There is no evidence for God

Not really black holes are supposed to be singularities within which all the laws of physics break down.But you wouldnt claim they are outside the universe.There is no reason to bring divinity into this and not a scap of evidence.Extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Where is your evidence?

That is false. Black holes obey the laws of physics.

http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/encyc_mod3_q2.html

Maybe it was wrong to bring divinity into this context without me producing any evidence. But there is a possibility that there is a first cause. Some force caused the expansion of a finite number of matter. Right?

Because you didn't ask anything specific. What do you want evidence for?

Sure: if p, then q. p, therefore q.

Notice how p and q are not objects in spacetime, but nevertheless there exists a causal relation between the premise and the conclusion. True premises cause true conclusions; if causality (and hence all logic) requires time, then logic is not timeless. But this is absurd. Therefore causality, like logic, is a metaphysical necessity not subject to any contingent laws of nature.

Your turn: explain an example of a brute fact (i.e. it cannot have an explanation) without special pleading.

Statement: "Logic works just because it does"

Your comment: Logic is a human construct so one could argue it makes sense because we make it make sense.

Sources have to be reliable and scientifically proven(preferably scientific journals). They must support your comment on the statement I provided.

I am very curious to find out how logic is only a human construct...

Just putting it out there while you research:

Is there a difference between perceived logic and actual logic?


If you are able to complete this challenge successfully, then I will gladly accept the definition of the term "atheism" as valid.

Even if there is some force there is no reason to call it God.It makes no sense to worship a force and thats not what the vast majority of people mean when they say God.And im pretty sure its not false
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

I didn't say "only a human construct". The more advanced forms of logic are exclusive only to humans, but many animals make basic logical conclusions based on what they around them.

Still the theory contradicts with the scientific principles(such as some of Newton's law of thermodynamics). Let me rephrase my previous post with the concept that it "was" the universe.

"The singularity was this universe. So scientific principles does contradict this generally well accepted theory. If you believe the scientific principles is not applicable to the Big Bang, you are indirectly claiming it to be outside a closed system. This means you are implying indirectly that the Big Bang is external to the Universe. Doesn't that contradict your current position?If God/or something else did not do that very task we would not be here. It doesn't matter how complex the task is. We owe it to that divine force. "

Ok, that part of the challenge can be omitted. However I need real scientific evidence for the rest of your claim.

I will gladly accept the definition of the term "atheism" as valid.

I don't follow the link between logic and the creation of the universe.

What do you mean by a brute fact?

Here's what the OED, the ultimate source, says:

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist

It essentially boils down to what we mean by causation, explanation, entailment, etc. As I said, there's no real consensus on the issue of causation requiring spatio-temporal conditions. It's a fascinating topic, and a pretty big subject, I'd highly recommend read the SEP article on this.

Brute facts are facts that require no explanation.

It seems as though the internet does not know for sure. Both you and me haven't provided reliable sources with references (my mistake as well) so we can't know who is really right So Black holes can't be used to argue for the violations of the laws of nature in the singularity of the Big Bang. Unless you can produce evidence in your favour.

It's all well and good learning about all this but I fail to see how it's relevant to my original point.

I can't think of an example of a brute fact off the top of my head.

The point was that you're using a very narrow definition of causality.

Right, so what makes you think the big bang is a brute fact that requires no causal explanation when cosmologists are proposing various models to explain the origin of the universe?

I personally have an extreme dislike for agnostics. They are lying to themselves. Why should the God delusion be any special? They aren't agnostic about the existence of a tea pot holding up the Earth are they? Or about dragons and fairies existing? So why God?

The point is we literally have no idea about the absolute 'origin' of the universe.

You can make various propositions about what could have 'happened' but since the nature of our entire knowledge is based on our existence in this universe under its rules it becomes extremely unsound to start making claims about things that aren't grounded within our universe.

Maybe the universe is a brute fact, the fact that I can't give an example of a brute fact in this universe is irrelevant because we're not talking about within this universe.

Considering we have no knowledge about absolute nothing we can't say anything empirically about it like we can with the absence of matter or energy in the universe.

So? Should we abandon cosmology? Should we stop forming hypotheses about the causal mechanism(s) of the Big Bang?



This is question begging. You made the claim that causality is necessarily a temporal phenomenon, I simply disputed that assertion by pointing out the lack of consensus on the issue within physics and philosophy. No one is saying the laws of physics within our spacetime manifold must apply outside thereof.



Of course it's relevant. Why must the need for explanations depend on whether or not they exist in our universe? If causality isn't a metaphysical principle, why do we assume unexplained phenomena must have explanations?



We can use the rationalist, a priori approach to discern some things about nothingness. We can say for example that absolute nothing has no potential to do anything.

Note: this need not have anything to do with God. I'm just disputing your broad claims,which not many philosophers and cosmologists would take seriously.

Accepting that we know nothing about the absence of a universe does not mean we should stop studying cosmology, it's merely stating our epistemological position.

Could you give an example of non temporal cause and effect or what that would entail with relation to physics? I fail to see how your previous example of something notional like logic could by itself 'Create' the universe.

I never said the need for explanations *must* depend on whether they exist within the universe. In terms of offering explanations in the absence of a universe though what do you have to use? You can't just assume all the physical laws of this universe apply, you have no time, absolutely nothing so what are you left with to explain anything?

How can you make the claim that absolute nothing has no potential to do anything?