Nothing made everything....

[gfm7175]

No, they aren't. If Atheism is a religion, than barefoot is a shoe. If Atheism is a religion, than bald is a hair color.

The initial circular argument of Atheism is that no god(s) exist. Other arguments of Atheism stem from this initial circular argument. Therefore, Atheism is a religion. Atheism can't be (dis)proven, since religion does not make use of proofs. It is an open functional system.

You're being ignorant of philosophy...

...deleted 'mockery' mantra and 'you don't understand' mantra...

BTW, where can one go to a church of the Big Bang Theory?:roll:

Physical church buildings aren't requirements of religion... I have given you the definition of the term...

 

[beefheart]

The initial circular argument of Atheism is that no god(s) exist. Other arguments of Atheism stem from this initial circular argument. Therefore, Atheism is a religion. Atheism can't be (dis)proven, since religion does not make use of proofs. It is an open functional system.

You're being ignorant of philosophy...




Physical church buildings aren't requirements of religion... I have given you the definition of the term...

No, it is about not believing in a god...or any god. Not a religion, its sad that you have to try to do this instead of using logic and reason.

 

[Logician Man]

The initial circular argument of Atheism is that no god(s) exist. Other arguments of Atheism stem from this initial circular argument. Therefore, Atheism is a religion. Atheism can't be (dis)proven, since religion does not make use of proofs. It is an open functional system.

You're being ignorant of philosophy...




Physical church buildings aren't requirements of religion... I have given you the definition of the term...

//// the initial circular argument of Atheism is that no god(s) exist.////// <----- this is not true.Atheism makes no such claim whatsoever.Atheism is a rejection of all god claims due to lack of evidence any god(s) have ever been proven to exist...Nothing more,nothing less. Atheists DO NOT claim that no god(s) do not exist.

 

[beefheart]

The initial circular argument of Atheism is that no god(s) exist. Other arguments of Atheism stem from this initial circular argument. Therefore, Atheism is a religion. Atheism can't be (dis)proven, since religion does not make use of proofs. It is an open functional system.

You're being ignorant of philosophy...




Physical church buildings aren't requirements of religion... I have given you the definition of the term...

By the way, you misrepresented my quote and put your own words in it.

Big no no.

 

[soylentgreen]

Bigotry noted.

.

More a case of accurate description.

Repetitious bigotry noted. The reasoning Davey is using, as well as myself, is the philosophical definition of 'religion', which is "an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it". We both believe (faith based) that the initial circular argument (that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is) is the truth. It is no different than you believing (faith based) that the atheistic initial circular argument (that no god(s) exist) is the truth. -- Both positions (initial circular arguments) are logically valid through the proof of identity. -- In short, whether you accept or deny a particular religion in favor of another one, your reasoning is the same... It boils down to putting faith in the truth of a particular initial circular argument...

Another laughable attempt to reduce atheism to a superstition like yours.
I am not in the habit of using faith to point out a lack of evidence or good reasoning to support what is, when that is taken into account, nothing more than a fiction. You require faith to keep believing in a fiction. Where as all i require is to point out the obvious lack of credibility on your faith. That does not require faith on my part, just an awareness of your lacking anything other than faith.

As to this part, it wasn't even a scientific discussion that you two were having; it was a religious discussion... Science doesn't have theories about past unobserved events. Talking about "the beginning of the universe" type stuff is talking about non-falsifiable theories (in other words, theories outside the realm of science). Davey happens to adhere to one religion, and you happen to adhere to another...

You're not paying attention to the actual conversation between me and Davey. He made a couple of points about science that were incorrect. Nothing to do with his religion or faith but instead very much to do with his lack of understanding about science.
You on the other hand are just ignoring what was actually said and merely mouthing religious dogma as if it is relevant, which it is not.

It is equally logically valid to a "god didn't do it" scenario for the reasons I described above...

No, once again you fail to follow the conversation being had between me and davey and instead babble on about dogma that has no part in this.
I did not state anything about the creation of the universe apart from pointing out that davey had his interpretation of science wrong. Nor are you superstitious beliefs lacking any credibility in any way comparable to observations made by scientists. They are observing the universe and making hypothesis that fit descriptions. Your religion is merely a fairy tale of no more worth than any other cultures fairy tales of how the universe formed.

Mantras are typically deleted on sight as they are not substantive reasoning.

.

Then really you should of deleted everything you have said because it had nothing to do with what davey and i discussed and more to do with you giving mindless dogma.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Religious people also deny god(s)... This is common with people who adhere to numerous religions, such as Atheism, The Big Bang Theory, The Theory of Abiogenesis, etc...

I guess that you guys have gone full into the if I lie enough it will become accepted as truth instead of a lie thing. As much as your bias wants the lie to be true; "Atheism, The Big Bang Theory, The Theory of Abiogenesis, etc.." are not religions. This is is one of those cases where the truth over logical valid structure, matters. But honestly never really mattered for the religious right.

 

[zyzygy]

You seem to resort to posting satirical videos when you don't have a response for the well-reasoned arguments people make here.

I guess you can do whatever you want, but you don't seem real keen on having actual discussions.

You got that right.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, you can have either or, or both. But if the universe always existed, a creator god is not required.

According to science everything has a beginning and an end. Therefore the universe cannot have always existed.

 

[ashurbanipal]

To rephrase devildavid's question: what if the universe has always existed?

If it has, then we would not be here. The problem is analogous to trying to get to a meeting scheduled at a temporal distance of an infinite number of days (or whatever interval you want in the future) and then asking when you'll be able to get there. The temporal distance from here to an infinite time in the future is, obviously, infinite--we'd never get to the meeting, or to any definite event similarly scheduled. The same reasoning applies to a past point that is infinitely temporally distant--from then, we'd never get here, to this definite moment. But we are here, at this definite moment. Ergo, time had to have had a definite beginning.

A simpler way of saying the same thing is that past time is finished. By definition, an infinite amount of time can never be finished--we can never finally say "done!". Ergo, past time is not infinite.

 

[Cisero]

:mrgreen::giggle1:

So... who/what made God ?

 

[Logicman]

To rephrase devildavid's question: what if the universe has always existed?

That would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. There is entropy going on. If the universe were infinitely old, total entropy would have already occurred by now.

The universe had a beginning.

 

[Daisy]

So... who/what made God ?

If everything in the universe has been caused by something else, then we must look outside the universe to find the cause of it all—the first and uncaused cause. In this brief video, Sean McDowell, General Editor of The Apologetics Study Bible for Students, digs deeper into the discussion of an uncreated God.

 

[Cisero]

If everything in the universe has been caused by something else, then we must look outside the universe to find the cause of it all—the first and uncaused cause. In this brief video, Sean McDowell, General Editor of The Apologetics Study Bible for Students, digs deeper into the discussion of an uncreated God.

How come the start of the universe can't be the uncaused cause ?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

You claimed absurdity without any reasoning as to why; that is a logical fallacy known as 'argument of the stone'.


No, I did not. Those are all religions by philosophical definition. Religion is 'an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it' ... Science is 'a set of falsifiable theories' ... Atheism, BBT, Abiogenesis, etc... are all non-falsifiable, therefore none of them are science. They are instead religion since they all have an initial circular argument from which additional arguments stem from... That is the very definition of a religion...

Here is a definition of "religion":

religion (rĭ-lĭjˈən)►
n. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
n. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
n. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

Do you agree with it, or are you using something else? If you are using something else, can you elaborate?

If someone simply thinks the BBT is the best current explanation for the origin of the universe, I don't think that constitutes religious belief as long as they are open to other possibilities that come along.

 

[gfm7175]

No, it is about not believing in a god...or any god. Not a religion, ...deleted mantra...

Then what IS atheism? You tell me...

I told you exactly what it was. I told you what initial circular argument it is based around. According to philosophy, atheism is a religion.

 

[gfm7175]

//// the initial circular argument of Atheism is that no god(s) exist.////// <----- this is not true.

Alrighty, let's run with your assertion. Atheism is not defined by the claim that no god(s) exist...

Atheism makes no such claim whatsoever.

I'll continue to run with it for discussion's sake... atheism apparently makes no such claim.

Atheism is a rejection of all god claims due to lack of evidence any god(s) have ever been proven to exist...Nothing more,nothing less.

Welcome to Paradox City, good friend... Which one is it?
1) Atheism is a rejection of all god claims.
2) Atheism does not claim that no god(s) exist.

Atheists DO NOT claim that no god(s) do not exist.

At this point, you are arguing irrationally because you haven't cleared your paradox.

In rejecting god claims, you are having faith that god(s) do(es) not exist. Atheism is a religion.

 

[gfm7175]

By the way, you misrepresented my quote and put your own words in it.

Big no no.

I didn't misrepresent it... anyone can go back and look at the specific words you used. I simply deleted various mantras that you made because they were not substantive.

 

[gfm7175]

More a case of accurate description.

Nope, it was bigotry.

...deleted Argument of the Stone... deleted various ramblings...deleted 'you don't understand' mantra...

He (Davey) made a couple of points about science that were incorrect.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Nothing to do with his religion or faith but instead very much to do with his lack of understanding about science.

He probably understands it better than you do... Science is a set of falsifiable theories; nothing more, nothing less.

...deleted various mantras and bigotries...

Substantive reasoning works better.

 

[Deuce]

:mrgreen::giggle1:

I like it when ignorant religious nuts smugly ask questions they think there's no answer to, when the very manner in which they ask the question betrays that ignorance.

 

[Deuce]

According to science everything has a beginning and an end. Therefore the universe cannot have always existed.

Cite this finding

 

[Daisy]

I like it when ignorant religious nuts smugly ask questions they think there's no answer to, when the very manner in which they ask the question betrays that ignorance.

Why don't you actually watch the videos, you may even learn something....especially the 2nd one, beginning at 3:45...

 

[RAMOSS]

According to science everything has a beginning and an end. Therefore the universe cannot have always existed.

Where does science say that? Please link to a valid scientific journal that says that.

 

[RAMOSS]

How come the start of the universe can't be the uncaused cause ?

Why must there only be one uncaused cause?

 

[Deuce]

Why don't you actually watch the videos, you may even learn something....especially the 2nd one, beginning at 3:45...

I watched the first one, hence my description.

 

[beefheart]

Then what IS atheism? You tell me...

I told you exactly what it was. I told you what initial circular argument it is based around. According to philosophy, atheism is a religion.

It is believing one less god than you.

Not a religion, no matter how many times you try. Who is the leader of this so called "religion"?