Only a fool would say definitely "there is no god"

An intellectually honest person would say "i definitely have no idea if there is a god". So I am reading this book and not sure where to go to discuss it. It is a book by Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. called 'Genesis and the Big Bang'. Schroeder got his PhD in Nuclear Physics from MIT, for those that would question his credentials without looking him up.

I always did well in physics classes in high school and college but by no means is it my professional expertise but in doing prior reading from Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and others I feel I have a pretty good grasp of secular cosmology as well as Einstein's laws of general and special relativity. So this read for me is just a interesting take on what the time dilation of the biblical pre-Adam 6 days could mean. But it is also a reminder of how nothing about cosmology or big bang creation is conclusive and to treat it in any other manner than inconclusive is contrary to science.

It still surprises me that there are some atheist (or rather anti-theists) out there that not only think the verdict is out on this topic of creation and big bang but think so sufficiently enough that people that believe in "gawd" can be mocked and that all religious thought should be mitigated into obscurity. I am not so naive in this. Which is why I read the things I do. It is hard to get a fix on what I believe in this regard because as special relativity demonstrates we cannot even properly qualify time except from the position of the observer. I mean unless someone can definitely give an answer to how the mu-meson can travel 200 microseconds in 4.5 microseconds. I mean some people discount the idea of a creator and do not even understand relativity and probably don't even know what a mus-meson (which are produced when the cosmic rays slam into the nuclei of the gases in the atmosphere).

Now this is not true of all atheist and I am not saying religious people have it right either because both seem for the most part demonstrate often a lack of full study and consideration. It just seems so intellectually lazy to throw out either perspective without careful consideration and respect for the other. Then again it is hard to do that when both seem dead set on destroying the other. As I see it Hawking and Krauss are both too political in a agenda and too emotionally invested in their anti-god crusade to be truly objective in their observation. Schroeder IMO does a better job of removing emotional involvement in the same manner Einstein did. Whether or not they personally believe in a creator is obviously going to have some impact on their observation but at least they are intellectually honest with themselves about it. Hawking and Krauss seem pompous and arrogant.

I find it frustrating that not only do some of these professional physicists commit serious logical fallacies but that pseudo-intellectuals often worship their words and theories as absolutes. Keep in mind that even if every thought about God, Gobs, the bible, the Quran, Confucianism, mythology and any other thought or theory on the nature of creation was proved wrong does not by default prove there is not or was not a creator that guided the first elements into being. By the laws of nature Hawking and Krauss (and many other anti-theist scientist) believe in something that is impossible, it is a paradox referred to as the infinite regression.

Atheists who avoid the concept of professed faith, and who jump onto "burden of proof is on the one making a claim," they're just being weak.

I like to use my own term, "Nonotheist." I firmly believe there are no deities of any kind, and I am happy to make the claim that all deities are most likely creations of mankind from his imagination, projections of the human "self" into the heavens.

There is a ton of psychology and history that backs this up.

It really all comes down to this: Conscious people think that their conscious mind is the entire purpose behind the universe, because people want to believe they are super-special. So they create another living mind, that is in control of the universe, which created it all just for them.

It's the ultimate in egocentricity, and it's psychologically masked as humility by "worshiping" this imaginary entity (or entities) and acting subservient to it. Thus, it allows mankind to believe their lives are the purpose of the entire universe, while simultaneously avoiding the self-aggrandizing nature of that belief.

It's no wonder people get trapped by that line of thinking and allow it to take over their lives.

When it comes to consciousness, existence serves no other reason or purpose without it. I do not think it is egocentricity inspired by consciousness that inclines people to believe in a god or creator, it is a need to give reality a reason for being.

Now I see the point in your position, that consciousness alone does not prove a creator was involved and that the concept of god/gods could be a construct of human reasoning desperate to make themselves to be comforted that it a loving creator made all this for them. I do however think this is another lazy position to take on the thought because it ignores the paradoxes of physics/time and infinite regression.

Some people believe that god as we understand it is a manmade construct to satisfy consciousness and egos. Correct? I can agree that it is possible that the concept god is a human creation and therefore limited to human reason. But I do not agree that this by default proves something supernatural did not take place pre-big bang. I have a hard time ignoring the logic problem of natural law not being sufficient in explaining creation of natural reality.

What is the true difference between an observed universe (with us in it) and an unobserved universe (with no conscious life)?

What exactly makes the "observed universe" so different and special that it becomes a necessity that causes the "unobserved universe" to become worthless/pointless?

Depends on what we mean by 'difference' or by what is true. Without consciousness the facts of being would remain the same but without something to qualify it (namely us with consciousness) than nothing would observe the facts of being and therefore the universe creating itself would have no purpose either. If the universe created itself out of a need to exist so did consciousness form out of need to allow creation itself to be observed. Needs are a construct of nature not vice versa.

So, what greater purpose is gained by our observance of the universe? What purpose hinges on our presence?

The only purpose that is gained by observation is reason and understanding. We have a reason to exist because we can observe and our aware of our existence. Without things would be but would be without reason. I am not interesting in contesting a god exists because we need reason for existing. I was pointing out that without a supernatural occurrence or singularity before the big bang is unfathomable even by scientific measuring, so anything before then is speculative at best. But if the supernatural is removed you run into an infinite regression in which no answer can ever be obtained and is itself contrary to natural law. Natural law being things come from something and something can't come from nothing.

"Purpose" (in the greater sense) is a completely personal human value which has nothing to do with the universe and has no existence outside of our minds.

(The Great Supposition) Conscious intelligent life cannot exist without a creator. Existence itself cannot exist without a creator.

(The Great Solution) A conscious intelligent living entity is the creator. The creator "just exists" and it needs no further explanation because that would demonstrate the extreme self-contradicting layered flaws in this "logic."

“This is all just human imagination. There is literally nothing about reality that suggests a creator is necessary or realistic. The concept of ‘a creator simply exists and can create life’ is no more of a solution than ‘the universe exists and life can come from it.’

The true difference between those two is that the universe truly does exist.

Theology is a philosophical, metaphysical, and explanatory DEAD END and it accomplishes nothing. Religions with deities are nothing more than ‘sticky ideas’ that appeal to people and embed into their brains.

The ultimate arrogance is thinking that one can solve the questions of existence by just pointing to some invisible space ghost and saying ‘DONE!’”, says the solipsist atheist.

“ No again incorrect it is about assuming there is not a creator because of what we observe but then suggesting that by those same standards we need not seek answers because only those seeking god seek answers. This is so incredibly bizarre and counterintuitive. And a bit condescending. You do not believe in god and that is fine; I am not sure if I do either or to what degree I believe anything. But to suggest that the belief in god is based alone on the need for justification of existence is borderline nihilistic. And I see no greater evil than nihilism. If for no other reason it is dangerous to existence itself. A human with a consciousness rejecting the notion of importance consciousness gives them threatens existence itself even without the presence of a god or creator. Interpretation of the great solution is counter to cosmology and laws of relativity. I do not think you understand physics very well. But to get a grasp at understanding what you understand tell me how you think the universe/reality/nature whatever you want to call it came into being. If the big bang is pretty much accepted fact at this point than what happened before that?”

“The only purpose of existence is to exist. There is no great purpose, no afterlife, you are not special. We are fancy animals.”

“So existence has a need to exist? But everything about nature as we understand demonstrates that needs are a result of nature, nature is not a result of needs. again cause and effect backwards.

Also consciousness alone makes us special among animals. Even in the absence of a creator that does make us comparatively special. You are another that is to emotionally invested in your hatred of the concept of god to be objective. Your hatred for something that does not exist does not make sense. And this line of reasoning leads to nihilism which is dangerous to a civilized culture. “

“God doesn't exist, nothing to hate. I also don't hate pink flying elephants on Jupiter because there is no evidence for such a thing. You are too busy ranting about disbelief and fail to understand unbelief.”

“Ah this mental gymnastics game. I have played it before. There are only 3 possible assumption we can make and then base our thinking off those assumption. 1. Assume there is a creator. 2. Assume there is not a creator. 3. Assume it is unknowable definitively. The first 2 are concluded and that makes them subjective and not open to data. Because they only accept proof that confirms their assumption, this is confirmation bias. Only the 3rd group allows for a more objective approach to evidence. “

“Hey, you started the discussion and have yet to provide evidence that deities can exist, so if I'm worked up, you're right beside me. You wanted an argument and provoked one with your belligerent tone, and you got one, so stop whining and enjoy it.

We don't "assume" anything until there is evidence to suggest it. We don't dream up fantasies and then look for evidence, we observe and search for evidence to explain what we can see (not necessarily literally, which I'm sure you'll misunderstand and try to use as evidence for your god). And make no mistake, I am not fooled by pretend agnosticism. Agnosticism is unbelief. Science is agnostic. You are here arguing for the possibility of the supernatural.

Let me fix your post.

Assumptions we can make: 0

Unknowable is indistinguishable from 'doesn't exist.'”

“Tell me where do you get your evidence for the creation of the universe? What books have read? what studying have you done? I find your demand for evidence disturbing because the source I am going over in this OP is a PhD. in nuclear physics. And combined that with previous reading I simply make an observation that the knowledge we currently have is inconclusive.

"We don't "assume" anything until there is evidence to suggest it."

Okay so we are talking about the nature of the big bang. I discussed some of the evidence that I have read and currently reading. You have offered nothing but conjecture and ridicule to counter. If you have no evidence of anything to offer why do you feel you can sufficiently make any claim on the topic whatsoever. ignorance and arrogance.

"Agnosticism is unbelief. Science is agnostic."

I did not say I was agnostic either. Why are you so desperate to label me. I am discussing but objective observations on the data at hand and what I have read.

" You are here arguing for the possibility of the supernatural."

How do you define the word supernatural? because the way it is defined in the english language is anything that is unknowable and not provable. I brought up the theory of anti-gravity during the big bang. I propose this is supernatural because there is no evidence and yet it is part of the accepted scientific model.

"Assumptions we can make: 0"

Everything about our consciousness begins with assumptions. How can we have a discussion on anything when you seemingly do not even understand the most basics of psychology?

"Unknowable is indistinguishable from 'doesn't exist.'"

unknowable is not indistinguishable from does not exist, if it was than any math or science that uses imaginary numbers to derive proofs would have be rejected.”

“And still no evidence…”

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for one. And I am not claiming or trying to prove anything. You are the only one making a claim that god doesn't exist. And still no evidence.”

“You are a liar. "Only a fool would say definitely "there is no god"" That's your statement. But there is no evidence that a god could exist and certainly no evidence that a god does exist. So replace "god" in your statement with any other thing for which there is no evidence.

Only a fool would say definitely "there is no peanut butter and jelly monster under the bed"

Only a fool would say definitely "there is no Easter Bunny"

Only a fool would say definitely "there is no pink flying elephant on Jupiter"

Only a fool would say definitely "the Earth is not flat"

Only a fool would say definitely "there is no Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer"

Those probably (hopefully) seem like absurd examples to you. Your statement about god is equally absurd because the amount of evidence for all those things is exactly the same: 0. So unless you have evidence, I'm done.”

“Wow, how can you claim objectivity when you are so clearly emotionally invested. You have obviously made my point about Anti Theist being intellectually lazy.

"you are a liar. "Only a fool would say definitely "there is no god"" That's your statement. "

What was my second statement? it was "A intellectually honest person would say "i definitely have no idea if there is a god"."

So yeah, not a liar you are just too blind by you hate to see clearly. I don't hate the idea of god so I am open to evidence and allow my opinion to be swayed by convincing information. Or in the case of the anti-theist like you, I allow your agenda to point me in the opposite direction.”

“Very well stated.”

“Thanks. Upon re-reading, I actually think the worship and veneration of the creator-deity concept is a completely necessary coupling with the view that human consciousness is special and that the universe was created for it.

That dichotomy seems to be fully self-supporting. Without the balance of extremes, either side of the equation is futile and just seems silly in isolation:

Deity veneration: What sense is there for a person to worship a deity if the deity didn't create that person as universally "special" and offer them things (the very least of which could even be forgiveness from a punishment that is threatened to a human for simply existing)?

Humans being special: What sense is there for a person to proclaim himself the special little center of the universe if he wasn't specifically designed by the creator of that universe?

Both concepts work best when balanced on either side of the deity concept, pivoting around it. Someone stuck in that thinking couldn't necessarily see how silly each concept is in isolation, because the concepts are not in isolation, thus they "stick" and create a mental trap.”

“Your entire concept is based on the assumption that people believe in a deity out of a physiological need to justify their own consciousness. This is far too generalized and simple to be the entire case, even if the idea of god is wholly attributed to man's' imagination.

Also it in no way goes into the physical world and how it exists in the first place. As you said before even if we were not able to observe it (through consciousness) the natural universe would still exist. So (because we can see) we can ask how it exists.

I will ask this one question and it has nothing to do with belief in a god. In the absence of supernatural occurrence of some kind how did the universe/reality come to be? Because as the science goes we can only account for up to 10^-43 microseconds AFTER the big bang, and for both religious thought and scientific thought what comes before is claimed to be unknowable. So what happened before? If no supernatural fantastical entity of some kind was involved we run into a paradox of either infinite and unknowable regression or accept something came from nothing. So if we believe the universe came to be natural we have to accept the universe existence is a paradox and contrary to all known science and logic. How is that any better or worse than believing in a creator? Because from where I am sitting I can't see much of a difference in the conclusions.”

“Not justify -- Elevate. Also I wouldn't put in the term "entire concept" because I'm only discussing little isolated elements of a much larger whole.

Well, the existence of your deity concept is completely unexplained, which I've already pointed out. If you don't have to explain how a deity exists, why do you demand others be able to explain how the physical world exists?

That argument is a completely dishonest one, especially considering you're literally dismissing the actual existence of the universe as "unrealistic" while postulating a magical space ghost THAT DEFIES THE ENTIRE LOGIC YOU PRESENT by being an "uncreated" living entity.

That entire line of logic is so dishonest and so self-contradictory that I really question the mental faculties of people who present it.

Theological beliefs are emotionally satisfying. Attempting to turn them into rational explanations is just setting yourself up for failure.”

“it is not my deity concept. And as I said science of the big bang prior to 10^43 microsecond after is equally unexplained. So i don't see a difference in either concept at this level. Explain the difference to me.”

“I did already explain how, the answer is if you believe in a deity you don't explain how it exist. You are admitting to believing in something supernatural, unknowable and not provable; and admitting it as such. That is why it is hypocritical for a 'believer' to ever claim it is provable or that they know it to be fact. Now in regards to a physical world without the possibility of a deity (supernatural creator) it by the 'rules' of science needs to be explained because it not only rejects the idea of anything supernatural it ridicules it as well. That is why it is arrogant. It practices the same conclusion of eventually things being unknowable and not provable but acts as though the same conclusion is ridiculous from the religious side. You question is hypocritical going both ways.”

“do you not see your own arrogance in discounting the possibility of anything supernatural (which means unknowable and not provable) in such a vicious and mocking tone while science itself is equally supernatural in explaining existence? With this one line you demonstrate my whole issue with atheism you think you are morally and intellectually superior and elite over those that believe in a deity and think their beliefs are silly.”

“More arrogance and superiority. yes you are smarter than any modern physicist that still believes in a deity and also smarter than 6 to 8 thousand years of human reasoning. In your short 20 to 70 years you have done what 300 years of science and 10000 years of human civilization has not done. Prove the idea of god is ridiculous and untrue. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you are so obviously emotionally invested in your rejection of the idea to begin with, you are not even close to objective. I am not even talking about what I believe I am asking questions on how anyone can claim to know with certainty, proposing those that do are fools; you respond by being my definition of a fool.”

“What is your rational explanation? I feel you are getting frustrated because you know science does not offer one and the explanation they do offer is as irrational as religious belief. That would frustrate me too.”

“My definition of God is; an interdimensional conscious organizing force that guides the creation of the universe. Which I believe does exist. In vet tech class when studying the anatomy of the heart I realized that such a structure had to be intentional, same with the eye, digestive system and various other organs.

Living organisms are in a sense machines and machines are only created by intelligent and deliberate beings, so therefore there had to be a God. Even the chambers of the heart and parts of the eye are labeled as "valves" and "lens" which are mechanical terms and imply a creator.”

“Does that mean you see God similar to that of deism? Sort of like the stoics believed god was unanimous with ultimate reason? An impersonal guide that did not have emotional investment in being but guided it through the impersonal need to satisfy reason for being itself.

I leaned toward this belief for a while until the last few years because I have a hard time grasping how something can have reason to fulfill reason without a conscious will. What are your thought on this?”

“Not exactly. It would make no logical sense for a higher consciousness to help organize and create the universe if it had no investment in intervening in other affairs.

But there are so many different planets in this universe that such a higher conscious being couldn't concern itself with just earth. It this higher force does intervene it would do so in a manner that is invisible and undetectable like ultraviolet light.

For atheists the following structures could not have evolved by chance:

The Heart: http://anatomybody101.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/human-heart-anatomy-valves-heart-anatomy1320107439104.jpg

The Eye: http://pugetsoundeyecare.com/images/conditions/eye_anatomy.jpg

The Vestibular System: http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ll5wa7ioshashhmgqegd-signature-5967dd0451739e2af475d635299752bfdaf370c5b5350b71f63bc5acce8dc46d-poli-150110162313-conversion-gate02/95/the-vestibular-system-4-638.jpg”

“I agree more along this line of reasoning. If a higher consciousness did not exist than it there would still be a problem of reason without a will.

And actually most scientist now contest that many of these developments could have happened by chance but it would take longer than any calculable time. For example since the 1980's it has been accepted by the scientific community that in order for Amino Acids to form on earth the way originally proposed by Darwinian evolution than the world would have to be older than the universe itself. Which obviously is not possible, so some kind of guide had to be present. The nature of what or 'who' such a guide would be is disputable though.”

“Yet anyone can tell the difference between a machine and an organism. Also your sentence is incorrect: "Human created machines" are only created by human design.

Biological machinations like organs can't just be lumped into that category, you'd be winning the argument by stacking the deck and pretending like organs are "by default" created by a living entity.

The real problem comes with consciousness itself, which is far more complex and intricate than any organ other than a brain. The "creation" argument would happily state that a conscious mind "requires" a deliberate designer.

Yet, that entire line of thought is tossed into the trash by the "creation believer" when they then posit a living conscious mind (a deity), which itself was NOT created, as the creator of other living conscious minds.

The logic can't go both ways, that's just absurd. A "creation believer" can't claim that consciousness is too complex and must be created WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY accepting an even more powerful and even more complex consciousness has existed forever without itself ever being created or designed.

It's one of the most basically self-contradictory beliefs imaginable, seriously.”

“Here consider polytheism and the possibility of other forms of higher interdimensional consciousness involved in the universe's organization and creation.”

“The belief in a supernatural consciousness in not contradictory with the development of human consciousness nor with scientific reasoning. Because it is by definition fantastical. If supernatural creator exists in any capacity that it is not and would have never been limited by the laws of nature; such as things needing to be created from something else.

For example, the belief in a self creating universe is contradictory with the laws of nature because there will be an infinite regression of "where did that come from?" and it would be infinite and paradoxical. It is much more self-contradictory to believe it is impossible for a conscious supernatural entity could not possibly exist because it did not have a creator and yet the universe itself exists without a creator. “

Everything is limited by the restrictions/"laws" of nature(resources available for use).

“Yes everything natural is restricted by nature. But anything outside the laws of nature would not be. This is proposed even by the anti-theist Stephen Hawking. But acknowledging that a supernatural creator was involved in some capacity fully admits that something outside the laws of nature took place. I find this line of reasoning to be more logically sound.”

Nothing is outside the "laws" of nature.

“su·per·nat·u·ral

adjective

1.

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

I do not want to be condescending by posting the definition of a word but the very word itself is suggesting something outside the laws of nature. I am not trying to argue one way or the other if I think it is correct or true or factual by any means. I am simply pointing out if you acknowledge you believe in something supernatural you are admitting to believing something outside the laws of nature.”

“Science by which we use to understand the world around us can only go so far. To me "natural" is a strange word since technically everything that exists would be natural. Kind of like "paranormal" as if to say something is not "normal" simply because we can't understand how it could be possible to exist.”

“Ah, okay I see a bit better what you mean now. It is always important we define the words we are using to understand each other. I see what you mean by things being labeled supernatural or paranormal are just things we have not been able to sufficiently explain it yet.

I understand but disagree and that is because the way I see the laws of nature and the way I define "nature" is anything that can exist by those laws. So if I was to believe in a creator than I would say that not only do we not understand the infinity such a being but by natural law we can not explain it. For example the idea of something always existing eternally is not applicable under natural law as far as I define it. However the supernatural does not have to follow that law. If there is a god or a creator it would have to be outside the laws of nature and beyond scientific understanding.”

“God/god is a very personal matter. No matter what our upbringing, we eventually work it out on our own and in our own way.

I could NEVER tell anyone that they are a fool when it comes to personal beliefs.

I am only going by the title of your thread. For me? That is all that is needed.

Once again, God/god is a very personal matter. No matter what our upbringing, we eventually work it out on our own and in our own way.

I could NEVER tell anyone that they are a fool when it comes to personal beliefs.”

“That was a key word and very intentionally used. And if one's mind is that concluded on a subject that is as you said very personal and completely inconclusive no matter what you believe than I think that would make anyone making a DEFINITE claim one way or another a fool. maybe you think that word is too harsh but if one hasn't given careful consideration of what they actually believe or what it entails than what other word could describe such a person?”

“I can see that you are extremely passionate.

I never told you what my personal beliefs are. They are mine alone.

I would never call anyone a fool for what they believe......

Have a good night.”

“It was not passion. And you still do not understand. It has nothing to do with what people believe individual but the degree that they claim to know it as fact and many times without proper questioning and reasoning. If one claims to say in a definite manner "there is no god" or in a definite manner "there is a god" then they have not been thorough because if they had they would know it is inconclusive.

So I to be a little less 'hostile' with my words I am trying to say we should not be antagonistic toward each other based on what we believe and realize no one knows for sure. To be honest I see more hostility coming from the atheist side than the religious side. It seems they worship science as fact and believe this makes them intellectually superior. Which I find more hypocritical than the religious person that says they are taking their belief on faith alone. “

“I said, it is a personal thing.

Why are you being so "hostile"? I think that we should all be respectful of what one believes in.

Why are you being so argumentative?

Only a fool would say something like this, and then criticize people who respond.

Enough, already! If you have a problem, take it elsewhere! I didn't respond in order to argue.

I assumed that I was actually agreeing with you in my own simple way.

I obviously got it wrong. Bye! “

“I am not. But some take the word fool to be hostile. I do not, I think it is a word to just describe someone being intellectually lazy in some manner or not thorough in their thoughts. I saw that you took my meaning from the title alone and that would give a image of hostility; but for the word "definitely" which was important to what I was discussing.

I am not I am discussing things in detail but you neglected certain aspects of my Original post that were essential and made a judgement and commentated without full scope of what was previously discussed. I was trying to explain to keep the discussion going and allow you to participate with full disclosure.

You always judge books by titles or covers? I was not criticizing those that responded but I suppose I was criticizing you for responding to the title but neglecting the body. You were being lazy as I see it and that is actually the very thing that I have a problem with on both sides of the argument.”

“To a degree you were but as you said you did not read the full post and therefore you missed some of the more important points about people portraying their personal beliefs as definite facts. That is the issue I have. I do not care what people believe, I do care about how they treat each other and respect others beliefs without being condescending. As I said too I find that the atheist secular view is hypocritically guilty of the later”

“That depends on who is god for humanity, mate?”

“To be clear on what I mean; I think it is possible there is a difference between the idea of god, as a psychological ideal for humans to focus on and to aspire for, and what or who would be the creator. The way I see it the 'gods' as humans have defined them could be all wrong but that does not discount the logic in concluding that a creator guided the first elements to into existence. given the physics as we now know it to be, considering general and special relativity and time dilation as well as the understanding of how light works across space time, it just seems incredibly arrogant for someone to claim with certainty that there is or was not a creator. However on the flip side I think it is hypocritical for those that do believe in a creator to also claim they know with certainty; given their belief is admittedly based on faith not fact. So atheist I see as being arrogant for making a judgement without conclusive evidence and 'believers' I see as hypocrites for pretending their faith is comparable with universal fact.”

“First clue is the total absence of a deity. Since when do you take anyone's word when they say, 'just trust me and give me your money.'”

“what does organized religion and institutional corruption have anything to do with cosmological theory? You are committing a very silly fallacy in attributing man's' ideas or conception of god as being definitive proof that a creator does not exist.

Just because people are wrong about the nature of a creator does not by default prove there is or was not one. In cosmological theory there is just as much absence of evidence when discussing anti-gravity that forced the one time rapid expansion right after the big bang. One could call this one time unobserved expansion a creator force and not be logically incorrect.”

“That's absurd. All our ideas about gods come from organized religion, they are inseparable. At least be intellectually honest. If you have some evidence for god that doesn't come from religion, offer it up.”

“You obviously are not paying attention. I am specifically not arguing either way if I think there is a god. And again even if every man made concept of god is wrong does not by default prove there isn't one. That is a logical fallacy.

And no, the ideas and concept of god/gods did not come from organized religion. you have the cause and effect backwards. All archaeological evidence and psychological developments suggest that the concept of god came from consciousness itself to which man formed organized religion on that concept. It very well could have been a made up concept but not by organized religion.”

“Well I can see that you're going to keep pretending that I'm somehow 'not getting it' rather than provide evidence that it's possible for a god to exist. (Because there isn't any) and if you can't start with a basis for god then your little rant about atheists goes poof.”

“Do you think I believe in god?”

“Focus. Present your evidence that it's possible for a god-like being to exist. The only reason god even enters your mind is because you live in a culture where organized religion brainwashes people into believing ancient fairy tales and then asks for money. They are selling god and business is good. If civilization ended tomorrow, the first businesses back in action would be religion and prostitution.”

“Pay Attention. this was not about proving one way or the other, since it is something not provable that would be an exercise in futility. This was about an acceptance that it is unknowable with certainty. And because it is uncertain no objective person can try to claim definitely one way or the other. If they do they are intellectually lazy; as you have demonstrated to be. This will be my last reply to you because this is about as pointless as trying to prove god's existence.”

“You’re attempting to instill enough doubt in smart people’s minds in hopes that they will, like you, accept Pascal’s wager, and then you won’t feel so alone in your simple mindedness. I wonder if it will work (no)?”

“So are you just actually trying to prove me right about anti-theist not being objective and believing themselves superior? because if you are, then i must say well played.

I mean just the fact you put the words doubt and smart people's minds at odds with each other is pretty telling. So in your mind what is currently accepted science should not be doubted because only someone that is not smart would be filled with doubt. I think you are just angry so that is why you are arguing irrationally. But let me ask you this, if you don't think there is a god why get so upset about even the possibility of being wrong. I don't believe in god but the concept does not anger me and I am open to being wrong.

I don't accept Pascal's Wager and that is not and was not the point. I don't think people should believe in god because it is a low risk result. I just think atheist should not act like you, self important and pompous for no reason. ”

“I am simple minded now too. Wow still proving nothing but you have an irrational hate of god. It is actually kind of hilarious at this point, this is sort similar to how I get made at Santa Claus for taking credit for the presents I buy. Lol”

“Funny though, the point I was actually trying to make has worked. You proved it just by being a pompous, superior, entitled, irrational and ignorant pseudo-intellectual. You proved why anti-theism is contrary to science.”

“Have you listened to a thing I've said? I said I was an atheist (because there's no theism). I said I was not an adeist (because we don't know enough to make that assessment). That's not to say that I'm a deist, I'm just agnostic on that point. In short, we agree, lamebrain. I do think a deistic origin is inconsistent with known science. I think natural origin is consistent with the natural laws that emerged out of the big bang, so that's where I personally lean. Jesus Harold Christ, you want to bring a knife to a gunfight and then cry mercy when someone pulls a gun on you. Go back and build a solid foundation. Don't bring your charlatan scientists and try to have a serious conversation.”

“Apparently there is a break down somewhere. Because seemingly you have not listened to a thing I said and kept moving the goalposts around and then you became irrationally anger about the subject. So yes you have demonstrated a lack of objectivity. I don't think I have but I might be wrong.

How much have you studied on this? Because reading from minds as different as Kraus and Schroeder demonstrates both agree that natural law CANNOT explain natural creation. Your thinking is literally contrasting all known evidence.

if we agreed you would not be hostile or irrational. See some of the people I have agreed with within this discussion to see an example of rational disagreement.

1. What does this cliche have to do with anything. 2. what gun did you bring to this fight. I saw nothing but empty reasoning that did not hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

who is a charlatan scientist that I mentioned and whom do you think are authority scientists?”

“So where is your evidence?

If you weren't brainwashed from birth by organized religion into believing the God myth, it would never occur to you.

You assume wrong. Before you can even consider whether a god exists, you need to tackle the question of whether it's possible for god to exist. So where is your evidence?”

“Why demand evidence of supernatural occurrence? Where is your evidence of rapid expansion caused by a one time unobserved anti gravity force that occurred 10^32 microseconds after the big bang. the problem with cosmological theory is there are holes all over the place in which unobserved forces needed to act to allow the formation to occur as we know it did. I am not disputing evidence for or against god but pointing out it is not illogical to fill these holes with a concept called god, it is every bit as not provable as antigravity during the big bang. I am proposing that there are no definite answers and only a fool would think otherwise.”

“Believing in anything without evidence is illogical. It's easier to be belligerent than to accept there is no evidence for god that doesn't originate from people who ask for your money and obedience.”

“So how do you think the universe was formed? provide physical evidence and demonstrate an understanding of cosmology. Because if you reject the notion of a creator without careful consideration, meaning by default you don't believe in god because there is no proof it means 2 things. 1. You are not well read in nuclear physics 2. You have an emotional reason for hating the even possibility of a creator contrary to your thinking which makes you intellectually lazy.

As I said the only reasonably intellectually honest response to the proposal of was the universe created is i have no idea. Therefore you leave yourself open to any and all evidence and interpretation of data and allow your beliefs to change in the presents of new information. Sticking to a strict conclusion that there is no god until proof is provided leaves one far too closed minded.”

“You have yet to provide evidence suggesting a god-like being can or does exist. God comes from organized religion, all evidence suggests their version of creation is false. You are trying to argue there can be some other version of god that we don't yet know about but why would you do that if you don't have any evidence? You've created a fantasy and are angry because others won't join you in it. There is no evidence for god, a god-like being, or a god driven creation; none.”

“Why do I have to? It has nothing to do with the point of my original proposal which is all about people like you that deal in absolutes. I call people like you fools whether religious or atheist. You can not get passed you own bias and assumption, so delusional to reject that you have even made assumption.”

“So you don't even understand how humans formed civilizations in the first place? Consciousness made the first post ape humans ask questions about the nature of existence some answered it in terms of spiritual guides. Because of this people ended up formulating civilizations. Religions based on the original beliefs formed within those civilization. Your are so fundamentally flawed in your assumption about the order things came in, it does not even make logical sense. So you think that high ups in early civilization contrived a organized religion made up gods and then told people that those gods were the ones they now believed in? That is incorrect the people already believed in those gods and they formed organized religion around the belief. But that is neither here nor there on whether there was any 'truth' to the beliefs in the first place.”

“Who is their because there is more than one religion and each has different explanation of creation narrative. I get a sense you mean specifically the bible and genesis. But please be more specific.”

“another wrong assumption that is not what I am arguing. I am proposing that no one should believe or accept anything definitely when there is no conclusive evidence and that includes the rejection of the possibility of a creator.”

“You're all over the place which tells me you are parroting someone else's thoughts and haven't fully formed your own. Forget the flaky books about god and study science, learn the scientific method.”

“My thoughts are not all over the place, I was following you thoughts and comments which were all over the place. Which tells me you have not studied very extensively on any single subject and are currently 'shut gunning' the information you think is valid.”

“The books I have previously read on the subject are: "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking; "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss; "A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality' by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant Narlikar. And the book I am currently reading again is written by Gerald Schroeder, Phd in Nuclear Physicist. Not religious flaky book about god. What books have you read on the subject of Cosmology and physics?”

“Hooo boy, you opened pandora's box, didn't you? I have opinions which I don't necessarily have the energy to innumerate at the moment, but I will soon. For the moment, I will simply say that if a theistic God existed, there would be no debate. Every Single One would know and worship it. Stand by.”

“I'll better stay out of this...this is getting nasty.”

“I will say, the type of god that the original topic starter  describes is a pre-big bang god. That is to say, a deistic god, necessarily a non-theistic type god, and certainly not Yahweh. If this is truly the type of god he subscribes belief in, then he’s as atheistic as I am. The funnest thing is talking theists into retreating to deism. They don’t even realize they’ve given up the goat. I’m an atheist because there’s no theism. I’m not atheistic because we don’t know enough to say one way or the other.”

“My biggest problem in understanding, and there is much, was that the OP has an opinion. His/hers alone. Fine! Apparently the discussion is over when others put their 2 cents worth in.”

“Yes shallow people alone make spelling mistakes and do not take time to proofread thoroughly. If I was actually writing my college thesis on this topic I would take a little more time to make sure my "there/their and to/too" are correct. I was trying to get the concepts out faster than the correct spelling and was responding to a large volume of posts. Crucify me for typing too fast and not proof reading well enough.”

“Those are not typos/misspellings, my dimwitted friend. It's consistent use of the wrong damn words. We learned these usage rules in elementary school, right? What other concepts were incapable of penetrating your thick skull, ahem?”

“When you are responding to 3 or 4, possibly more, posts at a single time and also being distracted by things outside the computer screen you type faster than you can think. Or at least I do. So yes sometime these typos happen. I obviously know the difference between 'their and there'. To get hung up on this and try to use typos as some sort of proof of lack of intelligence is just lazy. demonstrate the information is wrong in some way. Don't focus on a typo.”

“I did see the misuses of those words. I decided to ignore it. People seem to get so defensive when I comment on these things.”

“I appreciate that. Grammar nazis are annoying at times. I don't mind being corrected on a typo or even wrong information that I thought was correct. But to try to suggest that mixing up 'their' and 'there' when typing fast is proof that someone is 'shallow' is just lazy.”

“I'm not concerned so much over grammar. Typos happen.

When typing, however, one should know that To, Too and Two are all words with different meanings. There, Their, and They're also have different meanings as well. When you mix those up, a sentence can be confusing for those of us who know the difference. Do you KNOW what I mean? That was no typo. Let's try this again.... Do you KNOW what I mean? See the difference? The words have different meanings. If using the wrong one isn't lazy, it must mean that you weren't paying attention in school.

I tried this conversation with someone else here a few months back, and it turned into a big thing. That is why I ignore this sort of thing. I just give up.”

“So you have never seen examples of how you can read a sentence with only the first and last letter being correct and still be able to understand what the sentence is saying? Context is more important that correct spelling. Not to try to say that it is not important but as long as the context is fluid and structured well than the correct meaning people should be able to understand without much effort.”

“Again, we are not talking about misspellings/typos here. It’s your consistently poor grammar that is the issue here, and more importantly, what it suggests about your intelligence. It ain’t good, dude. The word is patience, BTW, since you demonstrated that you never even noticed you were using the wrong word, as demonstrated by your continued misuse.”

“You are really just being a pain now aren't you? Still ignoring the context of the argument and getting caught up on the wrong point. This obviously was not a good place to go to talk about concepts because people like you come out and try to derail it by focusing in on simple mistakes. It is easy to type fast and get mixed up with something like patience and patients considering that many times i really on spell check to point out where my typos were at, this is not at all an indication of my intelligence. I will say I am as lazy in my proof reading as you are in your belief system or more accurately your denial of your belief system.”

“Continued misuse? I used the word twice in this entire discussion. Not really continuous use. Second of all here I will break down my error so you understand because obviously you are being intentionally dense. 1. I type, usually replying rapidly to multiple people. 2. As I type the words are punched in faster than I can think (I can type between 70 to 80 words a minute which means I have to think and type a word in under a second). I type very fast so it is easy to make a mistake between there and their or patients and patience, that is a mistake in typing faster than I confirm word use and it indicates nothing more than maybe I should slow my typing down a bit. 3. the material I just typed is usually extensive and I also see that multiple other people replied so I do a quick check through to see if spell check hit any words and move on. So yes often times a mix up between there and their or even patience and patients will be missed.”

“Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Go back and build a solid foundation, or live with your friends who live in brick houses.”

“What are you talking about? No arguments at all so just throwing out multiple unrelated hackneyed expression?

how about this cliche: Don't be a closed minded ignoramus.”

“Haha, well buddy, a lazy approach to speaking lends itself well to a lazy criticism. You exposed your own lack of insight.”

“No point in trying to discuss anything with you, I don't think. You nearly ignored the entire context of the argument and focused only on a few typos, then when called out on the laziness of this approach you twist it around to suggest that you had a 'lazy criticism' because the original points, which you ignored completely, were lazy.”

“Building your house out of straw makes it vulnerable to the big bad wolf. Either go back and build a solid foundation, or live with your friends in brick houses. Building your own solid foundation will have the added benefit of making the charlatans a lot easier to pick out in the texts you choose, however.”

“So I have brought up Kraus, Hawkings, Hoyle and Schroeder that I have read specifically on this topic. These are the charlatans you referring to. what scientist have you READ (not listened to, not watched, not heard from others) on the topic of cosmology and nuclear physics?”

“Krauss, Hawking, Sagan, Carroll, to name a few. (Is it worth mentioning that you couldn't even get the names correct?) Sigh, Davies, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, Gleiser... Getting the picture?”

“Yeah, I forget how to spell names off the top of my head. I think it is more important I have read some of their books and understood it. Also I think it should speak a little better that I actually was recalling their names from memory and not googling it.

The way you present it with your list I got a feeling google results were all you read. which books by them have you read? I will be taking time into consideration here, anyone can look up the books those scientist have written. I don't believe you have read them to be honest.”

“Carroll and Gleiser are personal faves. I’ve read most books by all the names I listed. I could give a flying fuck if you believe it or not.”

“Well considering your only counter points you brought up to the specifics of Schroeder's arguments about some of the proposals by Krauss, Hoyle and Hawking was to try to point out I suck at spelling and grammar on the fly, I do not think you have given me any reason to believe you. sort of like you have no reason to believe in a god I have no reason to believe you have read what you claim you did.

Pretty telling you still did not name a single book. I could do that too: 'Tyson and Hawking are my personal faves and I have read every book by every author I named. ' Don't ask me to specify I have spent 30 years straight, no sleep, no studying, no profession, no family, no life. Just read ‘ Krauss, Hawking, Sagan, Carroll, to name a few. (Is it worth mentioning that you couldn't even get the names correct?) Sigh, Davies, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, Gleiser’ Also I find it interesting that your faves seem to be picked at random from you list. if they were your actually ‘fave’ because you actually read their books you likely would have listed them first.”

“What would be the point of naming titles? You’d just say I googled them. This is childish. The Big Picture, From Eternity To Here, A Tear At The Edge of Creation, The Island of Knowledge. Please go learn to communicate properly.”

“How was focusing on my spelling and grammar errors not childish in the first place? Given the way have acted up to this point, and the way you presented your list it demonstrated childish behavior so I would not put it past you to have just googled a list of names in Physics. When I brought up the things I have read I am specific names of authors and books. So that those that wish to comment know already where most of my information has come from. Then you suggested that the authors I presented were "charlatans" when I asked for your list of non charlatan scientist the first 2 names you listed were the first 2 that I listed. what the hell was that about. By the way I had not heard of Carroll or Gleiser, but if I have time I will look into it more and read some of their books (my list is already backed up as is). Let me ask you something, In your view what makes Gerald Schroeder a "Charlatan"?”

“I have not read The Big Picture so I cannot confirm or deny you accurately represented it.”

“Why are atheist like you so dedicated to making this a fight? Why such an aggressive us (atheist perceived superior intelligence) vs them (anyone that believes in god). I Also see that only from those on the religious side that are extremely dogmatic and fundamental. I see your approach as deranged as those that performed the inquisition and witch burning.”

“Because you were accusing me of simply Googling names and titles.”

“If you are so well versed on the names of the 'players' why the hell did you try suggesting that the names I have read are charlatans? Win at all cost huh? even by misdirection and lies/slander. How can you fain objectivity. Shameless. This type of stuff makes me wonder why I even try to be reasonable. No one else seems to be.”

“It's the nuclear physicist bringing the 'god did it' argument I'm calling a charlatan, not the others. I haven't read him though. A charlatan argument is a charlatan argument.”

“Ah so you never read anything contrary to your belief. Nice. You are like the embodiment of confirmation bias.

Try reading his book before you judge.”

“You got me, you amateur sleuth you.”

"amateur sleuth" seems like a bit of a oxymoron.

Definitely oxymoronic.

“Carroll and Gleiser are absolutely mandatory, move those to the top of your list. Then pick up a book on basic grammar, you know, for review.

When you come in with a shaky foundation, don't cry foul when someone attacks your shaky foundation.”

“Mandatory for what? that is just delusional. Because you like them they are the go to authority on the topic? wasn't you that brought up cognitive dissonance earlier? Ever here of Confirmation Bias? Jesus. No my next book is "The Quest of Cosmic Justice" by Thomas Sowell after that Milton Friedman. I read a wide range of things. Politics and Economics are next on my list. If i focused too much on any one subject I might become obsessive like you and lose objectivity.”

“My foundation is fine. You attacked my neighbors house. I don't care if god exist, I don't care if my neighbor believes in him and you don't. I only care when You attack my neighbor and want to burn him for being a heretic. Because that is how you act.

The only thing you have suggested that is even somewhat applicable is that I touch up on my grammar. I am usually fine with it in papers or work related material. blogs and discussions I get a bit distracted a lazy.”

"you turd"

“Nice. Still proving you are everything I find despicable about agenda driven atheism. I find you more reprehensible than modern Christians. Still not as bad as Muslims but give you a little authority you'd probably be cutting heads off infidels too. Only for you infidels will be anyone that believes.”

“Bad hair, don't care.”

“Then why reply?”

“Slow on the uptake?”

“Out of time. gotta go.”

Next Day.

“Sean Carroll is a power player in the field, the world just doesn't know it yet. Marcelo Gleiser is lesser known, and will likely remain lesser known, but he is a wise man and an excellent science writer. Do you know who Chet Raymo is (no)? He writes books too, but I recommend checking out his remarkable writing on his blog at sciencemusings.com.”

“I find you strange wording to be worshipful in nature. power player wise man This sounds like demagoguery to me. I stated that I respected some of Schroeder's proposals in this particular book but I would never say he is a go to "mandatory" "power player". It just makes it seem like you value these individuals too high, especially considering they share your views and opinions. Try valuing someone that does not share your opinions.

I have not read Carrol or Gleiser (yet), and no I have not heard of Chit Raymo but I like that you condescendingly put the emphatic "(no)?" Right because I am less intelligent if I had not heard of everyone that you have heard of.”

“You're going to try your hand at psychoanalysis now? This should be good. Anyway, read those guys, then come back and tell me I'm wrong about what I said about them. Listen, you're the one who chose to enter into a dick measuring contest over who'd read more of this stuff. You might just want to go ahead and concede on this one. There's no shame in it. No human should read as much of this stuff as I have.”

“You so misunderstood the point. I never even discussed what I believe. It was a criticism of any that claimed to know with certainty one way or another.”

“I will say though, I find folks who are able to sustain the level of cognitive dissonance required to conclude that belief in theism is justified utterly fascinating! They're a bit of a hobby of mine. 'Fun to poke and prod. =)”

“I would have thought that we could all agree at least that in the lack of sufficient conclusive evidence it is wrong to ridicule theist beliefs even if we find it personally nonsensical. Seems there are more secular philistines than I thought.”

“ostentatious psychobabble.

I second that emotion.....”

“As a fellow oldster with some wisdom, I'm not surprised at your response.”

“Sorry it delved into ostentatious psychobabble. That was not my intent and I do not think I was the one to lead some of the conversations there. I was talking about the inconclusiveness of physic and cosmological theories and why it is wrong to dis those that fill these gaps with a concept of god. Even if I don't believe it or do, I think having a conclusion is hypocritical. Others turned it into a discussion on "proof god can exist" which wasn't the point.”

“Science has not, will not, cannot, and will never answer all of our biggest questions. What science has done is tell us a whole lot about the kind of answers we can expect to find. Gods and gods are not terribly consistent with what we think we know.”

“But that is dependent on how one sees god. This book I am reading now Genesis and the big demonstrates a 'possible' harmony with standard big bang model and the genesis story and the evidence in this interpretation is pretty compelling. Not that I am 100% convinced. I would like to read some peer responses on it. We all can't be experts on everything but we can see how the experts review each other.”

“People only say this in defense OF THEIR OWN BELIEFS.

Just by being a Bible believer, you discount the beliefs of millions of people. It's unavoidable.

If you want to actually consider every belief that has ever existed, you will waste your life doing so.

Good luck with your delusions. In the future, I recommend paying attention to reality.”

“I am not a "Bible believer" I try to leave myself open to any information I come across. This particular book is demonstrating (quite convincingly) that the biblical genesis, if interpreted a certain way, is actually harmonious with the standard model of cosmology. Now before I believe it or accept it I will try to find and read some kind of countering opinion towards Gerald Schroeder (just as I am reading him in counter to Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss) I will say this Schroeder is making a much stronger case than those 2.”

“You started out respectful but now delve again into insults. How can i consider you an objective thinker when you believe all religious people are more delusional than you and that I share their beliefs?”

“God is a made up concept. Its existence is subject to interpretation of reality.

Since we cannot say definitely what reality is or what it's for, it is foolish to say it doesn't exist, in that context.

But what people who want you to recognize that there is a god are talking about is that the god they were told to believe in is, unequivocally, that. Even when that changes to suit their attitudes towards what they cannot ignore in their daily lives, "i.e." reality.

It's likes saying that you cannot disprove the existence of an imaginary something that isn't real because we cannot define what is real.”

“This is a good argument to why belief in a god as a concept is silly of its own. But in the lack of conclusive evidence for or against existence of such a supernatural (of some kind anyway) it is wrong (in simplistic terms) to reject the possibility. Especially considering that without some kind of supernatural catalyst the reality we now experience, by scientific theory, is not possible. So we live in an impossible reality but the belief in god is the only thing we reject? It seems to me that rejecting the possibility in light of what we now know about the big bang on how everything evolved is not an objective conclusion. Keeping oneself open to the possibility and constantly reading contrasting information and deciding for yourself which is more likely seems the only rational approach. Or simply not caring one way or the other at all.”

“If various conflicts around the globe are any indication, religious beliefs, such as belief in a god or goddess, can be extremely dangerous, especially if they're carried too far. Unfortunately, however, that's all too often the case, and it's made for extreme amounts of bloodshed, not only here in the United States, but throughout the world, generally.”

“War is a caused by territoriality. That is why chimps go to war with each other too, and brutally at that they have no inhibitions and literally tear the rival groups apart limb from limb including female and young chimps. Now people do become territorial over their beliefs and this does lead to war but it would be happening nonetheless. Everything in our existence is based on conflict. Religious belief in the history of culture evolved to try to teach these inhibited chimps some values that have lead to a current moral standard. Seems to me we should be thankful to religions for helping play a role in us having higher order of existence. Even if god/gods don't exist, the belief in them helped us a lot more than it hurt us, I would say especially for Judeo-christian beliefs in western civilization.”

“Far too many people here in the United States and throughout the world use and have used religion for their own interests and agendas...in other words, used in the wrong ways, if one gets the drift.”

“I can see people having a problem with religious institutions for that reason. Also it is important that throughout history certain people have used any and all institutions (government, politics, sports, entertainment etc) for their own interests and agendas (even sometimes with full malicious intent). So to ostracize religions for the evils of a few bad players seems disingenuous.

But even if the religious institutions are guilty, that does not justify animosity towards those that believe or practice in that doctrine or beliefs of that institution. I don't blame people for believing in something and I don't blame people for not believing in anything. As long as their reasoning for such is solid and they treat those that differ with the respect that reasoning deserves. That is my ultimate wish.”

Another one joined in.

“I will say the following. I have lived long enough to have seen structures come and go where I live. Houses burn down and buildings get razed due to poor condition or having become obsolete. That does not mean that they never existed. Now somebody who never lived while a certain house or building stood might be inclined to say that they do not believe that at a given address such a structure ever existed because they personally never saw it. That they never saw it is not proof that the building never existed and therefore the doubter's word of itself does not disprove the word of the person who did see the building in their lifetime. Now take this one step further. Back a couple thousand years ago people must have seen evidence of a supreme being to become convinced that the supreme being existed. In addition these same people recounted their experience to others who recorded their encounters. Does the fact that none of these people are alive today to be questioned about their statements automatically disprove their existence? To disprove the existence of a supreme being. The argument made by non-believers here seems to simply be "because I never saw an example personally means that it never existed" seems foolish of itself.

Now to go off on a brief tangent I will briefly reference the Star Trek episode "A Piece of the Action" In that episode an Earth ship leaves a textbook referenced by the inhabitants as "the book" for ready consumption by the inhabitants of the planet that the story revolves around. Now let's look at the Enterprise's arrival which was one hundred years after the the Horizon leaving the book "Chicago Gangs of the 1920's which at the time was simply known as "the book." A leading citizen knew that the book had been left by "an outfit" similar to and once Kirk acknowledges that he is looking for evidence of the Horizon the same outfit as the Enterprise in the citizen's (Oxmyx's) mind. Now, assuming that the lifespan of the inhabitants (Sigma Iotia II) is similar to that of humans Oxmyx being of middle age most likely never saw the encounter which resulted in the book being left behind. He most likely knew somebody who witnessed the encounter and then recalled it to Oxmyx at some point in Oxmyx's lifetime. Now let's jump a couple thousand years into the future on Sigma Iotia II. Will the credibility of "the book" having been left by "aliens" (The Federation) come in doubt because the people who saw it first hand or talked to somebody who did see it are no longer alive to be questioned? See the parallels in this episode to what is being talked about here?”

“People have also believed they have seen evidence of witches,demons,vampires,aliens the Loch Ness Monster,Elvis and Bigfoot but I doubt very much that they have.”

“Most people that are alive today do not know the science behind the workings of their computer or cell phone but does that make them any less credible when they say that they saw a UFO? Does it take men or women of science to know if a person saw a UFO? The argument that seems to be made by doubters here is because science was less advanced two thousand years ago that people on average were more ignorant. People back then did not need Newton to tell them about gravity to know that anytime that they did not secure an object that it would fall.

What we are talking about here is the concept of faith. We all use faith in our lives whether we realize it or not. After all you are employing the belief of faith when responding to me that I exist as an individual with my own ideas and beliefs as opposed to being employee of this website paid to provide content perceived to be controversial to you to invoke a response by you to insure traffic here to entice commerce via advertisements.”

“You stated that people "must have" seen evidence of a god.It's an assumption that anyone who claims to have seen anything extraordinary must be telling the truth.Without further evidence to back things up I'd say "must have" isn't enough.”

“I did not use the word "god" but instead used supreme being which is telling me you may not have read my statement completely. And yet despite your claim you must have seen some relevance in my prior statement as you declaration that "must have isn't enough" is a ponderance of faith. That you have enough faith in the observer to consider the observer competent to make an observation or not. Again, I would ask that do believe in my existence as an individual versus an employee of this website?”

“So I didn't quote you as having used the exact word "god" in my most recent post.Although I quote the full sentence in my first one.What else could you have possibly meant by "supreme being"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Being

Supreme Being is a term used by theologians and philosophers of many religions, including Christianity, Islam,[1] Hinduism,[2] Judaism, Sikhism, and Deism,[3] as an alternative to the term God.

I'm still not seeing any relevance to my post.I didn't mention science or how gifted our ancestors were intellectually.

It is your claim that people  must have seen evidence. Based on what? Which people? What did they see and why do you believe it?

Do you believe that people have really been abducted by aliens? Those that claim to have been must have good reason surely?

Whichever you are,you really do exist.There is proof right in front of me! So it's not a matter of faith in any way.

Your motivation for posting what you do is your concern not mine”

“Do I believe that people have been abducted by aliens? Yes, I do although I could never quantify how many. Is there a reason to completely discount the possibility of ET's? Is there some science that via a provable method that disproves the existence of beings not of the Earth?

It's not a matter of physical being as someone or something (computer) replied to you. It's a matter of my intellectual existence. That my positions are honestly arrived at via my reasoning process versus being a construct designed to elicit further responses from you?”

“By this logic anything is possible.Fairies, Elves, Hobbits you believe in them too? Unicorns, Cthulhu?”

“Yes, i believe in all of them. Santa too!”

“Probably half the people on the internet are not who or what they say they are. Many of them post stuff that is designed to deliberately infuriate or elicit a reaction. Many will also deliberately post contrary opinion.

None of this has anything to do with faith,because whether you are a poster, an employee or a bot. The one thing you do is exist, you are provable. Your motives are irrelevant.”

“I am not saying I agree with him on anything because I honestly did not take the time to read through all the replies but I disagree with your suggestion of logic failure. Comparing fairies, elves, hobbits to the actual existence of god is not an appropriate comparison. There is conclusive evidence that those things do not exist on our planet at least. Impossible to know if species such as that live elsewhere. the concept of the 'ideal' which is what god is not comparable to other myths.”

“Sorry, but i just don't understand that statement whatsoever - that can be said about literally anything. There can be many reasons for the concept of a supreme being to come about, especially in such days when it did. Keep in mind that there are many religions and many different Gods. So which of those Gods did people see evidence of, once upon a time?

There are many mythical creatures that you would be ludicrous to believe existed), so why must people have to either believe, or only claim i don't know if there is a God?

If people aren't allowed to be non-believers due to lack of evidence of NO God, then shouldn't believers also have a mindset of I don't know if there is a god too, due to lack of evidence of a God existing?

Whatever you believe, i think we all know that religion has not done this world any favors.”

“These were disproved by compelling evidence to the contrary of their existence. We can actually go and observe these things are not there. With the concept of god it is something that exist on a spiritual plan so there no evidence to observe. So there is no way to prove it one way or the other. I find that because it is inconclusive and likely always will be it is wrong to make a conclusive definitive statement on it. And even more wrong to insult or be condescending to those that have come to a contrasting conclusion.”

“You've quoted me out of context.”

“I do not think that was used out of context. And people still see 'evidence' of a god. Depending on what you see as evidence. For example one might survive a near death experience when all the evidence around them suggested they should have died, this might be attributed to a god. Or more in my example I see the evidence of universe evolution and life development on earth and at best estimates it could not have happened in the time allotted without some kind of guiding force. since the 1980 scientist have known that for amino acids to form on earth given the condition it would have taken longer than the existence of the universe. I see no real reason why if some people want to call this unknown force "god" should be a problem.”

“How can you are observe things are not there?

Fairies are notoriously shy of being seen according to folklore,vampires like to remain the stuff of legend to protect their kind and so on.

So your compelling evidence that mythical creatures do not exist is that nobody has seen them right?

Sounds a bit like god to me.

Ah but of course,he only exists on a spiritual plain now.

Is it as wrong as labelling as fools or lazy thinkers those people who are certain god doesn't exist?”

“Well simply by observing the effects they have. if they are consistent, the conditions are repeatable and produce the same results you can call it a fact. This is how you know gravity is there. can you see gravity and you can't really observe it either. Only the effects which prove it is there. there are no effect of vampires, fairies etc that are consistent or repeatable. However if we treat the idea of god the same way and observe the effects, historically speaking, they do seem to be consistent depending on what you are demanding god do. If you demand god actually physically be present to create things then yes no observable proof of that. If god has always acted as the unknown force guiding life; then yes it does appear to be consistent. Not consistent enough to be fact but certainly more than the other things you listed.

So does the idea of an everlasting universe that has always existed and had the ability to self create. That sounds more like god to me than does fairies and vampires. ”

“That would be where faith comes in.

What I'm asking you to consider is that faith could be attributed to believing in the existence of anything.

Many thousands of people claim to have seen mythical creatures. People have variously claimed to have seen a ghost, an angel, a fairy, an alien, a dragon and yes I'm sure god the father, the son and the holy ghost.

Surely, observable proof must be the ultimate evidence.

So then either all eyewitnesses are unreliable or all eyewitnesses are reliable.”

“I have said elsewhere here, that I see faith as an unconditional trust. That I do not have. I believe everything has a condition. I try to just be open to evidence as it comes to me and allow what I put my trust in to be moved deepening on which evidence seems more reliable.”

“This is kind of bizarrely absolute. Maybe some are more reliable eyewitnesses than others. Seems to me many that have seen some of the things you're talking about are in fact unreliable. Others, especially more inquisitive or skeptical 'believers' tend to be a little more reliable in their interpretation of the information. But individuals with absolutely no evidence make a conclusive statement like there is not god i find to be as equally unreliable sources of information as someone saying they saw a fairy.”

“You want speculation? Here's a bit of pure speculation on my part, but informed speculation, based on observation. We think of singularities as stuff traps, right? Stuff goes in, lost forever. So, that's all they do, right? But wait, we do know of a one particular case of a singularity working the other way around, stuff coming out, our own big bang. This is highly suggestive, to me, of a multiverse webbing of universes birthing new universes through the formation of black holes. New universes being birthed by black holes formed in our own universe. Our own universe having been birthed from a black hole that formed in an older universe. Oh to see beyond our own cosmic event horizon! We're blinded by the limiting speed of light. We can only grope and guess at what lies beyond. Let's make informed guesses though, magic space wizards need not apply.”

“You’re right. I’ve seen the blueprints.”

“While I could try to explain to you again how a cyclic universe theory violates the Doppler effect and isotropic radiation but I have a feeling that 1. I might not be able to explain it sufficiently (I am not a Phd in nuclear physics) 2. if I did explain it efficiently you might not understand. Instead I will quote Dr. Schroeder out the logical fallacy in thinking a cyclic universe (which is what you are proposing) is any different than religious belief:

To create a universe from absolute nothing God is not necessary. All that is needed are the laws of nature. … [That is,] there can have been a big bang creation without the help of God, provided the laws of nature pre-date the universe. Our concept of time begins with the creation of the universe. Therefore if the laws of nature created the universe, these laws must have existed prior to time; that is the laws of nature would be outside of time. What we have then is totally non-physical laws, outside of time, creating a universe. Now that description might sound somewhat familiar. Very much like the biblical concept of God: not physical, outside of time, able to create a universe

How do you address the problem of infinite regression and propose this is a more acceptable answer than god did it? How can you be so condescending toward the belief in god when you believe in a paradox?”

“Talk about psychobabble, holy moly Batman. Infinite regress is only a problem when bloated egos get in the way. Tell me this, Einstein, does infinity exist? There's an easy answer.”

“Can't answer a single question yourself and respond with another question. Did I poke your abstraction too hard?

Before I can answer your question about infinity how much do you understand about the doppler effect and isotropic radiation? because if you don't know anything or little I don't not have the time or patients to give you a class/textbook worth of material.”

“Obviously you don't have any patients. I doubt you could even get through pre-med.”

“Maybe I should rephrase. I have patients to teach someone willing to learn. closed minded individuals that have made a conclusion without actually doing the hard research but remain arrogant enough to comment on it like they are somehow superior by being ignorant, I do not have enough patients to try to teach them; because it would be in vain anyway.

Still can't answer a single question and then try to deflect from the fact you know nothing about physics and yet still think you can speak on the idea of creation with any kind of authority. I guess when you don't even understand the complexities of the belief system you have but you just trusted someone smarter than you that told you about it; when someone equally smart or informed comes along a questions the accuracy of the thought not much you can do but try to deflect and insult.

I think you make my point about anti-theist being too agenda driven and emotionally invested to have any kind of objectivity better than I do.”

“Pure projection.”

Some rando said:

“All religion is faith based, pure and simple. I prefer logic and reasoning. If people want to believe in a god I couldn't care less. Collective consciousness helps a lot of people survive in this crazy world. I opted out a loooooong time ago and haven't regretted in at all.”

“But cosmological science once you go far back enough does not have good answers, logic and reason is insufficient and is completely inconclusive. It seems to me to at least some degree 'trust' in science is equally faith based.

But the way I define the word faith is "an unconditional trust". I have faith in nothing because i do not believe anything is unconditional. But that means I have to be subject to conditional changes of information. Such as this book leading me down a different line of thinking.”

“We came to the same conclusion. . ..just a different way of stating it.”

“This approach is the one that I agree with more than anything. A willingness to accept that you know it is inconclusive and putting your 'trust' in what you find to be more accurate. And at the same time not trying to belittle or act condescending to those that came to put their trust in something else.”

“Absolutely. I have friends who are Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. They all have the right to put their trust in whatever they choose”

“By the way, I know it seems that most here are becoming insulted at the term fool. I do not think a fool is someone that is not intelligent. the way I see a fool is someone that is being lazy in their thinking; in this example it is someone making a conclusive statement when the evidence is inconclusive. I think that is foolish.”

“So you would say the same if someone came up to you and said that a giant, blue, fluffy rabbit is the master of the universe and the earth is nothing but a giant bunny dropping?

There is no evidence at all for the existence of god, so I wouldn't even take it into consideration. It's rather foolish to want people to acknowledge the possibility of something for which you have no proof.”

“Doesn't matter what the concept of the god is. The only point is there are holes in the scientific knowledge of big bang and how the universe was formed and how life was formed. Science fills these holes with religious like, unknown and not proven, forces. If one decides to attribute these forces to a personified god and that personified god compels them a socially beneficial behavior, i see no fault in that approach; even if I don't believe it.

There is no conclusive proof of any theory of how the universe came into existence. I have gone over a few already but there is an amazing amount of unknowns in the scientific approach and things that have to be taken on faith, or at least a mentality that is extremely similar to faith. I do not have a problem with that in itself nor do I have a problem with atheism, theism, agnosticism or any belief system. My problem is when one starts acting like they are more right and have more proof and therefore their conclusion is superior. That is arrogance driven by ignorance. That makes them fools.

Let me ask you this, what proof do you have that the universe exists?”

“Of course the concept of god matters. We have several religions theorizing about the concept of god. If we can't go by those, then there's no definition of god and this entire discussion is pointless. Who says the big bang isn't god?

Your reasoning is faulty. You don't need proof for atheism or agnosticism. You can't even prove a negative. The burden is on those who claim that there IS something more.

The universe is all the space surrounding us. There's enough physical proof for that. As soon as you can show me a picture of god, I'll consider your theory.”

“Exactly this is my point. It is also the point that Dr. Schroeder was making in this book. Even if the concept of god we have come up with as humans is wrong; there is still rather an abundance of proof that something outside of quantifiable science took place during the big bang and that through every step of development of life some unknown force was guiding. This is almost undeniable. What does it matter what we call this force. literally "God" or "for unknown reasons this happened". What difference does it make.”

“But I was not claiming that there is something more. I would not try to prove god is real, the way I see it this is proving a negative too. You don't need proof for atheism or agnosticism, but you don't need proof for theism either. So this whole point is more about how we as people with different beliefs interact with each other. I think a healthy amount of self skepticism mixed with an open mind and willingness to be respectful to those that differ is the right approach.”

“That is actually the proof that there is a god or some unknown force. There is no reason that the elements of helium and hydrogen formed like they did. If that didn't happen we would not even have a universe. All the way down to the 'awakening' of mankind there seemed to be some invisible force at play guiding. So much so many scientist propose that life on earth could not have formed here in the time given and that it was 'brought' here. How can this be an accepted science proposal?”

“If there's no proof of our concept of god, then there's no proof of god. If you want to claim there's something else than the big bang (which is acknowledged as simply a theory) then argue that instead of all this talk about god.

No, the supposed existence of god would not be a negative. Theism is a belief in SOMETHING, which already makes it the opposite of a negative claim. Clearly you do not understand science.

So if the universe must've been created by some kind of power like god, then who created god?

You seeing a force at play is the same as seeing Elvis' face on a piece of toast. It's the brain trying to find order.”

“clearly you don't know the theories very well otherwise you wouldn't approach this topic this way. I suggest reading A book on the topic before coming and talking to me about not knowing the science. Stop getting so hung up on the word "God" it doesn't really mean anything other than 'what we can't explain'. Theism is a belief in something. Atheism is a belief in nothing. But it is a negative to try to prove a belief. God is real because people believe in him, is actually an acceptable definition of real. The concept is real to some so asking them to prove their belief is like me asking you for proof of your disbelief. I can ask why you don't believe in anything, why you don't have evidence to support that disbelief? It is actually lazier to avoid the problem all together and then incredible ignorant to gain some kind of superiority for it.

There is seemingly conclusive evidence that unknowable forces were at play in the creation of the universe and the creation of life on earth, do you at least acknowledge that?

"So if the universe must've been created by some kind of power like god, then who created god?"

What created the universe?

"You seeing a force at play is the same as seeing Elvis' face on a piece of toast. It's the brain trying to find order."

2 problems with this. 1: I am not seeing anything except a lack of conclusive evidence and stating that it is wrong to claim or act like it conclusive. 2: The universe itself found order out of chaos by the laws of thermodynamics this is not possible without some kind of force (god?). These are rather simple and well known scientific theories based on the natural laws. if you don't understand or don't know these how are you anything but foolish for rejecting the possibility of a creator when you have put for no effort to confirm?”

“You're the one who brought up god. Don't just assume that those who say there's definitely no god, don't acknowledge the possibility that there's something else than the big bang theory.

And no, atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. It doesn't matter how you feel about your beliefs, if you want them to be considered seriously, show some evidence.

For now, there's the possibility that there's another explanation than the big bang theory, however there is no evidence of a god or some kind of creator. Thermodynamics says nothing about the existence of a creator, what kind of nonsense is that? Energy can't even be created and always flows towards disorder. Don't get so hung up on how to universe came to be if you can't even explain how the creator came to be.”

“Well if that is the case, then you should consider a more tactful objective approach like "I don't think there is a god" and not "there is no god". I personally don't know if there is a god but I think the latter approach is subjective and not fitting with scientific thought. "i don't know and I don't care" is appropriate. But I take issue with the absolute statement "there is no god" when the truth is you just believe there is no god.”

“Show me some evidence of anything. Anyone can claim there is no god but what evidence exists for such a conclusion? It is so lazy to say I have to prove and provide evidence (for something I don't even believe) while you conveniently hide behind the claim your belief is a disbelief and therefore you have no burden of proof. This is exactly the type of atheism i take issue with. I provided reasonable evidence that there is forces beyond science and that calling it god is not inappropriate. You have provided no evidence of anything to the contrary. Prove to me there is no god (should be easy since I don't believe in one).”

“the second law of thermodynamics is that chaos is always rising. If you understood basic big bang theory and some basic nuclear physics you would know what I was referring to was somehow during the first split seconds after rapid expansion order came out of chaos. By the laws of nature that is not possible without force (energy) of some kind. This is proof only that an unknown force was involved. My only claim is 'why is calling that unknown force "god" and practicing a discipline that follows that idea so bad?'”

“LACK of belief, not disbelief. If there is no evidence of god, then that's enough to say "there's no god". If it isn't, then according to your logic one can never state "there is no..." unless you have evidence that it doesn't exist, which is impossible. I say there isn't even enough to consider the possibility. Are you willing to consider the existence of "fgbfghhvcv", even though I've got no proof it exists?

No, energy simply changed, it was not created. Scientists do not yet know how that happened, but that is not proof of a creator. There are too many different interpretations of god, but even if we go with the common idea of an all-knowing, omnipresent, eternal deity , it would be an incorrect term to use for this supposed unknown force.

You're lazy, you want people to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of god without providing any evidence of god. And no, you did in no way provide such evidence.”

“That is what you say. Others like me consider it a possibility, and others go further to accept it as truth. All of us are 'backing' something (since you have such an issue with the word belief). You are backing the lack of evidence to consider the possibility but can't you see how that makes you look at the evidence that suggests there is subjectively?”

“Is this your god? can you demonstrate how it is in line with our perceivable reality? if you make a compelling case that is in line with reality, I would have to consider it if I was being consistent. If you make a completely nonsensical case or work very hard to avoid any evidence than I must question your reasoning. Funny enough this is similar to how you present the case for science, you work hard it seems to avoid any discussion of what we actually know and observe”

“I was talking about the second law of thermodynamics not the the first. the second law is about chaos. order does not come out of chaos on its own. Something happened to force it. I am not making a case for an all-knowing, omnipresent, eternal deity. I am making a case that it is not unreasonable to come to that conclusion.”

“Again you mistake my purpose. And yes I did. I provided more evidence that at least some unknown force exists/existed than you have.”

“You're the one playing word games, insisting that something that could only be identified as an "unknown force" should be called god.

No, "fgbfghhvcv" is not my god, it's simply something I believe could exist, so you can not definitely say "there is no fgbfghhvcv". Maybe this unknown force keeps it hidden so that there is no evidence it exists, just like there's no evidence god exists.

I was talking about the first two laws. The second one says energy moves towards disorder and nothing about the creation of that energy. The law also only applies to the universe once created, not before that time. No scientist has proven an unknown force exists, let alone you.Your idea of god is not most people's idea of god, so it would be foolish to call it god just because you believe it's god. For what should I provide evidence, my lack of belief in god? Impossible, I can't prove a negative.”

"You're the one playing word games, insisting that something that could only be identified as an "unknown force" should be called god."

could* be called god and should not offend your sensibility if they do call it that. But you allow it to. I don't see you being objective in your view here. Too concluded without sufficient reason.

"The law also only applies to the universe once created, not before that time. N"

This very fact that natural law only applied after natural creation is paradoxical and every bit as religious as the word "god". Even when I was 17 and read "the grand design" I could see the paradox of such a conclusion. Only after getting a little more well versed in physics did I understand it for the hypocritical nonsense that it is.

" For what should I provide evidence, my lack of belief in god? Impossible, I can't prove a negative."

This is a fallacy.

here is a link for a video by david stewart he does a good job of describing why this is a fallacy and that you can prove a negative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMHhJfImQB0&t=252s

Also: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I could go on a find a dozen different articles just on google alone that demonstrate the "you can't prove a negative" is a logical and mathematical fallacy.

“"could* be called god and should not offend your sensibility if they do call it that"

I said no such thing. You're the one who started a thread because you were bothered by people saying "there is no god".

It would be very foolish to apply the law to a previous state we know nothing about. Of course it's only paradoxical and hypocritical if that fits your narrative.

There are certain negatives you can prove, this is not one of them. The burden of proof is on the ones claiming there is a god, since the claim "there is no god" is simply a response to that. Without theism, atheism wouldn't even exist.

By the way, I never even argued the claim that there's no god, so why should I even provide any evidence? The only way I can prove my lack of belief in god is by stating it :"I have a lack of belief in god".”

"I said no such thing. You're the one who started a thread because you were bothered by people saying "there is no god"."

I am. But what was the first line of my opening post? It is not conclusive and you should not treat it as such. simple.

"It would be very foolish to apply the law to a previous state we know nothing about. Of course it's only paradoxical and hypocritical if that fits your narrative."

like the non sequitur "if that fits your narrative" there at the end. can't admit you believe in something as unprovable as god and so you still act superior.

"he burden of proof is on the ones claiming there is a god, since the claim "there is no god" is simply a response to that. Without theism, atheism wouldn't even exist."

I did not claim there is a god. You claimed there is not one. so the burden of proof in this specific case is on you.

"The only way I can prove my lack of belief in god is by stating it :"I have a lack of belief in god"."

That is a proper way of stating. Also don't be condescending or assume you're superior for it.

“I did not claim there is no god, I said there is no proof of god, so I don't even consider the possibility. And no, "there is no god" is always a response to those claiming "there is a god", so the burden's on them.

Buddy, you're the one acting superior, telling people what they should or should not say.”

"I did not claim there is no god, I said there is no proof of god, so I don't even consider the possibility. And no, "there is no god" is always a response to those claiming "there is a god", so the burden's on them."

that is not the claim I made. You either didn't read my initial point or grossly misunderstood it.

"Buddy, you're the one acting superior, telling people what they should or should not say."

I was not telling people what they should or should not say. I was suggesting that if you (and I mean those like you) act like this ^ (see above) you are being a hypocrite. Than I suggest that be a little less concluded (can't be objective if you think you already know the answer) and stop trying to start a war with Christians. it is sickening. They by their own doctrine aren't even supposed to fight back.

“You claimed Atheists need proof for their claim that there's no god. No, they don't.

No only do you act superior, you are incredibly judgemental and prejudiced. I never identified as an atheist and I certainly am not interested in a war with Christians. I'm simply telling you that you're a fool for telling people what they can or can not say. People who believe in god constantly state that opinion in a subjective manner without providing any evidence. Why don't you start a thread about that?”

“This makes my head hurt”

“Mine too. But I like to be challenged. even if I end up being wrong or looking like a fool myself. which I think in some cases here I might be looking foolish.”

“I took one philosophy course as an elective over 30 years ago.”

“It is funny because we run into a real problem with physics running smack into philosophy when we are dealing with cosmology. Yet some try to suggest that I believe personally in a god just because I point out the science is inconclusive and belief or disbelief in a god becomes more about philosophy, sociology, and individual psychology. They call these soft science for a reason. But many people, especially some of these anti-theist, seem to worship the soft science more than they pay attention to the complex details of the hard science.”

“Strange thing about it that philosophy course was real tough - I ended up with a D. So much for an easy elective. My brain just couldn't handle it - that's why I ended up an accountant.”

“The only class thus far I have ever struggled with was chemistry. High School I could do AP physics, Statistics, pre-calculus, psychology and get A's in all. College when doing my first undergrad I breezed through all the stupid useless humanities, arts and philosophy class in addition to all the biology and math classes (which I tested into the higher near graduate level courses). After I decided to switch to computer science for my second undergrad I have maintained a steady 3.6 while taking 2x the recommended course load. All that and chemistry, even basic chemistry has bothered me. I think it is because when I took it in high school I was sick for 2 weeks and fell behind, seems I never caught up. So yeah chemistry has always been my Achilles heel.”

“I was also good at math and stats. In high school I was already doing tax returns manually. My guidance counselor said I should be an accountant - hence I went on to get a degree in business/economics - it's boring but it pays the bills.”

“yeah that is what I usually recommend to people, to get a degree and profession in something that pays well and has high likelihood of fiscal return. Like nurse, accountant, technology, engineering, and any trade skill. Once you have that you can pursue your 'passion' and have the safety net of a secure profession. It may be boring but it not only pays the bills it is a high needs job; you'll always have work. And if you set it up right you can still pursue something that you have passion for.”

“My son is a civil engineer proud of him - he's 25 and just starting out in his career. What do you do ??”

“Right now, supervisor for a system security monitoring team. This is fitting while I finish my degree in computer science. I either hope to keep going in my current try and become a corporate director (which is more management related) or cross over to system architecture and engineering. The latter is my 'passion' goal. I would like to build security software not only for the good money but I like building programs. I also would like to get into teaching (I have interest in arts, literature, history and music) but those are not something I think pursuing a career in would be smart.”

“I agree with all of this, and it's even more of a problem now that we know about quantum physics; things are not as simplistic as we'd thought for several hundreds of years. There's a lot we don't know, a lot that can't be explained by the sciences we've known, the physics we've known, and relied on.

We now know there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, upon which traditional science, as we've known it, was based. No such thing as a totally objective observer conducting tests, that test results are in reality influenced by the observer.”

“Oh yes, this goes even deeper into a argument of the difference between what is objective truth and perceived truth. I was not going to get into that too much because I was trying to focus more on the more widely accepted scientific theories and proposals. But if we get into the problem of "objective observer" we can open a whole new can of worms in the process of what we as individuals accept as the evidence for our individual conclusion.

That is why it is so important to stay open to evidence and reasoning while at the same time not treating those that come to a different conclusion as inferior.”

Or even if such a thing as objective truth exists about the larger questions, and it's mostly perceived truth, to a greater or lesser degree. IOW, interpretations.

"But if we get into the problem of "objective observer" we can open a whole new can of worms in the process of what we as individuals accept as the evidence for our individual conclusion.

That is why it is so important to stay open to evidence and reasoning while at the same time not treating those that come to a different conclusion as inferior."

Agree.

I've now read this entire thread. Wow, there are a lot of misunderstandings, assumptions, and miscommunications throughout it. Still, I find it a very interesting read.

"Now this is not true of all atheist and I am not saying religious people have it right either because both seem for the most part demonstrate often a lack of full study and consideration. It just seems so intellectually lazy to throw out either perspective without careful consideration and respect for the other. Then again it is hard to do that when both seem dead set on destroying the other."

Funny how Science was once Religion's whipping boy, feeling threatened by it, and gradually the tables turned. I ascribe this largely to humans' unfortunate strong tendency to polarize (over, virtually, everything).

My feeling is both Science and Religion are and have been trying to understand and explain the biggest questions we humans have about this universe, or universes, with different types of thinking. Neither need be at war with one another, or threatened by the other.

If the Big Bang Theory is correct, I have no problem with anyone calling whatever energy was behind it God, and perhaps that's what Religion was trying to express all along, imperfectly understanding and interpreting it, but got lost amidst its dogma.

"Or even if such a thing as objective truth exists about the larger questions, and it's mostly perceived truth, to a greater or lesser degree. IOW, interpretations."

I think there is an objective truth, I call it facts or data. The interpretations and conclusions we derive from that is the perceived truth and that makes it difficult, maybe impossible, for us to look at things with perfect objectivity. Which is why we have to be open to contrasting interpretations and based off our values decide which is the most accurate as best we can.

"I've now read this entire thread. Wow, there are a lot of misunderstandings, assumptions, and miscommunications throughout it. Still, I find it a very interesting read."

That was bound to happen. the title I picked was inflammatory to catch interest. I was hoping my reasoning would be clear enough in my OP. Also I am challenging both the dogmas of both hard line religious thinkers and hard lined atheist thinkers. Both have a tendency to react strongly when you suggest their information is inconclusive. So far it seems the atheist have been for more aggressive and less rational than anyone else in this particular discussion. The secular philistines I call them. I find this to be the most hypocritical stance, feigning objectivity when they are completely concluded about the answer.

"... strong tendency to polarize "

That is a big part of it. confirmation bias often causes this polarization. Not taking contrasting interpretations seriously leads one to become arrogant. It was for the last few hundred years the religious that did this to science as you point out. Now it seems the tables are flipped but the same thing is happening. This was pretty well demonstrated by kazak, he only seems to read from scientist that are confirming his conclusion and anyone that disagrees he calls "charlatans". As I pointed out to him that makes him the embodiment of confirmation bias.

Ran out of room now. I agree with the rest.

"I think there is an objective truth, I call it facts or data."

There may or may not be. If objective truth, or facts and data, are based on the results of tests run by individuals (and we know this is true), how do we know, beyond all question or doubt, that the "facts and data" we've collected is accurate and "truthful," and not skewed -- to whatever degree -- by the "objective observer"?

This is uncomfortable, I realise. To everyone. As humans we *want* to have things be solid and reliable, for there to at least be some things we can rely on as immutable truths. I don't, can't, exclude myself from this desire; I have it as much as anyone else does.

"That was bound to happen. the title I picked was inflammatory to catch interest."

I have to wonder what course this conversation would have taken had you not written such an inflammatory title for it, had you not called those with whom you disagree fools, and intellectually lazy. Those are pejoratives, and you have to know that. You also had to expect, as a result, some would naturally be defensive as a result.

Were you looking for an incendiary reaction, or actual discussion? My preference is for the latter.

"I have to wonder..."

If I had not picked a title that would not be inflaming the discussion would have likely slipped into obscurity even before anyone participated. It was necessary to get people interested in even looking. I would not say that I was calling those I disagree with fools; I was calling anyone that makes a conclusive statement on something inconclusive is being lazy. I think that is as accurate description that can be given for such a thing. But I can see how it looks because I was somewhat 'challenging' to begin with. But as I said that was intentional.

I did expect defensiveness from some, but also looking for reasonable discussion and disagreement with those like you. So the readers can see the difference. I think this discussion is much more respectful than what I was having with kazak, because that person as far as I can see is far to 'against' the idea of a creator to be objective. Their reaction has been emotional and irrational at times.

"Were you looking for an incendiary reaction, or actual discussion? My preference is for the latter."

So, I guess, both is the correct answer. the actual discussion is ones like this. That even though we disagree we are respectful and not pompous superior jerks thinking we know the answer and that it is appropriate to mock other's beliefs. The incendiary reaction was to contrast conversations like ours. I hope the audience (if there is any) reading can see the difference. My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-theist. It is one thing to not believe in a god it is another to be against the concept wholesale, and paradoxical too. If they do not believe in god why do they care that other people do, especially since they know it is inconclusive at best.

"If I had not picked a title that would not be inflaming the discussion would have likely slipped into obscurity even before anyone participated. It was necessary to get people interested in even looking. I would not say that I was calling those I disagree with fools; I was calling anyone that makes a conclusive statement on something inconclusive is being lazy."

Okay, you start out saying if you hadn't chosen an inflammatory title, this thread would "most likely have slipped into obscurity," but then go on to say it was necessary (i.e., that it *would have* slipped into obscurity, not most likely have done so).

No way to go back in time and rewrite it, so neither of us definitively know the answer, but ...

It's long been my experience that when one starts out using pejoratives aimed at others, those others are predictably going to respond negatively. Which is exactly what happened. If your intention was to invite those people to consider rethinking their positions, your approach was ineffective.

You and I are largely in agreement, so I didn't feel attacked by your OP, which is why our discussion was and remained respectful -- a discussion, rather than devolving into an argument.

I invite you to consider, in the future, being more respectful yourself towards those you're trying to communicate with, particularly if your point is to invite them to consider being more respectful towards others. That's my only point.

I get what you are saying but as I see it, sometimes, when you are unknown the provocation of a pejorative is necessary to get even the slightest bit of attention. Yes the result can be negative at first but through reasonable discourse the nature of the conversation can change to a discussion instead of an argument, especially if the initial provocateur (in this case me) goes on to explain in a reasonable and respectful manner what was meant by the pejorative in the first place. I felt like I did that in the opening post, I thought was sufficient in explaining what was meant by the provocative title; perhaps I am mistaken in that.

I also felt I was relatively respectful to nearly all groups of thinking in that opening statement. The only bad actors I singled out and showed disdain for (disrespected) were hypocrites that think they are inherently superior for their belief alone and not for their reasoning. Those I was a actually trying to argue with, like Kazak and stratego; where as I was looking for discussion with more reasonable posters like yourself. I think kazak and stratego proved my point about hypocrisy and superiority, and you prove my point about reasonable discourse. So all in all I think I am getting the results I was looking for.

"but as I see it, sometimes, when you are unknown the provocation of a pejorative is necessary to get even the slightest bit of attention."

I disagree with that. In general, as it opposes my years of experience plus knowledge of human nature, and even more so when what you're calling for is tolerance and respect for the opinions or conclusions of others.

You called those who have concluded or think differently than you (and I) do -- the same people your goal was to reach -- intellectually dishonest, intellectually lazy, naive, and secular philistines.

How effective do you think you were getting people such as Kazak and Stratego to hear you? IMO, not at all.

I *could* call you a hypocrite for asking for respect towards others, while at the same time expressing disdain/disrespect towards others who don't agree with you. I choose to not, and instead choose understanding and finding common ground (not difficult, as we already share common ground).

As I recall it, the only exchanges that were respectful and reasonable were between you and me. That's because I did not feel attacked. But you weren't trying to reach out to people like me. Your stated goal was to reach out to people such as Kazak and Stratego.

Yet even with Kazak, he or she and I have managed to have a reasonable exchange. Why? Because neither of us were attacking the other.

"How effective do you think you were getting people such as Kazak and Stratego to hear you? IMO, not at all."

Ah but my goal is not for them to hear me. There is no hearing for them except by those that share their view. Confirmation Bias. My goal was for them to reveal how closed minded they really are, so that others can see which type of approach to belief and tolerance is reasonably respectful.

And it is not about those that disagree with me. It is about those that hypocritical express conclusive conclusions when there is no conclusive evidence, especially for those that demand proof for the existence of god (is this not unforgivably hypocritical).

"Your stated goal was to reach out to people such as Kazak and Stratego."

No my stated goal was for people to NOT be like kazak and Stratego (at least specifically on this particular topic), not reach people like them.

"Yet even with Kazak, he or she and I have managed to have a reasonable exchange. Why? Because neither of us were attacking the other."

If you looked through my conversation with kazak would should have seen a perfect demonstration of the type of hypocrisy I was speaking out against in my OP. Look at the manner in which he attributed belief to me just because I wanted to give beliefs a fair hearing and not outcast the thought without good reason. He even called Schroeder a "charlatan" while praising the likes of Krauss and Carroll ignoring that Schroeder credential and credibility are very similar to those 2. I did not perform such 'worship' like praise of Schroeder I simply stated he made some compelling points. There is a difference as I see it. Maybe you don't or maybe I am seeing a difference where there is none. Hard to tell. Though I used words like hypocrite and intellectually lazy (foolish), I would have thought more 'objective' thinkers would not have such thin skin to become defensive over that. Which, again, as you demonstrate is fully possible.

You stated this as your goal: "My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-theist." Those who are not like Kazak or Stratego, on this particular topic, were not those you were trying to reach out to, else you'd have had no disagreement with them.

I have no argument with what you were in disagreement on, only your method of delivery, which alienated the very people you were trying to appeal to.

*I* understood perfectly well what you were saying and, as I said, am largely if not totally in agreement with you. But your goal was not to reach out to people such as me, which would be preaching to the choir.

Again, it's less a matter of being thin-skinned than it is being attacked right out of the shoot, and then expecting those you attacked to be at open-minded to what you're saying. You and I, at least fundamentally, have no argument; you did not condescend to or insult *me*, because I don't identify with the group or groups your intention was to address. But you did to others.

If what you wish is to engender respect, be the example you wish to see, give the respect you're asking for, however much you may disagree with it.

"You stated this as your goal: "My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-theist." Those who are not like Kazak or Stratego, on this particular topic, were not those you were trying to reach out to, else you'd have had no disagreement with them."

I can see how this wording is confusing; but I suppose I broke the words apart poorly. I was trying to reach both atheist, deist and theist into being more respectful and not arrogant toward each other. I singled out anti-theist specifically because they were not the group I was trying to reach. Mostly because their very name says they are against theist, ergo do not respect their belief. Which is exactly what kazak and stratego demonstrated. I guess in a way I was disrespectful toward them because I find nothing to respect about their hypocritical approach, and in my tone there was no hiding this. It is not because of WHAT they believe that I disrespect them but their approach to what they believe versus what others believe.

"Again, it's less a matter of being thin-skinned than it is being attacked right out of the shoot, and then expecting those you attacked to be at open-minded to what you're saying."

Again though, the problem is in the very way they define themselves; their very identity of belief is an immediate attack on theism. Which is why it is a practice that is not worthy of respect as I see. They need a name change and more tact. This is a form of atheism that is anti-theist. Not only do they not believe in god, they are specifically against the belief in god. That as I see it by default is an intolerant practice.

"I disagree with that. In general, as it opposes my years of experience plus knowledge of human nature, and even more so when what you're calling for is tolerance and respect for the opinions or conclusions of others."

Well your knowledge and years of experience are far different from mine. My experience of human nature is that typically they practice ideology that leads them to either laziness or full on maliciousness.

And I am more calling for reasonable tolerance and respect. Now reasonable is a tricky word to define in this sense. But to give an example related to this topic: Say you have a christian that goes to church and reads their bible. when pressed as to why they believe in the bible or when someone like kazak demands evidence not only do they not have well reasoned answers but they themselves become defensive and hostile, I would think of this as a fundamental practice of religion. Now in this case this christian did not put reasonable thought into their belief and therefore are hypocrites for ever saying they "know god is real". Now say you have a christian that not only has good answers to why they believe and practice but also acknowledge that they are taking a leap of faith and not become defensive when called out on this. I would say the latter has earned reasonable respect. Same with the atheist that states "I do not believe there is a god" because of the lack of conclusive evidence to convince them but they acknowledge they could be wrong and not demand proof of existence to "prove god is real". I find this very concept of prove god is real to be foolish all together. This is like asking someone to prove they believe what they believe. Or like me saying "prove to me you believe in god". How does one even answer that question other than: "well, I believe it". It puts the christian in a position to give a stupid answer because the initial 'question' was designed to force that answer.

"Well your knowledge and years of experience are far different from mine. My experience of human nature is that typically they practice ideology that leads them to either laziness or full on maliciousness. "

Really? You've found that attacking others with pejoratives has resulted in anything other than defensiveness, due to feeling attacked, and that any meaningful discussion or exchange of ideas has been the result? I find that difficult to believe.

"And I am more calling for reasonable tolerance and respect."

If that is truly what you're calling for, then extend it to others, and yes, that includes those you're criticising. I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees here. Look at the BIG picture here, not simply your original thesis. Give respect if you want to receive it in return, that's it boiled down to its most simple terms. If you're unwilling to do that, expect to receive what you've received here, missing the opportunity to effectively communicate with those you wish to communicate with, which is *not* those who are like me.

Christian, Judoist, Buddhist, whatever, at the end it's all the same except for the details, and respect is, in the end, respect, be that respect for atheists or agnostics.

"Really? You've found that attacking others with pejoratives has resulted in anything other than defensiveness, due to feeling attacked, and that any meaningful discussion or exchange of ideas has been the result? I find that difficult to believe."

No, what I have found is that without really stunning people out of their ideologies by making them offended or uncomfortable, "poking their abstractions", then often they will continue to stay in their ideology.

"Christian, Judoist, Buddhist, whatever, at the end it's all the same except for the details, and respect is, in the end, respect, be that respect for atheists or agnostics."

As I said in my other comment to you; there is a difference between being atheist, christian, Buddhist, etc and being specifically against another's belief system. This is like defining oneself as anti-christian, anti-Buddhist, anti-atheist. They are not pushing for their beliefs they are rallying against other people for their beliefs. This is a very distinct difference.

"No, what I have found is that without really stunning people out of their ideologies by making them offended or uncomfortable, "poking their abstractions", then often they will continue to stay in their ideology."

And you've seen here, by your approach, is what? Has anyone in your stated goal group done anything except become (justifiably) offended? Have you seen anyone within the same group of people do anything except defend their position? No? Yeah, me either. I wonder why that is.

Put aside your position (belief in god, non-belief in god, or whatever) -- or anyone else's -- for the moment, and boil it down to normal human reactions on any given topic. You want to reach out to your goal audience and have them possibly reconsider their position and actions? You can continue on this path, which is demonstrably ineffective, OR you could consider another, more effective tact. The choice is yours. The question is WHAT are you going to choose? Continued strife and a lack of communicate, or the increased chances of your point(s) being considered?

let me ask you this; since you are convinced that the anti-theist are my goal audience even though I have stated multiple times are the antithesis of my argument:

How can someone that is against the beliefs of someone else (anti-whatever) ever demonstrate tolerance and/or respect towards whatever they are specifically against?

How are they justifiably offended when their very identity is designed to offend others?

How will anyone ever reconsider their ideology when they assume anyone that does not hold that ideology are idiots?

This is what you stated: "My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-theist."

If your target audience wasn't atheists, which is what your OP was about, then who was? If it was anyone else, you hardly made that clear, not only in your OP but throughout this thread.

"How can someone that is against the beliefs of someone else (anti-whatever) ever demonstrate tolerance and/or respect towards whatever they are specifically against?

How are they justifiably offended when their very identity is designed to offend others?

How will anyone ever reconsider their ideology when they assume anyone that does not hold that ideology are idiots?"

I would ask you these same questions. You appear to be unaware that you're doing to others what you're asking those people to not to do a different group of people. That doesn't work; same behavior, targeted against a different group of people, for different specific reasons.

"This is what you stated: "My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-theist.""

Did you miss this reply: "I can see how this wording is confusing; but I suppose I broke the words apart poorly. I was trying to reach both atheist, deist and theist into being more respectful and not arrogant toward each other. I singled out anti-theist specifically because they were not the group I was trying to reach. Mostly because their very name says they are against theist, ergo do not respect their belief. Which is exactly what kazak and stratego demonstrated. I guess in a way I was disrespectful toward them because I find nothing to respect about their hypocritical approach, and in my tone there was no hiding this. It is not because of WHAT they believe that I disrespect them but their approach to what they believe versus what others believe. "

" You appear to be unaware that you're doing to others what you're asking those people to not to do a different group of people. "

You are wrong, sir. I am going after people's attitudes and behavior not their beliefs. to the beliefs I am respectful (reasonably at least) to the approach I am not. I am stating be respectful to the belief but if someone is actively against (ie trying to destroy you) you have no reason to tolerate that.

“Someone clearly has a crush on me. :) Congratulations on demonstrating nothing that everybody didn't already know, derp. A real maverick.”

“Not really a crush. I used you for my purposes and now i have no further use for you. So please stop texting me I have moved on you should too. This is getting sad.”

“If you truly don't believe in a theistic God, as you've claimed several times throughout this thread (which I don't believe for a second), then why do you display so many common theist behaviors? It's all about you, all about your purposes. The thinly veiled entire purpose of theism, God thinks exactly as I do, you should get in line with God (and thereby conveniently do exactly as I think you should). This isn't "getting" sad, this started sad.”

Right because i display even the slightest empathy and can try to assume the thought of a person that believes in a theistic god means by default I do actually believe. That does not mean I believe it just means you are so narcissistic and lacking in empathy you can't even try to be reasonable towards others of different beliefs. I really do not think I am the one with a problem here.

Also I do not necessarily believe there is not a god I just don't really believe there is. It is a spectrum not a definite belief; which is why I am open to reason and you are not.

"It's all about you, all about your purposes."

No my purpose was to prove people that are anti-anything, as in your case anti-theist, are not capable of being objective and rational. And you perfectly displayed that. I do not think "God" would care very much about my purpose; nor do I particular care about "his".

"God thinks exactly as I do, you should get in line with God (and thereby conveniently do exactly as I think you should)."

I do not think I ever came even close to suggesting something like this. You have a rather bizarre view of theistic belief. I can only wonder at what religion or religious person has done to hurt you.

I don't disagree. The problem arises when deliberate efforts persist to conflate this responsible deistic position with a dangerous and irresponsible theistic position, for the purposes of control and domination. THAT is why atheists seem unpleasant at times, because allowing for the responsible deistic position leaves the door cracked open for dubious agendas to come rushing through, which they can reliably be counted on to do every single time. If an energy, which we'll call god (little g) initiated the big bang, then this is clearly not a God (big G) who answers prayers, helps wide receivers catch touchdowns, is concerned with every single little aspect of our lives, and is as worthy of worship as any other energy is (light for instance). In short, an energy at the origin ain't Yahweh. Obfuscation coming in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

"The problem arises when deliberate efforts persist to conflate this responsible deistic position with a dangerous and irresponsible theistic position, for the purposes of control and domination. THAT is why atheists seem unpleasant at times, because allowing for the responsible deistic position leaves the door cracked open for dubious agendas to come rushing through, which they can reliably be counted on to do every single time."

This problem arises due to an unfortunate tendency in human nature, which really isn't particularly related to deitism or non-deietism. The desire to control and dominate isn't specific to religion, and so I feel no threat from it, specific to religion.

I also don't necessarily think there's a difference between a big G god or a little g god, as you understand it. I think there's still a LOT that we don't know or understand, and we label such things as "supernatural," when most likely they are natural, but we simply don't yet understand these things.

BTW, in case you were wondering, no, I don't think that god (upper or lower case) has much -- IF anything -- to do with team A winning over team B, be that sports or religious wars.

<< Only a fool would say definitely "there is no god" >>

Well, if one were to treat Believers and Non-Believers equally, wouldn't the flip side be, "Only a fool would say definitely 'there are gods' " ?

.

It is all about having definite conclusions on something that is known to be inconclusive.

"But if you really indeed wanted both sides to be balanced, why isn't the title of the thread:

Only a fool would say definitely "there is" or "there is not" a god

It seems quite clear which side you're pandering to..."

1. Because I figured to catch more attention the title needed to be somewhat inflammatory. See my discussion with Catbookss if you want more details on that.

2. It was not pandering to a side of belief but a criticism of approach to belief in which definite conclusions were being made without sufficient evidence.

3. In addition to trying to push for reasonable respect; I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of people that are not just atheist but anti-theist (meaning they are fully against another person's belief system and how that is intolerant and eliminates all objective reasoning.) Look through my conversation with Kazak and Stratego if you want to see what that looks like.

Edit: This ideology of being anti-'anything' also would apply to a theist (ex. christian) that was anti-science. The reason I put more focus on anti-theist is it seems to me that this is the larger active group in our current society.

So you are open minded to anything? Peanut butter and jelly monsters on Saturn? There is the same amount of evidence for them as for any God. So you are open to the idea right? Don't try and change the subject again, just give me an honest answer.

Yes because physical peanut butter and jelly monsters on Saturn is comparable to the concept of an abstraction of the ideal that is derivative of the possibility of a metaphysical creator of the universe. Your utter disdain for the concept demonstrates there is no possible way you can think objectively about this topic.

Copyright © 2017 by Ben Caesar All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the author.

This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.