The Atheist revolution. Perhaps not as logical as first thought?

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

How do you know someone did? Is there any evidence to suggest it?
Any pre-emptive announcements?

I don't, I am just saying the media doesn't have everyones say, so someone who probably had predicted it didn't get their say.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

I don't, I am just saying the media doesn't have everyones say, so someone who probably had predicted it didn't get their say.

So why did you earlier claim that humans are psychic and that animals are too?

So Glad

bonkey wrote:

What point are you trying to prove? If its that, at heart, agnosticism is the only logical position, then you'll generally find that agnostics will agree with you and those who believe somethign else don't.

On the other hand, you mentioned on the CT forum :



so clearly you're not trying to prove that we don't know. Note - you didn't say that you spent days trying to prove that God exists, or proving that God could or might exist....nope...you apparently believe you were proving that God exists.

How can you prove Gods existence, and still argue that as far as you know, you're wrong.


Once you reduce the definition of God to a vague concept which can be reworded as "whatever it is that brought all this about", then you can easily argue that if the the universe was created as a random event from chaos, then randomness and chaos is God.

In other words, you've defined the existence of the universe as a trait of God, then gone on to conclude this proves God's existence, but precludes knowing anything about what God actually is!

So you can reword the argument as "something caused the universe to exist, even if it was just randomness....and I define that something as God....thus I have proven that God exists".

No-one can argue with that....except to point out that to prove Gods existence, you've had to utterly redefine God and all you can attribute to God is the universe's existence.


With respect...I think you should let the atheists answer for themselves rather then tell them what their answer is.

Personally, although I'm not an atheist, I would say that the following comment from wikipedia is a much more accurate answer:

Energy is so fundamental that it is not easily defined in terms of anything more fundamental. It is possible to define energy precisely, although the details will be of interest only to specialists.

As for the concepts of "never destroyed nor created", it should be pointed out that these concepts only hold within our frame of reference - i.e. our universe. The common mistake of so many who wish to set themselves somehow at odds with the scientific view of the universe is that they fail to recognise the concept of applicability and frames of reference.

Causality (cause-and-effect) is something we believe holds true within our universe. THe inability to create/destroy energy is something we believe holds true within our uiniverse. Time is something who's definition only has relevance withing our universe.

So...when we come to the "ultimate" question of how did all this come about, we have to discard every single one of those concepts, as well as everything else.

The short answer is that we have no frame of reference within which to answer the question of how the universe came about. Thus, we cannot meaningfully address the question using logic, science, or anythign else because all of these mechanisms have the universe itself as a frame of reference. None of them necessarily apply once you go outside that frame of reference. They may do....or they may not.

So the long and the short is that you can't prove God's existence, no more than you can prove God's non-existence. You can believe in either (or neither), but should never mistake belief and proof. THe only way you can "prove" God's existence is to define that existence into your base assumptions, but hide it so that its not apparent....

- the universe exists
- that existence may have been deliberate or random in origin.
- I define that deliberate or random origin as God or the work of God.
- ergo god exists!!!!

See the problem? If you define God as part of your assumptions, then of course you'll conclude that God exists. But you haven't proven anything, other than that you assume God exists.

Of course I am basing the existence of God by my assumptions. It's the main principal of an argument...:o

joe_chicken

Beruthiel wrote:

we have decided to wait for a logical answer.

It's strange the choice of words you use. Why not say, "we've decided that we don't know"?

I think a lot of atheists think like this, it's hard to imagine a world that we cannot understand (either by using God or "Logic") they take comfort in the fact that, "we might not know now, but we will know sometime".

To me this is just as crazy as believing in a God.

A big problem with this thread is how do you define consciousness...
No one on this thread can, if So Glad sees the patterns in interacting atoms as consciousness, who are we to argue.

Personally, I don't know.

Ciaran500

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

Of course I am basing the existence of God by my assumptions. It's the main principal of an argument...:o

Assuming god exists doesn't prove god exists.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

I stand corrected.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Assuming god exists doesn't prove god exists.

I didn't come into this assuming, I gave arguments that pointed to such things. Please don't warp my words.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Observing animal habits.

About an hour or more before the tsunami in Asia almost every animal ran for the hills, they knew a tsunami was coming.

Which doesn't require psychic ability, but rather the sensitivity to low-level earth-tremors and vibrations below the human audioble range (subsonics).

Thats why there are no corpses of animals from the tsunami.

You mean thats your belief why.

Plus there are many storyies of animals detecting natural disasters before they happen.

Particularly earthquakes, right?

These are another case where vibrations/subsonics have been identified as a precursor.

Indeed, it ws studies done into identifying why animals seemed to have this sixth sense which led to the discovery of this particular technique of identifying/predicting earthquakes.

Nothing magical or mystical there.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

I didn't come into this assuming, I gave arguments that pointed to such things. Please don't warp my words.

you, earlier wrote:

Of course I am basing the existence of God by my assumptions.

...?

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

My assumptions are my arguments.

You're assuming god exists to argue that god exists,
but you didn't come into this assuming anything,
but your assumptions are your arguments.

I see.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

...?

My assumptions are my arguments.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Of course I am basing the existence of God by my assumptions. It's the main principal of an argument...:o

And as I've argued, one of those assumptions is that God is whatever created the universe.

I wish boards would stop messing up the order of reply...
SG, my reply is above your last post.

So Glad

bonkey wrote:

And as I've argued, one of those assumptions is that God is whatever created the universe.

Which is what this thread is about. Your catching up!

bonkey

from the original post....

How does an "accidentally formed" universe with no consciousness produce creatures that are fully conscious enough to dictate their surroundings?

Go read the thread about the infinite monkeys.

In an infinite sample-space, any event which has a non-zero probability must eventually occur.

In an infinite randomness, our universe must exist.

Thats how.

So Glad

bonkey wrote:

from the original post....



Go read the thread about the infinite monkeys.

In an infinite sample-space, any event which has a non-zero probability must eventually occur.

In an infinite randomness, our universe must exist.

Thats how.

True, but how does the universe dictate a constant force throughout the universe?

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Which is what this thread is about. Your catching up!

Ah...so you're not trying to prove Gods existence? You're trying to explain your belief as to what God is???

In that case...why the agnostics and atheists forum? What you are describing is your spiritual belief.

joe_chicken

bonkey wrote:

In an infinite sample-space, any event which has a non-zero probability must eventually occur.

In an infinite randomness, our universe must exist.

Thats how.

There's a pretty gaping hole in that argument too...

Why does our universe have a non-zero probability?

So Glad

bonkey wrote:

Ah...so you're not trying to prove Gods existence? You're trying to explain your belief as to what God is???

In that case...why the agnostics and atheists forum? What you are describing is your spiritual belief.

True, maybe it is the wrong forum.

joe_chicken

joe_chicken wrote:

There's a pretty gaping hole in that argument too...

Why does our universe have a non-zero probability?

Because it currently exists.

Ciaran500

So Glad wrote:

True, but how does the universe dictate a constant force throughout the universe?

Its not dictated. All the forces come from the interaction of particles, all particles were created in the same place at nearly the same time and then expanded into the universe.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

Its not dictated. All the forces come from the interaction of particles, all particles were created in the same place at nearly the same time and then expanded into the universe.

Exactly, so do you not think that the blueprint is surprisingly convenient?

joe_chicken

bluewolf wrote:

Because it currently exists.

Ahh....

Ok, so the universe exists cuz the probability of it existing is non-zero, so therefore it exists?...

It's not a good argument.

Ciaran500

Convenient?

An unfathomable explosions that scatters particles out over billions of light years is convenient?

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

Convenient?

An unfathomable explosions that scatters particles out over billions of light years is convenient?

Are you complaining?

Ciaran500

So Glad wrote:

Are you complaining?

Complaining about what?

joe_chicken

joe_chicken wrote:

Ahh....

Ok, so the universe exists cuz the probability of it existing is non-zero, so therefore it exists?...

It's not a good argument.

It's a case of working backwards, no? If it currently exists, the probability of it existing is 1... Since it does exist, there must have been some probability of it existing in the first place...?
It's been a while since I studied probability though.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

Complaining about what?

Nothing, nothing at all.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

It's a case of working backwards, no? If it currently exists, the probability of it existing is 1... Since it does exist, there must have been some probability of it existing in the first place...?
It's been a while since I studied probability though.

Hmm, sounds bollox to me. The probability is 1 because our current observation of the universe, I'm talking about pre-big bang here.