Atheists and theists are the same.

[The_Doc_Man]

But if we accept Big Bang then that adds a "beginning" to the equation.

Non sequitur.

Saying that the laws of nature were what they were before the Big Bang is legal. See, for example, Membrane theory (M-theory or 'brane theory), which postulates that the Big Bang was really just "the Big Bump" - a collision between two parallel universes. In M-theory, the laws of the universe were there before the bump. The bump just disrupted our ability to see before that event.

Even if you don't buy M-theory, there is this other idea: The BB was merely the disruption of a supergiant, unstable black hole. (This is the "cyclic universe" theory.) If you decide that the subject black hole was formed by the universe at the end of a "collapse" cycle, you again can postulate that the laws of nature were there before the BB. Prof. Stephen Hawking has described three types of black hole, and the unstable kind could well have formed the basis of the BB.

Mike, in the final analysis, this will always be a matter of proof vs. faith. I'm on the side that needs proof. I'm not really worried about an afterlife that I don't believe in, based on the scanty (read: non-existant) evidence on that subject. I do not wish to dispute anyone else's right to believe as they wish, though when I hear/see an argument that is logically unsound, I reserve the right to point out that shaky foundation.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, in the final analysis, this will always be a matter of proof vs. faith. I'm on the side that needs proof. I'm not really worried about an afterlife that I don't believe in, based on the scanty (read: non-existant) evidence on that subject. I do not wish to dispute anyone else's right to believe as they wish, though when I hear/see an argument that is logically unsound, I reserve the right to point out that shaky foundation.

Neither am I. If a supreme being or beings are about the place or were at one time that does not mean there is an afterlife or for that matter any of the other aspects of religion. In fact it is unlikely in the extreme that any being or beings that could create even something small like the solar system would want any personal relationship with us.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

In fact it is unlikely in the extreme that any being or beings that could create even something small like the solar system would want any personal relationship with us.

Strongly agree.

 

[Pauldohert]

Strongly agree.

Thats a really odd answer. Why would you agree that a possible God would be unlikely to want a personal relationship.

Even those who beleive in God - struggle with motives - "God moves in mysterious ways".

But an atheist is fairly convinced a possible God would no want a personnel relationship , why beleive that?

It would seem simply because even though the idea is based upon nothing much, its would contradict the usual theist idea of a God, so the ends justify the dodgy means.

 

[chergh]

We have absolutley no idea of how an alien, godlike or not, would think etc. therefore any speculation about what they would or would not want is pointless.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Paul:

But an atheist is fairly convinced a possible God would no want a personnel relationship , why beleive that?

The Christian God, at least, is often described as all-powerful, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Why create anything at all, much less a whole universe? Mental masturbation? If you know you can do it, why bother? What need would you have to cause such a thing to be done? And does a need not imply something less than perfection?

The most common reasons given for God to have made us all demonstrate a narcissistic being - which I consider is unlikely to represent perfection. We are beneath the notice of a being powerful enough to create a universe - or an illusion of a universe - that we see as reality. We are nothing to such a powerful creature. So why bother with us at all? What imperfection does God have that makes us worth his time and trouble?

Paul, that quote "God works in mysterious ways" rankles me every time I hear it. It really means "I haven't got a clue but cannot admit that fact." It sits right next to the quotes such as "God has a plan but we are not allowed to know it." and "We cannot know the mind of God." If you don't know why something is done and have to resort to magic to explain it, why bother at all? Why can't you just say "I don't know why X, Y or Z" ???

 

[Rabbie]

But an atheist is fairly convinced a possible God would no want a personnel relationship , why beleive that?

Surely an atheist does not believe in a possible god. Aren't you talking about agnostics ???

 

[Pauldohert]

Surely an atheist does not believe in a possible god. Aren't you talking about agnostics ???

I'm talking about Docman - I thought he was an atheist maybe hes agnostic.

You can imagine something you dont believe in, if only in order to get a contradication, to disprove its existence.

 

[Pauldohert]

Paul:

Paul, that quote "God works in mysterious ways" rankles me every time I hear it. It really means "I haven't got a clue but cannot admit that fact." It sits right next to the quotes such as "God has a plan but we are not allowed to know it." and "We cannot know the mind of God." If you don't know why something is done and have to resort to magic to explain it, why bother at all? Why can't you just say "I don't know why X, Y or Z" ???

If the question is to the motives of God - God for a believer would have to appear in the answer. Yes of course it means we dont know why God does , some/many things.

You understand it perfectly to mean - we/they dont know the answer. So do I.

So I'm not sure where the critisicm of hiding the meaning of whats said comes from. Probably just your negative view of religion.

Seems a theist is to be attacked whether certain - or not at all certain as in the above cases.

Why attack a theist for being uncertain or not knowing? Thats the least they should according to an "evidence" based non beleiver isn't it?

Probably beacuse the facts of most theists uncertainty - inhibits the usual tired duckshoot attack on the incorrect stereotype of a theist being certain.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Paul, on a much different forum than this one, the thesists I tangle with are always beyond certain into smugly certain. I guess I built my mindset from those skirmishes.

I am a former Christian who finally had enough of the contradictions. The more questions I asked, the more certain I was that nothing made sense unless the whole "God" thing was a complete and total fabrication. Maybe knowing where I'm coming from will help you understand some of my responses.

 

[Vassago]

Paul, on a much different forum than this one, the thesists I tangle with are always beyond certain into smugly certain. I guess I built my mindset from those skirmishes.

I am a former Christian who finally had enough of the contradictions. The more questions I asked, the more certain I was that nothing made sense unless the whole "God" thing was a complete and total fabrication. Maybe knowing where I'm coming from will help you understand some of my responses.

Highly intelligent response. I applaud you.

I had the same issue. When I was growing up, I asked a lot of questions in church about God, the contradictions, the pick and choose philosophy in the Bible of what should or should not be followed anymore. I would make the teachers very frustrated with my questions because they couldn't really give me an answer. Of course everything invariably came down to, "You have to have faith," which always sounded like a cop-out to me. I finally came to a similar conclusion. There either is no higher power or one that we cannot possibly understand. If there is some kind of higher power, no matter what form they are in, humans do not have the capacity to really understand what that higher power's intentions are. The Bible and any other religious teachings are still man-made, and by any religions teachings, humans are imperfect. Isn't it possible that any humans who wrote these religious teachings got it wrong? Maybe they misinterpreted what God said to them when he/she/it spoke to them? After all, they are only human...

The pastors and priests I spoke with really hated my questions... I'm not sure if it's because they struggled with their own beliefs or they were upset that they just couldn't answer them.

 

[Pauldohert]

Paul, on a much different forum than this one, the thesists I tangle with are always beyond certain into smugly certain. I guess I built my mindset from those skirmishes.

I am a former Christian who finally had enough of the contradictions. The more questions I asked, the more certain I was that nothing made sense unless the whole "God" thing was a complete and total fabrication. Maybe knowing where I'm coming from will help you understand some of my responses.

Fair enough - but the vast majority I have met , I would not put in the category of smugly certain.

Why choose to address things as if talking to the smugly certain - and not the enquiring open minded - like you yourself were once.

Hey ho - noone knows the answers.

 

[Pauldohert]

Paul, on a much different forum than this one, the thesists I tangle with are always beyond certain into smugly certain. I guess I built my mindset from those skirmishes.

I am a former Christian who finally had enough of the contradictions. The more questions I asked, the more certain I was that nothing made sense unless the whole "God" thing was a complete and total fabrication. Maybe knowing where I'm coming from will help you understand some of my responses.

Fair enough - but the vast majority I have met , I would not put in the category of smugly certain.

Why choose to address things as if talking to the smugly certain - and not the enquiring open minded theist - like you yourself were once.

Hey ho - noone knows the answers, to life the universe and everything - or is it 42.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Hey ho - noone knows the answers.

That really doesn't make sense. A lot of the disdain the nonreligious have for the religious is due to religious people thinking they have the answers. There is a supreme being that inspired a book of the ten commandments. You must jump through hoops A, B, and C to get to the afterlife. Etc.

Are you agreeing that religion may be wrong?

I think the moment religious people move from the "these are absolute truths here in this book" camp into the "this is what I believe, but I think everyone has a right to believe what they want" camp, they become a lot easier to get along with.

 

[Pauldohert]

That really doesn't make sense. A lot of the disdain the nonreligious have for the religious is due to religious people thinking they have the answers. There is a supreme being that inspired a book of the ten commandments. You must jump through hoops A, B, and C to get to the afterlife. Etc.

Are you agreeing that religion may be wrong?

I think the moment religious people move from the "these are absolute truths here in this book" camp into the "this is what I believe, but I think everyone has a right to believe what they want" camp, they become a lot easier to get along with.

Of course it may be wrong? Your hanging round with the wrong religiuos people.

Almost without exception, I would say the religiuos folk I have met are willing to accept they may be wrong.

I dont know where atheists get the idea that most dont admit they may be wrong. The number of ex theists who are now atheists or agnostic - suggest many theists are extremely open minded.

 

[dan-cat]

Mike375



I return you to the typical theist answer: Has always been that way. If theists can demand that God has always been here, I demand equal consideration that the natural laws have always been here.

Sounds like theism without the anthropomorphism.

 

[Pauldohert]

Sounds like theism without the anthropomorphism.

You'll have to explain that for me? Its ok - I looked it up.

Reminds me of a quote of some religious "leader" about ten years ago - when asked what God looked like - decided upon Jesus shaped.

Except in this case - its an alternative to God and presumably wasn't Jesus shaped.

 

[dan-cat]

Except in this case - its an alternative to God and presumably wasn't Jesus shaped.

Star Trek used to do the same thing when the make-up department ran out of ideas.

 

[Pauldohert]

Star Trek used to do the same thing when the make-up department ran out of ideas.

So rather than God and the familiar anthropomorphism of Jesus. An atheist believes in a force of life, but not as we know it?

 

[dan-cat]

So rather than God and the familiar anthropomorphism of Jesus. An atheist believes in a force of life, but not as we know it?

That conclusion would seem quite logical.