed" this is exactly the same. You ignore everything and only answer with one line statements without any possible argument presented.
So do bother to make an argument before you post your next reply because this one line statements are empty, annoying, meaningless, and doesn't advance anything. And thats called trolling.

[Ombrageux]

An unappeasable striving force made Creation, including life.

Call it God, if you please.

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker
Are you serious man ? You think this is how discussion works ?

Infinite regress is logically not possible, it is a principle in logic and philosophy if you bothered searching it up.

Scientifically, i have already pointed out why there are things external to the universe.

No. You have speculated that there are.

The singularity of the big bang is one of them. And philosophically speaking, this is the most acceptable scenario because almost every other one has tons of faults excepts that this scenario solves all the problems. And now science proves it.

And now you are contradicting your own posts.

"science cant explain what happened before the big bang. it also cant explain how the big bang happened."
Your exact words. I'm sure there are more but I can't be arsed trawling through the whole thread again.

But let me remind you of a few things that go towards debunking your supernatural god.
If your god existed and was omnipotent he could prevent tens of thousands a day, every day, deaths from starvation.
He could have prevented the Japanese tsunami that resulted in 20,000 fatalities.
Likewise, the Great Plague in London that resulted in about 100,000 deaths..........
The list is endless.

Then there is the "intelligent" designer claim. The simple fact that over 99% of the species he designed have failed. I'm a designer. With anything remotely approaching that record I'd have been unceremoniously booted out on my arse.

I could go on but those are just a few things that undermine the credibility of a supernatural, omnipotent entity that you may call god.
Not to mention the "logic" you keep on about.

[anasawad]

No. You have speculated that there are.

Sure, i mean i must have speculated about infinite regression in the past several 100s of years.
After all, 'm like 2 thousand years old so its not much since i created the rule.

And now you are contradicting your own posts.

"science cant explain what happened before the big bang. it also cant explain how the big bang happened."
Your exact words. I'm sure there are more but I can't be arsed trawling through the whole thread again.

I don't see how does this form a contradiction ? or where is the contradiction you're talking about ?
Through science we can trace back the big bang, until we reached the singularity.
Science indeed can not explain why the big bang happened, nor are we so far able to explain or figure out the abouts of the singularity. However we do know that the big bang happened and we do know its a singularity.
But laws of physics breaks down once you go back far enough to near the begining.
Which kinda is the point and i am not sure why all these pages and you haven't yet seen that this is my point. Science and generally how the universe works simply breaks down when you go back to a certain time. In short, when the universe came to be. Before that, was literally before the universe. Thus it simply external to it because it predates it.

But let me remind you of a few things that go towards debunking your supernatural god.

Anther thing you keep going on ignoring the very simple fact that the existence of god is study of philosophy and the study of god hemself is theology. two very different things when you get into the details.

If your god existed and was omnipotent he could prevent tens of thousands a day, every day, deaths from starvation.
He could have prevented the Japanese tsunami that resulted in 20,000 fatalities.
Likewise, the Great Plague in London that resulted in about 100,000 deaths..........
The list is endless.

And just as i said earlier. Why would he stop anything from happening ?
In matter of starvation, and wars and etc, i assure you there are more than enough resources and space for all of humanity to live an amazing and happy and fullfilling life.
How its distributed is on our hands and our responsibility.

For natural disasters. Sure, they're bad, but in one hand, everything has a purpose whether we know it or not. and on the other hand, why is it called a test if god is simply going to give us everything and stop everything.

Then there is the "intelligent" designer claim. The simple fact that over 99% of the species he designed have failed.

How did they fail ? all previous species are part of a greater system (i.e earth's eco system).
Each species have played a role in the system. If all have kept on living, and nothing ever went extinct or shrunk in population.
Earth would be entirely different. each era has played a role in the development of earth as whole. And each mass extinction event has opened the way for a new era of formation to begin.
If any stage didn't happen, we wouldn't survive at all. So why is this a failure ?

Not to mention the "logic" you keep on about.

Well, the debate about these principles has been going for 100s of years so far.
And people like your self have been trying to argue against it all this time and yet until now none have managed to prove any wrong.

[Besoeker]

Sure, i mean i must have speculated about infinite regression in the past several 100s of years.
After all, 'm like 2 thousand years old so its not much since i created the rule.

Even you accept that you don't know and can't know about things external to the universe.

I don't see how does this form a contradiction ? or where is the contradiction you're talking about ?

Claiming that there are things external to the universe then saying that it can't be known.

Through science we can trace back the big bang, until we reached the singularity.
Science indeed can not explain why the big bang happened, nor are we so far able to explain or figure out the abouts of the singularity. However we do know that the big bang happened and we do know its a singularity.
But laws of physics breaks down once you go back far enough to near the begining.
Which kinda is the point and i am not sure why all these pages and you haven't yet seen that this is my point. Science and generally how the universe works simply breaks down when you go back to a certain time. In short, when the universe came to be. Before that, was literally before the universe. Thus it simply external to it because it predates it.

And I don't know why you can't seem to separate viable theory from speculation.

Anther thing you keep going on ignoring the very simple fact that the existence of god is study of philosophy and the study of god hemself is theology. two very different things when you get into the details.

And just as i said earlier. Why would he stop anything from happening ?
In matter of starvation, and wars and etc, i assure you there are more than enough resources and space for all of humanity to live an amazing and happy and fullfilling life.
How its distributed is on our hands and our responsibility.

So why does god, if such exists, allow us to cock it up?

For natural disasters. Sure, they're bad, but in one hand, everything has a purpose whether we know it or not. and on the other hand, why is it called a test if god is simply going to give us everything and stop everything.

Why would god, if he exists, need to set tests when he already knows the results. That makes no sense.

Well, the debate about these principles has been going for 100s of years so far.
And people like your self have been trying to argue against it all this time and yet until now none have managed to prove any wrong.

And your side has spectacularly failed to produce one iota of objective evidence.

[anasawad]

Even you accept that you don't know and can't know about things external to the universe.

Claiming that there are things external to the universe then saying that it can't be known.

There are things external to the universe. Thats not just some theory. We already found one. With evidence. Its the core of the big bang theory.
Can we study those or know them ? Not now for sure, we still cant figure out things in our own universe. How the hell are we going to know whats external to the universe and what its like ?

And I don't know why you can't seem to separate viable theory from speculation.

The big bang isn't viable theory ?

So why does god, if such exists, allow us to cock it up?

Since we are now moving from the per existence of god to theology.
1- If god was to vanish you or destroy you immediatly if you do something.
How are we free then ? and why would there be forgiveness and reward and punishment in the end if the punishment is immediate and you're not free to do anything ?

Heck why would the materialistic world be a test if he was to do so ?

Why would god, if he exists, need to set tests when he already knows the results. That makes no sense.

Again since this is theology not philosophy then it would be based on religion.
In a religious prespective, we are a breath of god's own soul. Thats why we have free will, and thats where the idea that god created us on his image came from. Though the soul is different than the material.
For the events in the future and all these things, there is also a seperation here in the religious perspective. Not sure what is the translation in English but one is called Qada' and the other is Qader. They're two different words even if outside of religion.
Qader is what god decides to happen, like for example, when you're born, when will you die, what major events will happen in your life, even as far as how much money you'll earn in your life. Those are all set.
Qada' is whats between those, thats where your own decisions come in.
For example, what beliefs will you follow, how will you act with what you make (earning) will you use them for good things or bad things. Where and how will you earn them from.
Those are what will you be accounted for.

And your side has spectacularly failed to produce one iota of objective evidence.

Yours as well didn't provide any single evidence. Because no one can in these matters.
Thats why we call it philosophy.