Arguments, that convince you, strong atheism is true. If you are not a strong atheist, but a weak one, don't argue with this question. its not for you. Its for the ones, that positively assert, most probably God does not exist. Please don't base it on a negative ( the bible is worthless etc....), but positive arguments, which do make strong atheism stand on its own right.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
the hipotheses that everything came from nothing would be the most extraordinary claim of all.
It isn't that everything came from nothing, it is that definition emerged from a lack of definition. And that is not semantics, that is a fact. And this is just repeating what has already been demonstrated repeatedly.
You want a universe that came from nothing Michael/Angelo? Here you go, not that you'll view it --
Thanks for that link. Krauss and Hawking are probably two of a very small list of scientists who are doing atheism a lot of good. I am grateful to them for their quiet, sobered and methodical approach to what amounts to mass deconversion. And Hawking is effective because his reputation is well established with the generla public; a critical factor almost all other scientists completely lack.
I don't know how many times i have seen atheists post this video as it would constitute compelling, rational evidence that the universe came from nothing.
Just ridioulous....its sad that intelligent people do believe that such a pathetic explanation should be held reasonable and compelling. That isnst much more than science fiction. Dr.Spock included......
By your own quotation, "A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause," - "whatever begins to exist has a cause" - ergo, if your god exists, by your own (borrowed), "words," he/she/it must have a cause, which brings us back to the original question, who created god?
Deflect away, M/A!
(BTW, I couldn't help noticing, in your two original paragraphs above, how much your vocabulary and sentence structure has improved - how many of you little Fundies are there, hovering around the laptop, taking turns at playing Michael/Angelo?)
which brings us back to the original question, who created god?
nobody. God exists without beginning, and without end.
God exists without beginning, and without end.
Which logically proves that "he" cannot and does not exist at all. Bravo sir, you have answered your original question yet again.
To borrow a phrase from you and your ilk:
And you know this how? Were you there?
....its sad that intelligent people do believe that such a pathetic explanation should be held reasonable and compelling
And it is equally sad that some adherents are so thoroughly mind controlled that they cannot acknowledge that every word out of their mouths is utterly meaningless because their terminology is undefined.
And most of them have more than enough intellect to understand why a statement based on undefined terms is itself meaningless. I'm asking you again to please define the terms I've proven in this thread to be undefined so that we can advance the covnersation.
There is absolutely no reason, other than emotionally driven imaginative conjecture, for the existence, outside of the human brains imagination, of an entity that does not begin to exist, especially an entity with a personality and super but brainless intelligence. In other words, it is necessary to use the logical fallacy of Special Pleading to make your argument.
The argument is not based on any empirical or otherwise valid evidence that things that never begin to exist CAN and DO, in fact, exist. It requires wishful thinking to imagine that they do. Whatever the cause of this particular universe there is no GOOD reason to suppose that its laws were broken by the a unique, but empirically unprovable exception that has always existed outside of time and space but is, never the less, capable of interacting with whatever is in time and space while remaining invisible during any period when scientific methods of truth discovery are used.
Thanks, it is very useful for me. This kind of argumentation has been used in counter apologetics quite informally as its impact is pretty strong on adherents. Basically, as you read what are clearly fictitious, wacky narratives of other god's it soon becomes apparent to them that when you get to *their* sacred text you're pretty much reading the same thing. And of course, the narratives you select are quite similar. For example, I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh to adherents to describe a flood story. It is patently ridiculous to any modern reader. Then I read the Noah narrative. There are dozens of narratives I will read; one of my favorite being the Mithraic narrative duplications between Semele and Mary.
The follow-up question for each narrative is then to ask how you, the poor atheist the adherent is hoping to convert, can know which of these gods is the one, true, sacred god ... their god. And there's no way to tell, of course. You see all kinds of light bulbs going off at that point.
The formal argumentation comes up a lot here on TA and amongst atheists (because it is, after all, interesting) but is generally ineffective with adherents. The approach used in deconversion is completely different. It's all Socratic question afer question. There's more about this at my blog as well; kirkomrik.wordpress.com.
My wife teaches Gilgamesh to her high school literature students. She says you can just see the light bulbs going off for the students as they realize, "Oh, that's the same story as Noah's Ark!"