ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

[watsup]

If they observed something thought to be supernatural...it would now be natural. The supernatural is something that can't happen unless it does happen in which case its natural.

Supernatural
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Cosmic inflation is a supernatural force because its expands a universe faster than the speed of light. It operates outside the laws of physics and time. But its not supernatural because if it happened...its natur

The definition of supernatural is anything beyond our understanding or the laws of physics. Cosmic inflation is a phenomenon that causes the universe to expand faster than the speed of light. By the definition it is supernatural. However if cosmic inflation did occur, they'd simply move the supernatural goal posts once again because if something happens no matter how bizarre its natural. If it turns out our universe was intentionally caused it won't be deemed any more supernatural than the pyramids being intentionally caused to exist.

Some of the “best” examples of CONFLATION that I have ever run across. Trying to extend natural and supernatural into one another with fake definitions and incorrect examples. Again, you are your own worst enemy in trying to support your spurious claim of a “Creator”.

 

[watsup]

You should try thinking outside the box because what we observe inside the universe, the laws of physics and our understanding of how things work are not what caused the universe to exist. The universe and the laws of nature are not the only thing that ever was, is or ever will be.

“Thinking outside the box” = just making stuff up. No thanks. That’s what young children do.
And the last sentence above means nothing because you have no actual evidence to support it.

 

[gboisjo]

How did our universe begin, where is it going, and what caused it to exist in the first place?

Is a mystery science is trying to understand.

To simply throw in a creator, a personal creator at that, is laughable.

The finite aspects our lives and the Gods we create speak to humanities desperation and worry.

 

[DrewPaul]

How did our universe begin, where is it going, and what caused it to exist in the first place?

Is a mystery science is trying to understand.

As you said no one really knows. However there are lots of theories that attempt to account what we do observe.

To simply throw in a creator, a personal creator at that, is laughable.

Isn't that a far cry from 'we don't know'? Its the old standby we don't have a clue how the universe came into existence yet somehow we know its laughable to think it was intentionally caused. When I ask what better non-laughable serious explanation you have you play the I'm ignorant card. I know nothing, I have no opinion. I'm clueless.

 

[gboisjo]

At the edge of what science knows about the origin of the universe is this.

We don't know anything about what came before inflation.

It's doubtful that we'll ever know.

Reason is because cosmic inflation was a big eraser.

Any trace of the initial conditions of how it got started get diluted because of this exponentially large expansion.

Throwing in a god as a first cause is what children do at Xmas.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Right, because if it happened its natural, even if it exists outside of time-space and can violate the speed of light.

"It existed outside of space-time" is a rather simplistic view. I do agree that it violated the laws of space-time as we know them.

The laws could have been different then. We haven't measured any change in the laws (specifically the constants) but you have to remember that the early universe is asymptotically different. The closer to 0 time you get, the stranger the universe was. The laws could have been VERY different between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds after the Big Bang (when inflation is thought to have occurred) and yet billions of years later where we are, the rate of change in the laws would be unmeasurable.

I'm sorry if that sounds like gobblegook to you. But you could make sense of it with a few hours study.

Or you could go with the explanation that the speed of light only applies within space-time, and does not limit the inflation of space-time itself.

You should try thinking outside the box

lol

because what we observe inside the universe, the laws of physics and our understanding of how things work are not what caused the universe to exist. The universe and the laws of nature are not the only thing that ever was, is or ever will be.

The universe (in the sense of everything we can see or detect, or ever will be able to see or detect) very likely isn't all that exists. You believe in the speed of light as the ultimate limit to what we can see, so it should not be hard to accept that some of the matter which originated from the Big Bang has left the bounds of the observable universe.

Still not seeing God, sorry. Causation by a being with no known cause, is no more satisfying that causation by no cause at all.

Fundamentally, you're over-taxing the principle of causation. Every particle in the universe carries information, tied inseparably to its existence. Possibly information is stripped from mass by black holes, but actually from our time frame matter never actually falls into a black hole. It is stuck, dimmer and dimmer, and closer and closer to the event horizon. So much for black holes ... except to say that causality loops are theorized near the event horizon. My point is that to create the universe, a hypothetical God would also have to create all the information in the universe. Even quantum information in the vacuum.

How is it satisfying for you, to believe that a God trillions of trillions of times bigger than the Universe, is the cause of the Universe? Does it worry you to be making such a huge claim? And can you see where your critics are coming from, when they ask "well what created God then?"

 

[gboisjo]

you play the I'm ignorant card. I know nothing, I have no opinion. I'm clueless.

I;m telling you where science stands as to what preceded the Big Bang, they simply don't know.

I stand with them ..not some Theist believing in some god ..like thousands of different religions have done over time.

 

[BabaVoss]

Here is another way to describe it.

You keep trying to redefine things in order to fit your narrative.

Miracle
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

Has there ever been a proven miracle?

No.

On the 10th May, 1948, Jeanne Fretel arrived at Lourdes in a comatose state as a result of tuberculosis peritonitis. After being given some Eucharist (the disc shaped wafer used in Christian mass), Jeanne woke from her coma and declared herself cured. Her miracle cure was officially recognised in 1950.

Recognized by the church. LOL.

There are inexplicable things that happen all the time. Cancer patients experience remission and total recovery. Doctors can't explain it. Is that a miracle? No reason to believe that. Inexplicable does not translate to miraculous. It is again the consistent leap you keep trying to make; 'I can't explain it therefore it must me magic'. That does not make sense given what we know about how our world works. It is much more probably that there is an explanation that we simply haven't found yet. One that works in our world without magic.

The Catholic church doesn't take classifying a miracle lightly.

The list of absurdities the church has said and done over the years is pretty long. But the church deciding something is hardly evidence of anything. They decided some women were witches and burned them alive. They labeled Galileo a heretic for embracing Copernican astronomical theory. On and on and on. The church has had a very long history of being in conflict with science, so using them as a basis for 'evidence' is a poor choice.

Right now the existence of the universe itself is inexplicable. Its thought the laws of nature or physics break down or are no longer applicable at time t-0. By definition its a miraculous event.

No, it is not.

By definition the theory cosmic inflation, if true, is a supernatural event. But you'll say its not even if it operates outside what some come to think are inviolable laws of all reality such as the speed of light.

Thats because it is not a supernatural anything. We just don't understand it (yet).

You should try thinking outside the box because what we observe inside the universe, the laws of physics and our understanding of how things work are not what caused the universe to exist. The universe and the laws of nature are not the only thing that ever was, is or ever will be.

We don't know what brought about the universe, if it has always been here, or has been restarted multiple times. That no reason to jump to imaginary all powerful designers. That's just plain silly.

 

[Ug make hammer]

This is basically a strawman regarding atheists. I don’t know of a single one “trying to disprove” the existence of God. Rather, the atheist position is that it is up to the “believer” to show evidence for said existence. If that can’t be done (and it certainly hasn’t to this point), then there’s no reason to acknowledge that such an entity exists.

Atheists by definition hold the belief that there are no Gods. If they're (as you say) demanding proof then they're arguing in bad faith. Lack of a proof is not proof of the opposite (I forget the technical term for this.)

What you say is true though. Most self professed Atheists do take that tack in argument. I used to do that too, but I realized it was never going to persuade anyone and didn't make me look great either. So now I'm a Strong Skeptic: I personally believe there is no God, and I argue to weaken the beliefs of God believers.

Show me a proof that Gods do not exist, or cannot exist. And I will show you a true Atheist.

 

[gboisjo]

How is it satisfying for you, to believe that a God trillions of trillions of times bigger than the Universe, is the cause of the Universe? Does it worry you to be making such a huge claim? And can you see where your critics are coming from, when they ask "well what created God then?"

It roots are in desperation, insecurity IMO.

 

[Ug make hammer]

How did our universe begin, where is it going, and what caused it to exist in the first place?

Is a mystery science is trying to understand.

To simply throw in a creator, a personal creator at that, is laughable.

The finite aspects our lives and the Gods we create speak to humanities desperation and worry.

A good point there. DrewPaul says human creators "build a building" but unless it's a backyard shed, they actually employ a number of people to build their building. The idea of a singular creator is taken directly from Judaism, in defiance of many other religions which better explain the chaos and mixed signals that supposed gods have inflicted on humanity. I still say it's aliens. What reason is there for the assumption that ONE GOD, rather than a race of Gods working together, created the Universe?

Whatever one God can do, two Gods could do better. And whatever two Gods, etc ... why stop at any number? An infinite number of Gods, which is absurd in space-time terms but remember, we don't have to limit God to our petty space-time.

I'm half sold on Raelism now. I only read the wikipedia page, but I'm impressed by how it explains the existence of religion while also renouncing gods. It's aliens, basically.

 

[gboisjo]

What you say is true though. Most self professed Atheists do take that tack in argument. I used to do that too, but I realized it was never going to persuade anyone and didn't make me look great either. So now I'm a Strong Skeptic: I personally believe there is no God, and I argue to weaken the beliefs of God believers.

But it doesn't happen, at least not on this forum. Theist just dig in deeper.

The good news. at least for me, is religion in general is slowly giving way to science as societies mature.

 

[Ug make hammer]

It roots are in desperation, insecurity IMO.

The universe is pretty scary. Particularly black holes. What kind of benevolent god would allow black holes?

 

[Ug make hammer]

But it doesn't happen, at least not on this forum. Theist just dig in deeper.

Don't expect credit for breaking someone's faith. At best, you may see a slow change. More likely, you'll never see them again.

The good news. at least for me, is religion in general is slowly giving way to science as societies mature.

Probably not because of 'conversions' though. I think more parents with moderate religious views, are raising their children "tolerant but skeptical" so they can choose religion as adults, if they so choose. Raising a child strongly religious, disadvantages that child later in life.

It's good parenting which is responsible, basically.

 

[gboisjo]

The universe is pretty scary. Particularly black holes. What kind of benevolent god would allow black holes?

Yea, it is.

As is the stability of our own solar system.

Though the planets have been stable when historically observed, and will be in the short term, their weak gravitational effects on one another can add up in unpredictable ways.

Mercury's unstable orbit around the sun comes to mind.

 

[Ug make hammer]

We don't know what brought about the universe, if it has always been here, or has been restarted multiple times. That no reason to jump to imaginary all powerful designers. That's just plain silly.

Certainly this is one approach to the causality problem. If universes can start within other universes (separating themselves by inflation) then there is no need to consider a "first" Universe. The series could be unbounded in past time, ie infinite in that dimension.

But it's also a bit scary. What if some parasitic universe starts up in our own Universe? It probably wouldn't be near us, you may say, BUT the effects would spread through our universe at the speed of light. We wouldn't get any warning. It may have happened already.

I'd rather not believe this theory.

 

[DrewPaul]

You keep trying to redefine things in order to fit your narrative.

No in a debate you often cite someone else to support your position.

Apr 30, 2017 — If by natural law you mean the laws of nature (of science) then there is no conflict, because we derive the laws by observing nature.

Has there ever been a proven miracle?

No.

Of course not...because you actually agree with me. If someone gets healed in some inexplicable manner even if we have no scientific explanation its still natural because if happens its natural. If people who died a year ago somehow revived would that be a miracle or an inexplicable natural event? No you would call it an unexplained natural event. Why? Because you agree with me if it happens its natural. If cosmic inflation lurks outside of space-time and the laws of physics it too is natural as if something significant were said.

There are inexplicable things that happen all the time. Cancer patients experience remission and total recovery. Doctors can't explain it. Is that a miracle? No reason to believe that. Inexplicable does not translate to miraculous. It is again the consistent leap you keep trying to make; 'I can't explain it therefore it must me magic'. That does not make sense given what we know about how our world works. It is much more probably that there is an explanation that we simply haven't found yet. One that works in our world without magic.

The kind of miracles you're thinking of are one's that couldn't happen, unless somehow they did happen but then they would be characterized as unknown natural events.

Right now the existence of the universe itself is inexplicable. Its thought the laws of nature or physics break down or are no longer applicable at time t-0. By definition its a miraculous event.

No, it is not.

Miracle
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

The reason you say its not a miracle is because like it or not, the supernatural is only what can't happen unless it does happen in which case its an inexplicable yet nevertheless natural phenomenon. The universe happened so whether its explicable or not, whether its cause lies in the laws of physics its 'natural' as if that is some sort of declarative statement.

Thats because it is not a supernatural anything. We just don't understand it (yet).

Right. That's what puts anything that can possibly happen into the its natural but not understood mental construct.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Yea, it is.

As is the stability of our own solar system.

Though the planets have been stable when historically observed, and will be in the short term, their weak gravitational effects on one another can add up in unpredictable ways.

Mercury's unstable orbit around the sun comes to mind.

The Solar System is pretty stable so far as I know. Mercury isn't coming anywhere near us. Peace!

 

[watsup]

As you said no one really knows. However there are lots of theories that attempt to account what we do observe.



Isn't that a far cry from 'we don't know'? Its the old standby we don't have a clue how the universe came into existence yet somehow we know its laughable to think it was intentionally caused. When I ask what better non-laughable serious explanation you have you play the I'm ignorant card. I know nothing, I have no opinion. I'm clueless.

These are more lies. A total misrepresentation of what has been said by the atheists in this thread and this forum.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Of course not...because you actually agree with me. If someone gets healed in some inexplicable manner even if we have no scientific explanation its still natural because if happens its natural. If people who died a year ago somehow revived would that be a miracle or an inexplicable natural event?

Such weak miracles.

How about if someone who died TWO HUNDRED years ago, were to come back to life? And scientists are allowed to test them in every way they could (I would start with testing for Cold War nucleotides) and scholars of their work were allowed to question them.

OK then, I would consider that a proof that extraterrestrials exist. Anything in your imagination that God could do, a sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial civilization could do too.

 

[DrewPaul]

Such weak miracles.

How about if someone who died TWO HUNDRED years ago, were to come back to life? And scientists are allowed to test them in every way they could (I would start with testing for Cold War nucleotides) and scholars of their work were allowed to question them.

OK then, I would consider that a proof that extraterrestrials exist. Anything in your imagination that God could do, a sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial civilization could do too.

If it happened all the time it would be considered natural even if inexplicable. If ghosts were observed to exist routinely even if there existence couldn't be explained it would be deemed natural. Because if it happens...its natural.

 

[DrewPaul]

The Solar System is pretty stable so far as I know. Mercury isn't coming anywhere near us. Peace!

It is now...it has seen plenty of upheaval in its time. Venus is rotating slowly in a different direction. Uranus is tipped over. They now believe there were up to 30 planets at one time.

 

[watsup]

If it happened all the time it would be considered natural even if inexplicable. If ghosts were observed to exist routinely even if there existence couldn't be explained it would be deemed natural. Because if it happens...its natural.

It’s conjecture—and, as such, it has no merit. Very weak.

 

[BabaVoss]

No in a debate you often cite someone else to support your position.

But that’s not what you are doing. You are trying to redefine words to fit your narrative.

If someone gets healed in some inexplicable manner even if we have no scientific explanation its still natural because if happens its natural.

It happens.

If people who died a year ago somehow revived would that be a miracle or an inexplicable natural event? No you would call it an unexplained natural event.

That can’t happen.

Let me see if I can help. If someone waved their hand and created a universe or brought a long dead body back to life, that would be a supernatural event. IT woudl never be considered ‘natural’.

 

[watsup]

Show me a proof that Gods do not exist, or cannot exist. And I will show you a true Atheist.

Again, I think that partIcular definition of atheism is too extreme. It is not incumbent on atheists to even provide any evidence, let alone proof, that a God/gods exist. Rather, those who make the basic claim of God/gods must then provide evidence of same. If they don’t (and they haven’t), then their claim belongs in the trash can of nonsense along with those who make claims of wood fairies and Yeti.
The working definition of atheism under which I reside is “lack of acceptance of the existence of a God/gods”. It’s a ludicrous concept, and I would not be true to myself if I became a fence sitter. Or as I like to say: no evidence, no God, it’s just that simple.