any arguments?

[Necrosis]

does any athiest actually have any good arguments for the non-exsistence of a higher being ie god. ive yet to see one argument against a creator. anyone got any?

[Nordic Superman]

does any athiest actually have any good arguments for the non-exsistence of a higher being ie god. ive yet to see one argument against a creator. anyone got any?

Monotheism is pretty stupid IMHO. I'm more convinced our universe is a controlled experiment by a race of higher beings, not one single entity. In either case, who was the higher beings creator (and so on and so forth)?

Fact is it is unexplainable. There is no real evidence either way.

[Camel Jockey]

does any athiest actually have any good arguments for the non-exsistence of a higher being ie god. ive yet to see one argument against a creator. anyone got any?

If there's no evidence for the existence of a god, then no one has to disprove anything. Can't disprove something that's never been proven. If you need a complex arguement for such a simple thing, then no can really help you.

[Tre]

does any athiest actually have any good arguments for the non-exsistence of a higher being ie god. ive yet to see one argument against a creator. anyone got any?

I may not have any great arguments against the existence of a creative being or force, but based solely on the texts presented by religious folks, if a 'god' does exist, he/she really is a murderous asshole and certainly isn't someone I'd like or respect. 

[logical?]

Dude, you still haven't answered some of my posts in other threads.

And atheists don't need a reason to not believe in (a) God. There is simply no good, logical reason to believe in (a) God- the existence of a creator is not required to explain our existence.

That includes you- the arguments you've put forward simply don't hold water, as I've pointed out a few times now.

[Necrosis]

there are many atheist arguments just wondering if anyone was aware of them. i am, as i have read many atheistic texts.


logical what arguments dont hold water. my nothing from something does, it wasnt me who made the argument, it was a little scholar by the name of thomas aquinas you may have heard of him. eternal argument is correct.

there are multiple other arguments. like there has to be somethign for which it is necessary to exist(god) for anything to exist. that is there must be an uncaused cause, or there would be an infinite regression of causes. contingency arguments, that reason that everything has a reason. the reason you are alive is because your parents had sex and so forth. what is the reason for the universe? if not god. there are multiple others, and there are counters, just wondering if anyone had read any good reasons to beleive in atheism or secular humanism.

i have outlined many good reasons that at least make god plausible, ive heard none that support atheism from anyone on this site. there are many good reasons to beleive in god, ive went over many.

logical, im sorry but you are a smart fella but anyone who read our debate with an open mind would have to conclude i won. i did not change any of my points only solidified them. you frequently changed your point and even abandoned some. however, in case i missed what your points, outline them again please. not sure which arguments didnt hold water at all actually, they are from philosophical texts and have been accepted by scholars, whatever route you take you will end up in a spiritual context.


how did the universe begin then? why change in the big bang? why do we search for false purpose?what is the standard for morality, why is there a right and wrong, who decides? .why is the universe perfectly tuned for life? how could being come from non-being? we are all star dust come alive, was that star dust initially conscious? if not, then your arguing a rock can become intelligent? what about near death experiences, which by the way have some new research coming out that proves they occur while flatlined? why is dna information? why is there something rather then nothing if there is no neccesary being? thanks in advance for your answers, using any logic or scientific data you want. has to be logical though.

if you would like to forgo some of the answers and just bring up what arguments i brought forth that did not hold water you may do so. always interested in a good debate. although as i remember your only argumetn was what if a different type of nothing existed that creates something. i dont have to re-argue this convaluted point. what if there was a different type of infinity that wasnt boundless, aha, think about that illogical question and get back to me.

[Necrosis]

any atheist can answer my questions. im not being a dick i would like to hear any logical answers. i have answered many questions, i have yet to see an atheist answer anything worth thinking about other then, there is no good reason to beleive in god. well what is the good reason for beleiving in humans? for atheism? have any.

tre i havent read the bible nor care too. im not religious. i just realize that there has to be some intelligence in creation. for reasons i outlined and for reasons not discussed. so i wont comment on the biblical god, but i know there to be a god, or non-thing that creates.

[Necrosis]

saying there is no god doesnt solidy your position. you dont win by default in this game, you have to provide positive reasons.

[wes mantooth]

athiesm is a belief...just like any given religion. its kind of hard to prove the inexistence of something, just as it is equally difficult to prove the existence of an intangible.

i could tell you there is an invisible tiger in the room right behind you.....you can try to prove that it isnt there......and i can try just as hard to prove it is. my point is belief in something doesnt need to be documented by irrefutable evidence per se....the existence of god is not a cut and dry argument

a belief is:

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 
3. confidence; faith; trust: 


i believe there is no god. that statement in it of itself is enough.

[wes mantooth]

usmokepole....im inclined to think you can answer your own question, or at least you have touched on it in other posts:

"yes im saying im so convinced in my faith that i know that god exists. but it is still faith none the less, i have have no concrete evidence. if god wanted us to know he exists then he would. faith is needed."

now apply that route of thought to atheism. you are convinced that there is a god through your faith. athiests are convinced though belief (faith need not apply) that there isnt.

it is not to be understood, just resected on both accounts

[Necrosis]

i agree with everything your saying, and have said it in many posts. i have offered reasons why i beleive that make it plausible. im asking for atheistic reasons as to why atheism is correct. you cant prove the negative, i have said that over and over, i understand that atheism, theism are FAITHS some have argued against atheism being a faith but that is just ignorance. there are philosophical arguments against god. nothing irrefutable, just making it less probable and plausible.

of all these atheists youd think someone has a reason for beleiving in atheism. why do you beleive in atheism- Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

why do you or anyone else think that there is no god. no good reasons is a poor argument and lacks argumentative substance on every level imaginable.

[Necrosis]

good points wes, i just didnt accept god though. i was once an atheist and had this debate in which i lost. i realized that theism explains life better and answers more questions. im not religious, but spritual. ive never seen the inside of a chruch and despise some of there acts, i just think there is a higher power and have tried to reason why. just looking for the same reasoning from the other camp.

[wes mantooth]

glad you found your place...especially without a "label".....spirituality, not religious.


do you need a reason to believe? meaning...if neither side has inarguable proof, then is there really an argument at all? there are theories in each camp, but none are PROVEN fact beyond reasonable doubt. so, that would lead me to think that both are theory based on ideals, not truths.

my argument only needs to be believed by me, i cannot grasp a higher bieng. i do not think it is plausable.

there are no ancient scrolls or "bibles" arguing or proving the inexistence of god, because there is no reason to argue something that doesnt exist. as stated above, why argue that there is not an invisible tiger in your room? because its absurd....there is no invisible tiger.

[logical?]

saying there is no god doesnt solidy your position. you dont win by default in this game, you have to provide positive reasons.

You won the argument so you replied to my post three times in a row?


It's you who's making  the positive claim. You're saying there exists a creator. That's a positive claim. You have to give positive proof. You haven't.

- I didn't change any of my positions, you're misrepresenting me if you state that.

- My arguments are there for you to see in threads just round the corner for you to check out if you've forgotten.

- Nothing from something isn't a positive proof of God. Even if nothing from something were true, this doesn't logically imply God at all- you've misunderstood what it means if you state this.


- I didn't abandon any of my points, I simply got sick and tired of repeating them over and over again. You didn't answer much of my indications of your logical contradictions, so I wasn't going to bother re-writing them for the n-th time. That is not abandonment.
- Mentioning Thomas Aquinas name is argument from authority- he's probably wrong, he was about alot of stuff.

[Necrosis]

no nothing comes from nothing. if you accept this axiom which you would have to based on reason, you must conclude 1)that something is in fact eternal. ok so matter in any of the models we have doesnt last forever, entropy. and if it was cyclical there is no known phenomenon that would allow re-birth after a big crunch that is big bang then big crunch and so on. also, heat death would occur rendering clubbers cyclical universe model pure shit.2)therefore matter cannot be eternal.3)the universe is finite(redshift). something would have to be infinite, if not then nothing exists outside the universe and this makes the logicali assumption of something from nothing.

disagree with anything, hope not. heres the doozy whatever created this universe would have to be immaterial(matter is not eternal), therefore all powerful, immaterial to make material. infinite(for reasons above). as well, this non-thing would have to be eternal that is be uncaused. the essence of this thing would have to be to exist, that is its purpose or reason is to exist so other things can exist. everything has a reason this is called  the contingency argument.

so lets see based on logic(i havent even brought up the forty other positive arguments for god) this thing would have to be immaterial, all-powerful, timeless and infinite, sounds like god to me. care to take a stab at any of my question from the above post.

care to answer any questions at all like i do, and put your faith on the line per se. based on current knowledge atheism is dumb imho. any atheist answer any of my questions.

a positive statement is god doesnt exist im asking why and all i get are blank responses, doesnt sound like much of a faith to me

wes, there is a difference between santa clause and god, there are reasons to beleive he exists, such as why change, why something rather then nothing and why every other question i have asked. people who use this argument are misrepresenting why people believe in god. without god this life is a cosmic joke.

logical? are you really going to stick with your argument that a different type of nothing exists that creates something. can you not see how ridiculous and ill-logical this argument truly is. i cant remember any of your other arguments because there are none. i will look back over the thread.

[Necrosis]

here are your arguments

- Yes, fair enough. I guess I badly worded what I was trying to say. When I say, 'just because you don't understand infinity, doesn't mean no one else can,' I mean that- just because you, or any or all of us don't understand infinity (assuming we don't), does not logically imply (of itself) that it is not possible to. Just because person A does not understand concept x, does not mean that it is logically impossible for person A, or any other, to understand concept x. Granted, you are saying that the nature of the particular concept at hand- infinity- implies that this is the case. I don't think you've demonstrated this, however, and I also think that this means that you are saying a bit about the nature of infinity (it's not able to be understood by us), and are hence understanding it.

1)you are dead wrong. a finite amount of space(synaptic connections) cannot store infinite amounts of information. this is the logical implication of infinite. being something you cannot know what it is to be nothing. try naming a new sense and what it entails, something new. you cant because experience dictates concepts. what is it like to be in two places at once. i have demonstrated this over and over. YES, someone can know something that is knowable that someone else doesnt but not the unknowalble. no finite mind can know infinity, there are books written on this subject actually. write out the final number for pi would ya, and get back to me. your person A example doesnt matter in this debate(that has been the problem, your examples arent relevant). if i know that dont know that 1+1=2 that doesnt mean someone else cant, this is true. but this is a perceivable concept and has nothing to do with the concept of infinity, can you not see this. im saying i dont know the nature of infinity, but based on my knowledge of finite in juxtaposition to infinite i know i cannot grasp it. no point in arguing this it has been refuted clearly, i mean come on seriously that is a weak ass argument.

- I don't think this is a particularly strong point for you, and this is the point I was using the red brain case to argue against. When you say that the brain is a finite piece of matter, and a thought (even though it is intangible) is simply a semblance of electrons in a finite area of space- to this I agree. Yet, I do not think it implies the next step- just because the brain is (physically) finite, doesn't mean it can't comprehend what it is like to be not-finite. So, I mentioned the red brain. The brain is a particular colour. But we are able to comprehend other colours. I think that perhaps you are on a bit of a reductionist track here.

2)no it is not a strong point for you, you used a perceivable concept that is readily experienced to explain something that no one human has experienced(again your using improper examples to make your point that have no relevance). finite space cannot store infinite space, this is an easy concept and is not debatable, i dont understand how you can even argue it.

definitions to help(finite)
2. Mathematics
a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal.
b. Having a positive or negative numerical value; not zero.
c. Possible to reach or exceed by counting. Used of a number.
d. Having a limited number of elements. Used of a set.


infinite
1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless

can you now see why only a concept and not true understanding of the reality of infinite is not possible.


Your other point, however, was strong- we can conceptualise only what we have encountered in experience. I made the point, however, that we can use processes of thought to deduce other concepts which we have not encountered in experience. A person can know two concepts, A and B, and from A and B he can logically deduce the existence or nature of a third concept, C, even though he has not had experience of this concept C.

yup this is my point, and is correct. nature not ultimate reality

- Again, just because I cannot point to a particular thing and say, 'that's an example of infinity,' doesn't mean one can't grasp the nature of it. See above paragraph.


yes it does, and for other reasons. everything you experience is you, you dont know what its like to be me nor can you because of your experience. same logic.
- Nothing is something. It is nothing. Nothing and something are not mechanistically, rigidly exclusive concepts, just like objective and subjective are not. 

yes they are, youve actually missed the whole point, nothing is not something. something has attributes and exists. nothing does not exist.
 
 

[NeoSeminole]

Dude, you still haven't answered some of my posts in other threads.

you should read some of my epic debates with usmokepole in this section. Every time I would fluster him with a counter-objection, he would either change subjects or use the excuse that our discussion has become boring.

[Necrosis]

haha. neoseminole the one who said cause and effect had been refuted by logic and that evolution is not a model but a theory that offers no testable predictions. and that punctuated equilibria are not merely description. and that evolution offers prescriptions. ahahhahahahhaha.

the point of our arguments were i was arguing interpretations and you kept presenting facts. i know the facts, im interested in interpretations not facts. as we are all privy to the facts, interpretations of quantum mechnics is what really matter and progresses science. jump back in anytime you fell like it neo. ill actually post your cause and effect argumets and refute them here so everyone can see how stupid they are.

[Necrosis]

i even copy and pasted his reply with specific objections.

heres yours

this post:ill keep them short as you dont like reading

"objection 1: some effects do not require a cause. Quantum mechanics tells us that particles at the sub-atomic level behave without causation. You claim something must be responsible. However, no evidence for sub-quantum forces has ever been found. The forces ARE the result of quantum particles (e.g. strong forces are caused by gluons, not vice versa)."

-quantum entanglement re-establishes the cause and effect relationship. not know the cause is not the same as no cause. adherance of proof is no proof of adherence.

"objection 2a: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This means the chain of causes of your future actions extend backwards to before you were born. In essence, your whole life is predetermined and free will doesn't exist. If you object that any of these causes is an isolated event, then you are implying an uncaused cause which violates the "law of cause and effect."

-no it doesnt and frankly this is a dimwit argument. uncaused cause doestn violate causation. i have went over this many times. if everything needs a cause and infinite regression would occur. therefore some uncaused casue exists. also, i have choice over causes, which is called free will. if my actions were deterministic by matter(my brian) why can i choose against eating, against copulating. its obvious we have choice apart from instinct

"objection 2b: if everything that happens must have a cause, then each cause must have an earlier cause and so on. This chain of causes may be traced back to the first cause. A familiar paradox arises - what caused the first cause? According to the "law of cause and effect," every cause must be caused by something else. If we assume there is an uncaused cause, then its premise is violated and the whole argument fails."

-no it doesnt read some philosophy. or even physics for that matter. time is a product of matter and vice versa. cause and effect pertains to material objects.

"objection 3: the "law of cause and effect" postulates that a specific cause always leads to a specific effect (i.e. there may be some attribute X which always leads to some attribute Y). However, we have never observed two instances of X which led to two instances of Y. Every X is different in some respect from every other X. Likewise, every Y is different from every other Y. If you object that we may infer the same outcome when each X is exactly the same, then you are creating a definition for cause and effect that cannot be falsified. Since all you would have to do whenever someone challenges you is propose additional 'unknown' causes, this is not really a valid argument. It would be like me claiming "the universe was created by a black hole. We just don't understand all the factors that were involved" no matter how many objections are raised. Although this argument can never be falsified, it doesn't necessarily follow that it's true."

-this argument can go both ways so i dont see the validity, we may not know the causes, we dont know everything. are you saying that holding a book up and letting go(x) doest cause it to fall(y).

[NeoSeminole]

haha. neoseminole the one who said cause and effect had been refuted by logic and that evolution is not a model but a theory that offers no testable predictions. and that punctuated equilibria are not merely description. and that evolution offers prescriptions. ahahhahahahhaha.

I said the law of cause and effect, as given to me by you, can be refuted by logic. You suggested everything that happens must have been caused by something else. I demonstrated why this definition is self-defeating. Moreover, I never said that evolution is not a model. I don't know where you got that from. A scientific theory is a model used to explain natural phenomena. For example, gravity is a model used to describe how bodies of mass interact with each other. The theory of evolution does make testable predictions as do all scientific theories. This is the primary reason why creationism isn't regarded as scientific. Also, I already explained to you why punctuated equilibrium is not merely a description to explain a lack of transitional fossils. I have no f*cking clue what you are talking about in your last sentence.

[Necrosis]

gravity isnt a model, it is not merely a describtion of how bodies interact it can be verified by mathematics and by predictions based on objective science and by something called math. gravity is a theory, like the theory of general relativity which describes gravity, ring a bell. evolution offers no testable predictions.  it is a model, and by definition a model is a description. have you even read and gould, punctuated equilibria is only a description it doesnt offer prescriptions as to when a species will pop into exsistence for example. it looks at historical records(fossils) which is not accetable in natural sciences and makes the observation that evolution happens in short bursts based on the fossils(how ingeneous). im not totally against evolution, i beleive somewhat in self organizing complexity models and auto-catalytic sets. but fundamental darwinian evolution is wrong.

[NeoSeminole]

gravity isnt a model, it is not merely a describtion of how bodies interact it can be verified by mathematics and by predictions based on objective science and by something called math. gravity is a theory, like the theory of general relativity which describes gravity, ring a bell. evolution offers no testable predictions.  it is a model, and by definition a model is a description.

a scientific theory is a model. Gravity is a theory, hence gravity = model. Educate yourself about scientific terminology. The theory of evolution makes plenty of testable predictions. It predicted the fossil record, homologous structures, DNA similarity between species, etc. The following sites contain an extensive list of predictions made by evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

have you even read and gould, punctuated equilibria is only a description it doesnt offer prescriptions as to when a species will pop into exsistence for example. it looks at historical records(fossils) which is not accetable in natural sciences and makes the observation that evolution happens in short bursts based on the fossils(how ingeneous). im not totally against evolution, i beleive somewhat in self organizing complexity models and auto-catalytic sets. but fundamental darwinian evolution is wrong.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your post sounds like the rambling of a child.

[Necrosis]

your missing my point. evolution is merely a description. creationsim predicts fossils,dna similarity and many other things too. it offers no testable, reproducible experiments. even the fruit fly experiments with radiation proved mutation doesnt work. would you like to view the papers?

what does dna similarity even mean. dna is the template for life, what prediction is it that dna is similar, a similar creator could be deduced for example. a theory needs testable predictions that can be reproduced. there is no point to argue the facts with you, my interpretation as is jastrows, and goswamis is that punctuated jumps equal leaps in consciousness or the development of self, and not homology. you dont understand because you cant comprehend im not about to dumb myself down so i can argue with you.  predictions after the fact are called descriptions. what repoducible laboratory evidence do they provide. so what are you saying. is gradual evolution correct, or punctuated equilibria. your arguing both like they can both be right.

haha if a child knows about bootstrapping and complexity theory and stu kaufmanns auto-catalytic sets then i would have to meet this child hahahaha. this is another quotable from neo, ahhahaha. logic refutes logic hahaha. lists of theories are childsplay ahahahahhaha

[Necrosis]

do you even know what punctuated equilibrium is. or what self organized complexity is? if not then it is pointless to debate evolution. i agree. microevolution is correct, as is natural selection. but it is a big jump to say dna similarity equals everything was the same. why because this is faith based on the definition. what is the mechanism mutation DOES NOT WORK. they subjected fruit flies to more bouts of mutation then the whole human gene pool ever has and not one beneficial mutation occured.

[NeoSeminole]

your missing my point. evolution is merely a description. creationsim predicts fossils,dna similarity and many other things too. it offers no testable, reproducible experiments. even the fruit fly experiments with radiation proved mutation doesnt work. would you like to view the papers?

I think you're the one who's missing the point. All scientific theories, by definition, are explanations of natural phenomena. Your comment that "evolution is merely a description" reflects your ignorance of scientific terminology. I already mentioned several testable predications that evolution makes and provided web sites with more extensive lists. I cannot help it if you don't want to look at the facts, but for your credibilty's sake don't keep saying evolution offers no testable predictions. You are simply wrong. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory b/c how do you test for god?

what does dna similarity even mean. dna is the template for life, what prediction is it that dna is similar, a similar creator could be deduced for example. a theory needs testable predictions that can be reproduced. there is no point to argue the facts with you, my interpretation as is jastrows, and goswamis is that punctuated jumps equal leaps in consciousness or the development of self, and not homology. you dont understand because you cant comprehend im not about to dumb myself down so i can argue with you.  predictions after the fact are called descriptions. what repoducible laboratory evidence do they provide. so what are you saying. is gradual evolution correct, or punctuated equilibria. your arguing both like they can both be right.

DNA similarity means that species that more closely resemble each other have more DNA in common (I'm not sure what the proper word for this is). For example, it was predicted that humans were more related to chimpanzees than horses before the advent of DNA testing. If we trace our genome back, we see that humans have more DNA in common with other mammals than reptiles, and so on.

haha if a child knows about bootstrapping and complexity theory and stu kaufmanns auto-catalytic sets then i would have to meet this child hahahaha. this is another quotable from neo, ahhahaha. logic refutes logic hahaha. lists of theories are childsplay ahahahahhaha

I can care less about what you know if you are incapable of expressing yourself concisely and clearly. You appear to know a great deal, judging from the subject matter of your posts. However, your use of the written word leaves much to be desired. Sometimes it's difficult for me to understand what you are trying to say.