Attention Atheists: How Was The Earth Created?

[Mad Scientist]

Prove that the universe exists at all!

That's not the main question of this thread. If you want, ask that question in your own thread.

Fail.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Prove that the universe exists at all!

That's not the main question of this thread. If you want, ask that question in your own thread.

Fail.

It's a PEFECTELY reasonable question for this thread.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So once again PROVE that the universe exsits.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I guess you can't.

 

[gcomeau]

What I am interested in is seeing some indication that you understand and acknowledge the difference between asking for evidentially supported conclusions, and insisting on absolute proof that can never possibly exist. If you are interested in the former then that is something we can certainly delve into greater detail on. If you only want the latter however you are going to be waiting an eternity. It doesn't exist, it never will, and science has never laid claim to it.

This is just a slight twist on what was written earlier.

I believe God created the Universe yet I have no absolute proof. Guess what? Neither do you!

That is an incredibly meanngless statement.

Allow me to provide a list of other things for which I lack "absolute proof":

1. That pluto orbits the sun.
2. That I was born on the day my birth certificate lists.
3. That you exist at all.
4. That space fairies aren't responsible for the moon's orbital trajectory.

And, well... the list is effectively endless but let's just deal with those four for now.

I Lack absolute proof of the first item.

I lack absolute proof of the last item.

Does that make both propositions equally valid or equally plausible?

The atheists here still haven't given me any evidence that God didn't create the Universe.

Because you are making an impossible request. Something you might eventually figure out if you give a little more thought to the nature of evidence and of scientific inquiry. "God created the universe" is something we call an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Mad Scientist]

So once again PROVE that the universe exsits.

I guess you can't.

"I guess you can't! I guess you can't!" Who are you, Judge Smails? You think I live on this board? Start a thread of your own if you want that discussion.

That is an incredibly meanngless statement.
Allow me to provide a list of other things for which I lack "absolute proof":
1. That pluto orbits the sun.
2. That I was born on the day my birth certificate lists.
3. That you exist at all.
4. That space fairies aren't responsible for the moon's orbital trajectory.
And, well... the list is effectively endless but let's just deal with those four for now.
I Lack absolute proof of the first item.
I lack absolute proof of the last item.
Does that make both propositions equally valid or equally plausible?

The atheists here still haven't given me any evidence that God didn't create the Universe.

Because you are making an impossible request. Something you might eventually figure out if you give a little more thought to the nature of evidence and of scientific inquiry. "God created the universe" is something we call an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Glad you could finally admit that you could never prove who or what or how the universe was created.
All you non-religious types could do is try to change the question.

I suspect some people understood the intent of this thread: That both Science and Religion are really similar in that they both can't be positively proven though they may have just been lurkers. Kitten Koder hit the nail on the head and said it all a lot better than I ever could. And for that I thank her. Read her posts in this thread and you may actually learn something.

I consider this topic to be closed. I will not answer anymore posts. But please feel free to continue the discussion, anyone, if you'd like but I think this thread has run it's course.

Thank you all for participating, it's been very interesting.

 

[gcomeau]

Glad you could finally admit that you could never prove who or what or how the universe was created.

Wow. You are just hell bent on refusing to listen to what is being explained to you aren't you?

I just finished expending a not insignificant amount of time explaining to you why demanding people absolutely prove something like this is an exercise in futility, and your only response is "AHA! You can't prove it! I win!

What are you, 10?

 

[edthecynic]

So once again PROVE that the universe exsits.

I guess you can't.

"I guess you can't! I guess you can't!" Who are you, Judge Smails? You think I live on this board? Start a thread of your own if you want that discussion.

That is an incredibly meanngless statement.
Allow me to provide a list of other things for which I lack "absolute proof":
1. That pluto orbits the sun.
2. That I was born on the day my birth certificate lists.
3. That you exist at all.
4. That space fairies aren't responsible for the moon's orbital trajectory.
And, well... the list is effectively endless but let's just deal with those four for now.
I Lack absolute proof of the first item.
I lack absolute proof of the last item.
Does that make both propositions equally valid or equally plausible?

The atheists here still haven't given me any evidence that God didn't create the Universe.

Because you are making an impossible request. Something you might eventually figure out if you give a little more thought to the nature of evidence and of scientific inquiry. "God created the universe" is something we call an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Glad you could finally admit that you could never prove who or what or how the universe was created.
All you non-religious types could do is try to change the question.

I suspect some people understood the intent of this thread: That both Science and Religion are really similar in that they both can't be positively proven though they may have just been lurkers. Kitten Koder hit the nail on the head and said it all a lot better than I ever could. And for that I thank her. Read her posts in this thread and you may actually learn something.

I consider this topic to be closed. I will not answer anymore posts. But please feel free to continue the discussion, anyone, if you'd like but I think this thread has run it's course.

Thank you all for participating, it's been very interesting.

I will take your avoiding the fact that creation from nothing by a God who is no thing violates the FLoT and your cutting and running as an admission that creation by a God has been successfully falsified.
Thank you.

 

[John Lemmon]

So tell me Mad, what does atheism/agnosticism and knowing how the earth or universe was formed have to do with one another? So if an atheist says: I don't know, what does that mean for you?

Your thread question was about earth, but you keep referring to the universe, gravity... could you stick to the topic please?

 

[amrchaos]

Mad Scientist... perhaps you missed this again, let me try this one more time. That link there? It's to some questions I asked you earlier. Would you care to respond to them or are you uninterested in seriously discussing this issue?

Sorry I missed your question but I wasn't trying to evade you either. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
From your link:

Science doesn't prove things, it reaches provisional conclusions based on the preponderance of available evidence.

Faith does the very same thing.

I can make my own conclusions based on what I see and understand correct? The religion haters of this world act as if we've never heard of science. Well guess what? We grew up in the same society as you did but we came to different conclusions as you. We took the same courses in Biology, Astronomy, Math, History, Language as you did. Is it so hard for you to comprehend that different people would come to different conclusions after "preponderance of the same evidence?

Why is that so hard to understand?

Do all Police Detectives reach the same conclusions based on "preponderance of the evidence"? No! Training, Maturity, Experience, any number of variables could come into play in the decisions they reach.
It's the same for all people. Yes, groups of people may come to the exact same conclusions but that doesn't make them correct does it?

Atheists have come to the conclusion after "preponderance of the evidence" that God doesn't exist. But those same Atheists don't seem to understand that other people can come to different conclusions based on the preponderance of that very same evidence!

What massive arrogance a person must have to believe that their viewpoint is the one and only truth!

First, faith does not need evidence. To use the arguement that you laid down, why do we not honestly question the validity of the Holy Bible? To be honest, religion is one of the three subjects that are hard to discuss devoid of emotions. Either you elieve, or you are cursed by Satan.

2nd--the preponderance of evidence that "believers" uses is heavily influenced by the Holy Bible, again the same book whose validity has to be proven first.

and finally--how was the Earth created? To be honest, I do not know. But at least I can be honest about my ignorance. A dishonest man will claim to have all the answers. Like confidence men, politician, theologian--understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

To be an atheist requires more faith than to believe in a deity.

Epistemology clearly supports the latter over the former.

 

[John Lemmon]

To be an atheist requires more faith than to believe in a deity.

Epistemology clearly supports the latter of the former.

Dude, that makes no sense. There is no knowledge or proof of a deity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course there is evidence. There is thousands and thousands of years of hundreds of millions of personal and social experiences among a thousand denominations. Is it objective, verifiable proof scientifically. Of course not. That is why it is called faith, but it cannot be dismissed. Whereas, atheism is easily dismissed. No one has ever looked in every nth place in the universe in the same nth portion of a second. Epistemology clearly supports my reasoning.

 

[amrchaos]

Of course there is evidence. There is thousands and thousands of years of hundreds of millions of personal and social experiences among a thousand denominations. Is it objective, verifiable proof scientifically. Of course not. That is why it is called faith, but it cannot be dismissed. Whereas, atheism is easily dismissed. No one has ever looked in every nth place in the universe in the same nth portion of a second. Epistemology clearly supports my reasoning.

True, no one has ever looked in every nth place in the universe in the same nth portion of a second and found a Diety either. But this did not keep people from making God or Gods up!!

Careful--some faiths claim that you can only use up to 6 thousand years.......

 

[John Lemmon]

Ringo, so if everyone else says: "I've found god" and jumps off a cliff, you would too?

 

[Diuretic]

Given that all humans possess the same sort of brain, is anyone really surprised when millions and millions of us all think the same way? I don't mean "think in the same way" as referring to having an opinion about something, I mean, how our mind functions, "mind" being handy shorthand for the subjective effects of brain function.

Compared to other mammals we're more intelligent. We're also capable of physically manipulating objects so that we're able to operate on our environment rather than put up with what our environment does to us (ie adaptation). Part of that intelligence allows us to think abstractly. Thinking abstractly (because we can) means that we can speculate. The ability to speculate means that we can wonder. We can wonder about ourselves, we can wonder about the Earth, we can wonder about the universe. That means we can wonder how it all came to be.

Wondering leads to the search for explanations. Humans, since we developed, have sought and found explanations for many of things that we wonder about. We are able to imagine a supreme being, a creator, because our brains are developed enough for us to do so. That's not a circular argument although it looks like it. What I'm suggesting is that our cerebral cortex, the human brain, allows all of us to speculate about the creation of the universe. Since we all share the same form of brain we're inclined to the same sort of brain function, mindset as it were. But we're also limited by what our brain allows us to do in terms of thinking. We've invented concepts such as logic to help us make sense of our surroundings and relations with one another – we can communicate in abstracts, which is possibly unique to humans – but these mental tools are limiting. As humans we understand the universal law of cause and effect. It's a shared ability we have due to our brain physiology. Thus we see an effect and we naturally assume cause. We see our universe around us and we naturally assume cause. So we come up with theories about the cause of the universe. The idea of a supreme being who created the universe we know is logical for humans, it's in keeping with our understanding of cause and effect. But we're stumped when we are asked to continue this line of reasoning to that First Cause.

It's then we lose it. We invent an out for the First Cause. The First Cause is eternal, ever was, ever will be. Handy isn't it?

It's at this point that, for me at least, faith loses its potency and becomes more like hope. Believers continue to have faith though. Logic, a useful but limited human tool, fails at this point and we grasp for metaphysical arguments, which actually prove nothing but do show the limitations of pure reasoning. We can demonstrate to each other, because we share the same form of brain, that metaphysical arguments can “prove” the existence of a creator. I think we actually react intuitively and not logically to those ontological arguments.

Atheists and agnostics are people who intuitively react against those ontological arguments. Atheists and agnostics either don't have or lack sufficient faith in the truth of those ontological arguments.

 

[edthecynic]

Of course there is evidence. There is thousands and thousands of years of hundreds of millions of personal and social experiences among a thousand denominations. Is it objective, verifiable proof scientifically. Of course not. That is why it is called faith, but it cannot be dismissed. Whereas, atheism is easily dismissed. No one has ever looked in every nth place in the universe in the same nth portion of a second. Epistemology clearly supports my reasoning.

Of course, that same "logic" easily dismisses monotheism also!!!

 

[JBeukema]

You are so bitter, someday you will see that not all delusion is wrong.
.

Yes, it is, you stupid bitch.

If it were correct, it wouldn't be delusion, it's be insight.

 

[JBeukema]

Are you just pretending to be dense?
The stars are formed by gravity from gases that coalesce into stars.
Planets are formed from gravity as well, but bringing rocks and stuff together.

How do those gasses "know" how to coalesce into stars?

Are you always this disingenuous? I answered your question a week ago.

 

[JBeukema]

What's the difference between Scientific Theory and Religious Theory? Seems to me that both can't be proven.

Are you always this stupid?