International Over 70 Christians found beheaded in a church in Congo

Sure, I guess... like you said, that's the world we know.

Either way the correct answer is that we have no idea, and I'm fine with admitting that I don't know one way or the other.

What bothers me is the people who speak about it with certainty. The religious zealots are definitely guilty of this, but if I'm honest the atheist types bother me even more because they pretend to come at it from some more rational angle which at the end of the day is just as bullshit. At least the religious types call it faith, so it's more like "I don't have scientific proof for you but this is what I believe". The atheist pretends to have science on his side, but at the end of the day he has zero evidence to disprove any of it, yet it doesn't stop him from being smug and talking down to those who believe in a creator as if he's somehow intellectually superior.
Atheists can be obnoxious, but to this point, no, you're wrong, it's not bullshit, I think they are justified. They do approach it more rationally. They attempt to use logic.

For example, think about what we just discussed: the uncreated creator vs. the uncreated universe. I have only opined that I believe it is equally likely that either spontaneously existed out of nothing. Because I have no way of quantifying that in any respect: materially or logically. It doesn't happen in our universe. We've never observed it. So I throw my hands up, and say, "Sure, equally likely." Seems fair in an absence of any way to weight which is more likely.

Yet, perhaps you've overlooked a simple reality. There is no evidence upon which we all agree that an uncreated God exists. Yet it is manifest that the universe exists. Was it uncreated? We don't know. But we know it exists.

So, while the mode of how it entered existence may be equally likely as God, the likelihood that it exists is infinitely more likely as we may qualify it (1 vs. a factor of 0). And from there we can break out of our natural logical tendency to assign effect to cause. Because the truth is we don't know the true origin of the universe. The Big Bang is perhaps the most misunderstood theory of all time in that it doesn't explain how something came from nothing; rather, it only traces cause and effect backwards to the earliest point, the Big Bang singularity, at which stage our understanding fails to resolve that which we don't understand.

Because perhaps our universe sprung from another that already existed. And that one from another before it. On and on it goes. This leads us to consider: perhaps there was always something. Our need to believe in creation mirrors our own intuitive desire to project how we as individuals came into the universe. We didn't exist, our parents created us, then we existed. But we are not matter itself. We are only made of it. We are merely a rearrangement of matter.

And towards this concept, an uncreated universe, the fact that the universe undeniably exists, while an uncreated God does not, is rational evidence towards the greater likelihood that the uncreated universe is the more likely of the two theories.
 
Atheists can be obnoxious, but to this point, no, you're wrong, it's not bullshit, I think they are justified. They do approach it more rationally. They attempt to use logic.
Exactly, it's rational to ask questions about things that don't seem right, instead of blindly accepting it.
 
Atheists can be obnoxious, but to this point, no, you're wrong, it's not bullshit, I think they are justified. They do approach it more rationally. They attempt to use logic.

For example, think about what we just discussed: the uncreated creator vs. the uncreated universe. I have only opined that I believe it is equally likely that either spontaneously existed out of nothing. Because I have no way of quantifying that in any respect: materially or logically. It doesn't happen in our universe. We've never observed it. So I throw my hands up, and say, "Sure, equally likely." Seems fair in an absence of any way to weight which is more likely.

Yet, perhaps you've overlooked a simple reality. There is no evidence upon which we all agree that an uncreated God exists. Yet it is manifest that the universe exists. Was it uncreated? We don't know. But we know it exists.

So, while the mode of how it entered existence may be equally likely as God, the likelihood that it exists is infinitely more likely as we may qualify it (1 vs. a factor of 0). And from there we can break out of our natural logical tendency to assign effect to cause. Because the truth is we don't know the true origin of the universe. The Big Bang is perhaps the most misunderstood theory of all time in that it doesn't explain how something came from nothing; rather, it only traces cause and effect backwards to the earliest point, the Big Bang singularity, at which stage our understanding fails to resolve that which we don't understand.

Because perhaps our universe sprung from another that already existed. And that one from another before it. On and on it goes. This leads us to consider: perhaps there was always something. Our need to believe in creation mirrors our own intuitive desire to project how we as individuals came into the universe. We didn't exist, our parents created us, then we existed. But we are not matter itself. We are only made of it. We are merely a rearrangement of matter.

And towards this concept, an uncreated universe, the fact that the universe undeniably exists, while an uncreated God does not, is rational evidence towards the greater likelihood that the uncreated universe is the more likely of the two theories.

In addition, I think there is a big gap between the existence of an aware and intentional god and "we know and understand his intent based upon a bunch of books of fables written thousands of years ago".

Like I don't think the existence of a god inherently proves everyone's religion to be correct, if that makes sense, so I don't think it should be so hotly contested.
 
Atheists can be obnoxious, but to this point, no, you're wrong, it's not bullshit, I think they are justified. They do approach it more rationally. They attempt to use logic.

For example, think about what we just discussed: the uncreated creator vs. the uncreated universe. I have only opined that I believe it is equally likely that either spontaneously existed out of nothing. Because I have no way of quantifying that in any respect: materially or logically. It doesn't happen in our universe. We've never observed it. So I throw my hands up, and say, "Sure, equally likely." Seems fair in an absence of any way to weight which is more likely.

Yet, perhaps you've overlooked a simple reality. There is no evidence upon which we all agree that an uncreated God exists. Yet it is manifest that the universe exists. Was it uncreated? We don't know. But we know it exists.

So, while the mode of how it entered existence may be equally likely as God, the likelihood that it exists is infinitely more likely as we may qualify it (1 vs. a factor of 0). And from there we can break out of our natural logical tendency to assign effect to cause. Because the truth is we don't know the true origin of the universe. The Big Bang is perhaps the most misunderstood theory of all time in that it doesn't explain how something came from nothing; rather, it only traces cause and effect backwards to the earliest point, the Big Bang singularity, at which stage our understanding fails to resolve that which we don't understand.

Because perhaps our universe sprung from another that already existed. And that one from another before it. On and on it goes. This leads us to consider: perhaps there was always something. Our need to believe in creation mirrors our own intuitive desire to project how we as individuals came into the universe. We didn't exist, our parents created us, then we existed. But we are not matter itself. We are only made of it. We are merely a rearrangement of matter.

And towards this concept, an uncreated universe, the fact that the universe undeniably exists, while an uncreated God does not, is rational evidence towards the greater likelihood that the uncreated universe is the more likely of the two theories.
I disagree.

Well I agree with a lot of what you said, and I think we're in complete agreement that the only true correct response is "I don't know".

But I don't see it any more rational that there is no creator than that there is. The atheist view rests on nothing other than "well you can't prove that there is", which can easily be countered by "well you can't prove that there isn't".

In the end I think whatever the right answer is, it's something way beyond our comprehension and it defies all known logic. We just don't know, and no explanation is more rational than the next, everything is equally plausible and equally unlikely at the same time. Atheism is just another religion, there is no science behind it, it's just what they believe, which makes them no different than a Christian or a Muslim.
 
I disagree.

Well I agree with a lot of what you said, and I think we're in complete agreement that the only true correct response is "I don't know".

But I don't see it any more rational that there is no creator than that there is. The atheist view rests on nothing other than "well you can't prove that there is", which can easily be countered by "well you can't prove that there isn't".

In the end I think whatever the right answer is, it's something way beyond our comprehension and it defies all known logic. We just don't know, and no explanation is more rational than the next, everything is equally plausible and equally unlikely at the same time. Atheism is just another religion, there is no science behind it, it's just what they believe, which makes them no different than a Christian or a Muslim.
The difference is that we can rationally quantify what is more likely based on observation. This is the source of the "flying spaghetti monster" argument. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist, or fairies, or kobolds that spin gold out of straw, either. I can't prove that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. You can't prove that they do exist, obviously. Yet which is more likely to be true?

The one aspect of that argument I disfavor is that none of those things, unlike an uncreated God concept, function to explain the single central question to mankind, which is simply, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This is the reason I don't believe they are perfectly analogous. Yet the logical integrity of the argument still bears validity.

The universe is evident. God is not. I can prove there is a universe. You cannot prove there is a God. So there is not a perfectly equal footing, there.
 
The difference is that we can rationally quantify what is more likely based on observation. This is the source of the "flying spaghetti monster" argument. I can't prove that unicorns don't exist, or fairies, or kobolds that spin gold out of straw, either. I can't prove that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist. You can't prove that they do exist, obviously. Yet which is more likely to be true?

The one aspect of that argument I disfavor is that none of those things, unlike an uncreated God concept, function to explain the single central question to mankind, which is simply, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" This is the reason I don't believe they are perfectly analogous. Yet the logical integrity of the argument still bears validity.

The universe is evident. God is not. I can prove there is a universe. You cannot prove there is a God. So there is not a perfectly equal footing, there.
I see the point you're trying to make but it's a silly comparison because you're taking something very specific like a "flying spaghetti monster" which becomes less and less likely the more specific you get. As unlikely as a flying spaghetti monster is, a blue flying spaghetti monster with crocodile skin and a fluffy tail is even more unlikely, but that's not what we're talking about.

The concept of "God" is not very specific at all, we're not talking about any specific religion here, we're not talking about a Hindu God Vishnu with 4 arms and specific features or whatever... at least that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only referring to some kind of force, intelligence, energy, or however you wanna imagine it. I'm clueless about it's specifics, I'm not making any claims about any of it's features, just the idea of a higher power that has created everything that exists.... that concept is not all that unlikely, especially when you consider the fact that everything around us functions like a finely tuned watch. If you were walking in nature and saw a ticking watch on the ground, you would never assume it's parts just came together in such a way by accident, so I don't understand why the idea of a created universe is so difficult to believe.
 
And the moderates in Syria just genocide 7000 or so. Hardly one peep from the pro Hamas media
 
I see the point you're trying to make but it's a silly comparison because you're taking something very specific like a "flying spaghetti monster" which becomes less and less likely the more specific you get. As unlikely as a flying spaghetti monster is, a blue flying spaghetti monster with crocodile skin and a fluffy tail is even more unlikely, but that's not what we're talking about.

The concept of "God" is not very specific at all, we're not talking about any specific religion here, we're not talking about a Hindu God Vishnu with 4 arms and specific features or whatever... at least that's not what I'm talking about. I'm only referring to some kind of force, intelligence, energy, or however you wanna imagine it. I'm clueless about it's specifics, I'm not making any claims about any of it's features, just the idea of a higher power that has created everything that exists.... that concept is not all that unlikely, especially when you consider the fact that everything around us functions like a finely tuned watch. If you were walking in nature and saw a ticking watch on the ground, you would never assume it's parts just came together in such a way by accident, so I don't understand why the idea of a created universe is so difficult to believe.
It doesn't matter how specific the fantastical concept is. There is zero tangible evidence towards either concept. That's the point. That's the foundation of the analogy.

I previously refuted your attempt to assert an unspecific God is likely due to a de facto "intelligent design" argument. Because God itself is an intelligent design. So what created him? He isn't just the watchmaker; he is the watch. This is the fatal flaw in the prime mover argument that Aquinas couldn't resolve as hard as he tried.
 
It doesn't matter how specific the fantastical concept is. There is zero tangible evidence towards either concept. That's the point. That's the foundation of the analogy.

I previously refuted your attempt to assert an unspecific God is likely due to a de facto "intelligent design" argument. Because God itself is an intelligent design. So what created him? He isn't just the watchmaker; he is the watch. This is the fatal flaw in the prime mover argument that Aquinas couldn't resolve as hard as he tried.
Ok, but then we come back to exactly what I said in the first place, that both explanations are equally likely and equally unlikely. It was you who tried to make the case that the atheist argument is somehow more likely and more "logical", and it was me who said they piss me off because they're exactly the same as the believers in God but they take this intellectual high ground position as if their "belief" or lack there of is somehow more based in science.

As for the flaw Aquinas couldn't resolve, well it's just the infinity problem that none of our monkey brains are able to grasp. The universe is obviously infinite, it has to be, and if it ends at some point then whatever is behind that point has to be infinite, and if there is a wall, what's behind the wall, etc... I don't know about you, but I just can't picture that concept, yet I know it must be so. It's the same about God, his beginning, etc... something way beyond our explanation that defies all we know and breaks every law we understand. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris simply can't rationalize their way out of it, they're just as clueless as the next guy and need to get off their high horse.
 
And the uk and Europe's governments are falling over themselves trying to bring these bugs into the countries.
Class stuff.
 
Ok, but then we come back to exactly what I said in the first place, that both explanations are equally likely and equally unlikely.
They are not equally likely. That is the point of the argument. Because the universe, as an uncreated entity, is evident. God, as an uncreated entity, is not evident.
 
They are not equally likely. That is the point of the argument. Because the universe, as an uncreated entity, is evident. God, as an uncreated entity, is not evident.
Except it's not evident that it's "uncreated" sherbro, and if it is show me this evidence.
 
Those poor people.. getting murdered by violent cavemen. Same as the middle east. Very sad.
 
at what sign will the Western world realized muslims are not compatible with their civilization?
 
Except it's not evident that it's "uncreated" sherbro, and if it is show me this evidence.
That's not the argument. You're not comprehending the argument. God (may) be uncreated. No evidence there is God. The universe (may) be uncreated. The universe exists. So the evidence an (possibly) uncreated universe exists is more likely than the possibility an uncreated God exists.

Per the notion the universe is uncreated, there is no reason to believe otherwise. Once again, this is the more likely assumption. Because we have no observable instances of matter springing from nothing; only potentially from states and forces like the singularity.
 
Why are threads on Islam or Buddhism never derailed by Satanists coming in rabbling on about their religion of 'atheism'?

Islam: The threads about Islam are already created solely for the purpose of disparaging the religion. Funnily enough, you make about 80% of them.

Buddhism: Buddhism doesn't posit the existence of a creator or that the Buddha is a God. In many ways, Buddhism and atheism aren't incompatible so there wouldn't be much of a point for an atheist to "rabble" in a thread about Buddhism.
 
Back
Top