Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#174896 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Lets apply Hawking argument against God.
Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.
If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.
First of all I haven't ruled out a creator.
But lets examine this, Can you find gravity now?
Can you find or show evidence of a creator>??
We can find gravity, we can also understand what general relativity
mean to gravity and the space/time continuum.

We can identify how gravity can slow time and contract space into a singularity. These are measurable things, now show me the effects of your creator. Causality only makes sense to things bound in time. We know there are things not bound to time as we are, such as quantum effects and gravity. These effects are demonstrable and testable. Demonstrate the effects a creator has on time and gravity in our world in a testable and measurable way. showing on paper what it is. Then you have an argument, but as it is you have only a belief and no measurement or observation.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174897 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since that is NOT Hawking's argument, you are merely showing your ignorance.
Actually it is an expression of Hawkings core argument in deductive form. Unlike you, i don't know everything.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp...
Towards the end of the episode, Hawking asserted that “[t]he role played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer and revealing how the Universe created itself”(“Curiosity…”). According to Hawking and other atheists, the initial moments of the Big Bang were supposedly similar to the nature of a black hole (see Miller, 2011a for a response to this idea). Hawking believes that due to the nature of a black hole, time would not have existed before the Big Bang. He asserts:

You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means that there is no possibility for a Creator, because there is no time for a Creator to have existed…. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. So, there is no time for God to make the Universe in (“Curiosity…,” emp. added).

So, according to Hawking, there could not have been a cause for the Big Bang since that cause had to temporally precede the effect of the Big Bang, and yet time supposedly did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Setting aside the fact that this theoretical black hole, which is speculated to have been in existence at the time of the alleged Big Bang, had to itself have a cause (according to the Law of Causality even if time did not exist before the bang), Hawking still made a blunder in supposing that a Creator could not exist if time did not exist.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#174898 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, wait - wouldn't time be a function of the universe in question in the multiverse hypothesis?
Is there a larger time, too? Like, if you have an infinite...er..."place " that doesn't correspond to the English word equivalent where universes are spawned, does that space have time?
Does outside our universe know that our universe is progressing through its own time? Is that a knowable thing?
Can we know about phenomena outside our universe? If there is no time outside our universe, or time is at a different pace, wouldn't that sort of constrain what is knowable from our point of view?
:)
:)
:)
I can ask more questions - always lots and lots and lots of questions!
The universe has a clock that started ticking 13.7 billion years ago. Just about everything within the universe has a clock ticking
these clocks can be made to run at different rates, but the universes clock as far as we know does not vary.
Whether there are clocks ticking outside this universe we can't say. Whether this universe's clock is within another clock, we can't say. But it is entirely possible they are.
Whether the universe is aware of the passage of time , is highly controversial , but that too is possible I guess.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#174899 Aug 18, 2013
Covert Stealth Ops wrote:
<quoted text>If Christians go to church on Sunday, then where do atheists go on Sundays.........wait for it......got it.....THE ZOO.
Jetskiing.
Thinking

UK

#174900 Aug 18, 2013
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.

That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Lets apply Hawking argument against God.
Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.
If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174901 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.
That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174902 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.
That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
BTW, your "know" is a belief, a personal conviction, and quite the evidence it is emotion based, which clouds rational thinking.
Thinking

UK

#174903 Aug 18, 2013
Calling you a wanker doesn't make you any less incorrect.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174904 Aug 18, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Veiled accusations? Threats?? Lol, I'll bypass the drivel and focus on the one point. One can only explain things so many times to you without making a dent that one realizes the depths of your cluelessness.
Never underestimate the power of willful ignorance--

-- it is one of the few things humans can achieve an infinite capacity for...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174905 Aug 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you qualified? Do you have doctorates in physics, astrophysics, or quantum physics?
Much more than the creationist could ever hope to be.

She dismisses **all** scientific fact without a second glance.

This alone disqualifies here from the discussion.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174906 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> So nobody can question Hawkins conclusions without advanced knowledge in Physics? Is that what you are saying?
Wrong.

We **are** saying that you must have a LEAST a RUDIMENTARY education in BASIC physics.

A subject of which you have demonstrated you are 100% unfamiliar with.

**THAT****IS** the distinction.

You?

You dismiss ALL scientific fact without a second's hesitation.

AND WITHOUT BOTHERING TO STUDY IT, EITHER.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#174907 Aug 18, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.
Face up to reality and admit you're a liar with no proof of god - like all creationists.

Its idiots like you who cannot answer basic questions about your faith based mental illness and you try to criticise science instead.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174908 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
At a deep level, the universe is acausal.
And this is the fundamental beef that **all** religions have with the present universe.

They *want* to be "special".

They **demand** that the Universe **notices** them in their tiny existence.

So gods were fabricated to "answer" this elementary drive of the human psyche.

Sadly, the price society has to pay for this "answer" is much too steep-- in human suffering and in the perpetuation of ignorance.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#174909 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Calling you a wanker doesn't make you any less incorrect.
<quoted text>
That was quite a deviation from the subject.

Is that an offer to lend me a hand in an effort to get me pointed in the right direction? To get me to rise up to your expectations?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174910 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The stress-energy tensor is essentially a description of the distribution of mass, energy, momentum, and 'stress' in a region. On the other hand, the Einstein tensor describes, essentially, the curvature of spacetime. General relativity proposes that the Einstein tensor and the stress energy tensor are equal (up to a constant proportion factor). So, essentially, mass, energy, momentum, and stress produce curvature of spacetime. Curvature means that close by paths will either converge or diverge (depending on the type of curvature). This is gravity.
So, basically, you are saying that gravity is ...

...**geometry**?

:D

I **knew** there was a use for all that High School math I took back-when...

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174911 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it is an expression of Hawkings core argument in deductive form. Unlike you, i don't know everything.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp...
<quoted text>
Quote Minding from a Lying For Jewsus website is not honest.

It is **lying**.

But lying is your forte, isn't it?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174912 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 1+1=2 is abstract and is not time dependent. 1+1=2 would remain true even if there was nothing and not something. It transcends physical reality.
But it is not a statement that directly applies to the real world. It follows from certain *assumptions* and definitions concerning 1,+,= and 2 and their properties. These assumptions are invented by humans as a language to help us understand. Because they are abstract, that language can potentially be used in a large number of situations. But it is an experimental question whether the assumptions hold in any given physical situation. Pure logic cannot say when such assumptions do and do not hold.

For example, the equation 1+1=2 doe not hold in the following:

1. Take 1 marble and smash it into another 1 marble at high energy. You will get 0 pebbles and a variety of fragments.

2. Take 1 quart of water and 1 quart of alcohol and mix them. You will not get 2 quarts of mixture, but slightly less.

3. Take 1 proton and smash it into another 1 proton. You will often get out 3 protons and one anti-proton. Sometimes you will get more.

The point is that the assumptions of the abstract statement 1+1=2 do not apply in these physical cases, so the conclusion may fail (and actually does in these examples).

What happens in abstract mathematics and logic is that we *assume* certain basic propositions and rules of deduction and derive new propositions. As long as the assumptions and rules of deduction are correct, the conclusions are valid. But in no physical situation can you absolutely know that the assumptions are, in fact, correct. So what happens is that we *test* the assumptions to the best of our ability and then use the conclusions, testing them also as a further test of our assumptions. In this way, we learn which assumptions hold for the real world and which do not. Even more, we learn when various assumptions can and cannot be used to help us understand what happens in reality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174913 Aug 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
So, basically, you are saying that gravity is ...
...**geometry**?
:D
I **knew** there was a use for all that High School math I took back-when...
;)
Yes, in general relativity, gravity is geometry, although in curved spacetime.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#174914 Aug 18, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still assuming. Let me now introduce you to what I find to be most possible. The creator of The Universe may set off so much energy. Nothing could get close to it. I find this to be the greatest possibility . No creator it has way to much that can't be explain, and really it just does not go that direction. In the possibilities of creation I don't see how Atheism could even make the top 10. You need to battle it out with Fundamentalist Christians. It's like fox hunting rabbits, but some times the rabbits win.
hey dudeo, just show me on piece of evidence of supernatural power. oh, you say you can't right now. well, that's to be expected of a born again faker!

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174915 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> 1+1=2 is abstract and is not time dependent. 1+1=2 would remain true even if there was nothing and not something. It transcends physical reality.
It transcends physical reality only in the same way that a game of chess transcends physical reality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Bud-e-roe 753,755
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min Estelle 550,977
Do you Think Pageants are good for teenagers (Feb '12) 20 min Otto Von Hapsburg 5
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 21 min CIMe 118,744
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 22 min truth 262,093
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 25 min bad bob 174,545
If I had the POWER............ 37 min Doctor REALITY 53
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 51 min BenAdam 602,855
Does anyone do incest sex with your sister (Apr '12) 8 hr girls united states 173

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE