There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    I will gladly accept the definition of the term "atheism" as valid.
    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/de...nglish/atheist
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    I don't follow the link between logic and the creation of the universe.

    What do you mean by a brute fact?
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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/de...nglish/atheist
    The canonical version gives this definition.

    The vast majority of the dictionaries use the "positive atheism" definition, defended by SEP and IEP. Here are a few examples: Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary, Vocabulary.com, MacMillan Dictionary...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    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'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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saran23)
    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.
    A black hole is what happens when a high mass star collapses under gravity.It obeys the laws of physics up to a point.But it then becomes infinitely dense and its within the singularity that physics breaks down.I think thats the accepted theory.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    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?
    So, you have a very strong dislike for anyone that believes that there even might be a God. What a lovely, tolerant, accepting person you are :rofl:

    Your example is absolutely ridiculous. If there was at least a shred of evidence for dragons, fairies or "a tea pot holding up the Earth" then your analogy might have some base, but there clearly isn't any. Whereas, the existence of a God is backed by just as much evidence as there is for Big Bang. Both have substantial amounts of evidence supporting each side's beliefs, neither are conclusive and each side thinks the other is a moron.

    I think it takes a level-headed and open-minded person to recognise the fact that neither view can be completely refuted and picking a side is merely choosing the view that you believe to be true, and instead say "Okay, I've looked at the evidence, both sides make a good point, but until I see concrete proof I can't say either of them is correct. Hence, agnosticism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    The point is we literally have no idea about the absolute 'origin' of the universe.
    So? Should we abandon cosmology? Should we stop forming hypotheses about the causal mechanism(s) of the Big Bang?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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?

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    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.
    Not really. You said: "...cause and effect does not apply when the universe does not exist and you cannot use it to make claims about the 'origin' of the universe". If true, this would make cosmology obsolete. But this is absurd. You've erroneously conflated causality with the inductive generalisations known as the laws of physics.

    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.
    The purpose of the previous example was to show that causality isn't limited to the physical realm or tangible objects. If the "creation" of the universe is a result of a logical entailment of some sort, then that would atemporal causation. I don't have to give an example of atemporal cause/effect within a temporal world, but I'm guessing the main contention you have is the lack of "temporal lag" between a cause and its effect; this can be resolved by looking at simultaneous causation. Again, there are differing thoughts on that too. See the philpapers link for contemporary literature on the subject.

    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?
    But no one is assuming that. You're conflating the principle of causality/reason/explanation with the known laws of physics again.

    How can you make the claim that absolute nothing has no potential to do anything?
    Nothingness by definition cannot be something; it can have no properties, no attributes, no potential, no anything. Disputing this is about as rational as disputing the claim "Oil is oily". When physicists talk about the possibility of universes "coming from nothing", they redefine nothing to mean some sort of a quantum vacuum that has potential - it is very much "something". Even so, not all physicists agree with the central proposal:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6091
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    x

    I saw you quoted me earlier and briefly read your post but I've come back reply and it's gone? You made a point about my opinion being backed up by psychology modules to do with conformity/hierarchy I think?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The canonical version gives this definition.
    Your OED link gives:

    Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Your OED link gives:

    Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
    Yes, while the QED's "lack of belief" definition has been an idiosyncrasy, that particular definition is consistent with the "positive atheism" definition used by pretty much every other dictionary.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LDS16)
    I saw you quoted me earlier and briefly read your post but I've come back reply and it's gone? You made a point about my opinion being backed up by psychology modules to do with conformity/hierarchy I think?
    That must have been someone else
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Not really. You said: "...cause and effect does not apply when the universe does not exist and you cannot use it to make claims about the 'origin' of the universe". If true, this would make cosmology obsolete. But this is absurd. You've erroneously conflated causality with the inductive generalisations known as the laws of physics.



    The purpose of the previous example was to show that causality isn't limited to the physical realm or tangible objects. If the "creation" of the universe is a result of a logical entailment of some sort, then that would atemporal causation. I don't have to give an example of atemporal cause/effect within a temporal world, but I'm guessing the main contention you have is the lack of "temporal lag" between a cause and its effect; this can be resolved by looking at simultaneous causation. Again, there are differing thoughts on that too. See the philpapers link for contemporary literature on the subject.



    But no one is assuming that. You're conflating the principle of causality/reason/explanation with the known laws of physics again.



    Nothingness by definition cannot be something; it can have no properties, no attributes, no potential, no anything. Disputing this is about as rational as disputing the claim "Oil is oily". When physicists talk about the possibility of universes "coming from nothing", they redefine nothing to mean some sort of a quantum vacuum that has potential - it is very much "something". Even so, not all physicists agree with the central proposal:
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6091
    Why would it make cosmology obsolete? If causality is generally agreed to be temporally bound then in the absence of time it starts to stop making sense.

    When the only example of atemporal causation you can give that would do something like 'create' a universe is the 'creation' of the universe itself then isn't that just special pleading?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)
    This is what causality I am referring to, note that it ceases to function in the absence of time.

    Why do you say that nothing has by definition no potential? Why do you choose that definition?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    The point is that no one believes in ancient gods anymore.Give it a few thousand years probably less and nobody will believe in the judeo christian god.He'll just be one more dead god on the scrapheap who was once thought immortal.
    But that can't happen though. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is not limited by time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidoriakhi)
    But that can't happen though. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He is not limited by time.
    What you mean to say is that preists and clergy have agreed he is the alpha and the omega, the beggining and the end.That doesnt mean he is.More likely he is just one of many gods mankind has dreamed up over the years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D3LLI5)
    for the sake of showing why your analogy is inaccurate,

    Why *must* someone have put the cake there?
    Because its not going to "magically" appear now is it?
    Something cant come from nothing, as the "all-knowing" scientists will say...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    What you mean to say is that preists and clergy have agreed he is the alpha and the omega, the beggining and the end.That doesnt mean he is.More likely he is just one of many gods mankind has dreamed up over the years.
    I suggest you learn how to spell before bringing up any point, so everyone can understand you and what you're trying to say (which still does not make sense).
    The same thing can go for the big-bang theory. Were the scientists there when two random particles from a singularity collided? Were YOU there? Just because they said it dosen't mean its real. And even the evidence they bring forth has a vast number of uncertainties.
    And there are many loopholes in that theory, just trying to make you guys feel like you know what happened whereas you know nothing.
    God is the answer, you don't need to agree with him it's your choice. Just don't come up with random stuff and listen to scientists who are not sure themselves.
    God bless.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.