i challenge you to watch this entire video and then respond

[shiftbmw]

im not your friend, buddy.

I'm not your buddy, guy.

we have to go by what evidence is in front of us. there is no evidence for an existence of god. and in fact, the only "proof" that the abrahamic god is real is the bible. and that story book is so full of holes it cannot be used as proof. it says the world is only 6000 years old. that is false. it said the world was created in 6 days. that is false. so you cant take it literally, you can only take it metaphorically as an allegory for how the world was created by their very limited knowledge. and that's great. but then you have to take everything pertaining to the supernatural as a metaphor. you cant just pick and choose.

You are stuck in the bubble that is Christianity, and as such I'm not sure you are capable of having a truly philosophical conversation about this until you can approach the topic objectively. Nobody is talking about Christianity, the bible, an abrahamic god, etc. The question merely is, was the universe created or was it not?

he's postulating the belief in a deity based on his specific time and place. were he where he is now, but 500 years ago, he'd have a very different world view. if he was raised in norway in our current time, he'd be most likely be completely atheist. this is something that i really find ridiculous about god arguments. oh you were born in just the right time and place to believe in the one true god? how convenient!

My world view changes all the time. I was once an atheist to give you a relevant example. As I experience more, see more, and learn more I see things differently. What is so ridiculous about your world view influencing the way you think? Mine does, and so does yours. We're just like everybody else.

to say that the world exists is proof enough of god is just lazy and ridiculous. where in the world is there proof that god exists? there is none whatsoever. if you have some, show me.

The world is simply evidence subject to interpretation. If you go to a crime scene and find a fingerprint, it doesn't necessarily mean anything without subsequent interpretation. Same thing...the world is just evidence, not proof.

I find it interesting that you say show me proof as if the burden is mine alone. This is a valid request when someone is discussing Christianity, which makes claims that so starkly oppose conventional science. But when it comes to the question of whether the universe was created or not, and we step outside the anecdotal explanations provided by modern day religion, I have no proof and neither do you to the contrary. We share the burden of proof in this case.

the only reasonable assumption is that there is no god. yes, you can say it's possible, but since there is no proof of that, it is not a reasonable assumption.

Reasonable? I disagree. The question is was the universe created or not? Considering how small you are and how little you know relative to the universe, the only reasonable assumption is that neither you or I have any idea whatsoever. For someone to be as certain as you seem to be, I might consider you to be just as blind as the Christians you so readily lambaste.

[Vedubin01]

ΔΔΔ +1

[Kershaw]

great input there, vedubin01.

I'm not your buddy, guy.

im not your guy, friend!

Reasonable? I disagree. The question is was the universe created or not? Considering how small you are and how little you know relative to the universe, the only reasonable assumption is that neither you or I have any idea whatsoever. For someone to be as certain as you seem to be, I might consider you to be just as blind as the Christians you so readily lambaste.

i repeatedly say im not 100% certain and that it is entirely possible that the world was created by a deity. asking for proof is a valid request of anyone claiming the validity of a deity.

and that's where my doubt comes into play. the validity of a deity. how many hundreds of thousands have humans created over the course of history? we seem to have an innate want to create heros and gods.

yes i dont know how the universe was created. but 500 years ago we didnt know how old the earth was. we do now. we even know how old the universe is. how fucking incredible is that? see, this argument keeps getting pushed back. humans used to think rain was a divine miracle. then science proved it was not. then humans thought our galaxy was the only one and that stars were another sphere around us that the sun and moon sat on. then science proved that was not the case. humans used to think the earth was only a few thousand years old. then science proved it was not. then humans said, well it's a divine miracle that earth was so lucky to have been placed that the conditions were right for life. then science proved that there are many other planets with conditions similar to ours.

do you see the pattern? when our science pushes the boundary of our knowledge, religion and faith in the divine sets a new (albeit retreating) boundary of, "well you cant know for sure!"

dude... the evidence against a deity is pretty compelling at this point.

[shiftbmw]

i repeatedly say im not 100% certain and that it is entirely possible that the world was created by a deity. asking for proof is a valid request of anyone claiming the validity of a deity.

Of course it is. I was using the comment you are responding to to distance my assertions from the standard Christian assertion. If someone is going to say the world is 6000 years old, which directly opposed conventional knowledge, the burden of proof is on them. However at the core philosophical level, if you take all the religious sillyness out of it, my point was that the burden of proof is on both of us, not just me.

and that's where my doubt comes into play. the validity of a deity. how many hundreds of thousands have humans created over the course of history? we seem to have an innate want to create heros and gods.

In this comment you are alluding to religious sillyness again. There is or there isn't a creator, and only one of these is the case regardless of what humans have done.

I created a fish pond in my backyard. I don't feed the fish, it is self sustaining. I don't interact with it at all other than the look at it occasionally. I have no obligation to make myself known to my fish. My fish can think millions of different people created the pond, but it doesn't change the fact that I was the one who did.

yes i dont know how the universe was created. but 500 years ago we didnt know how old the earth was. we do now. we even know how old the universe is. how fucking incredible is that? see, this argument keeps getting pushed back. humans used to think rain was a divine miracle. then science proved it was not. then humans thought our galaxy was the only one and that stars were another sphere around us that the sun and moon sat on. then science proved that was not the case. humans used to think the earth was only a few thousand years old. then science proved it was not. then humans said, well it's a divine miracle that earth was so lucky to have been placed that the conditions were right for life. then science proved that there are many other planets with conditions similar to ours.

do you see the pattern? when our science pushes the boundary of our knowledge, religion and faith in the divine sets a new (albeit retreating) boundary of, "well you cant know for sure!"

Keep in mind that science represents our best understanding at the time, not necessarily the truth. As much as we like to think science is perfect(and trust me as somebody with a science background when I say we do), it isn't. It constantly rewrites itself as we further our understanding.

As an easy reference, remember that at one point in time science said the world was flat. Think of all the medical quackery that was at one point considered good science. If science were perfect, there wouldn't be a debate at all over global warming. Am I saying that the age of the universe we accept today is wrong? Well...maybe.

Science provides a similar sense of security to religion in some senses. Utter acceptance of science stifles progress just the same as blaming a god for everything that happens. How many times has science been redefined by someone who didn't accept it in its current state? I'm sure you can name a few people.

Do not misconstrue my words by thinking that I'm saying science is bullshit. There is value in science...extreme value. I would bet my life on science. In fact, I do every day. Every time I drive my car for instance.

I'll admit, religion is often times the waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffles way out, but we aren't talking about religion. We are talking philosophy. Religion assumes "if" and asks "who." Both science and philosophy ask "if." If the universe was truly created, and science searches for truth, it is possible that science could arrive at this conclusion someday.

dude... the evidence against a deity is pretty compelling at this point.

So specifically which evidence is this? I don't want to hear how stupid the bible is, or how many dumb people make up gods. Those have no bearing on whether there is or there isn't. I don't want to hear about the big bang theory, because it addresses what happened after all of the matter in the universe was already in place. Our current best scientific understanding doesn't address why the matter was there to begin with. I don't want to hear how you've never seen a deity, because there is no obligation for a deity to reveal itself to you if it were to.

I want to hear exactly how you know that the universe has existed infinitely(or spontaneously appeared sans creator if that's what you think), instead of having been created at some point.

I might suggest that the only evidence you or I have is the universe we live in in its present state. The evidence is compelling to you based on your world view, which shapes your opinion. But in the end, I submit that you are relying on intuition...gut feel...or in other words faith, just like everyone else.

[2761377]

how many hundreds of thousands have humans created over the course of history? we seem to have an innate want to create heros and gods.

from where did this 'innate' desire come? you understand the meaning of innate, right? across millenia and with no regard of culture or value systems humans understand there must be a Creator. i submit this IS evidence for such an existence.

dude... the evidence against a deity is pretty compelling at this point.

please share this evidence.

[Kershaw]

the only reason we have the concept of deities is religion. that's it. without religion, there are no deities. science has consistently proven the silliness of religion. that the beliefs of religion are not valid. that is proof enough to me, that the deities we have created are no more true than religion behind that deity.

as you've pointed out science is our best guess based on the evidence in front of us. since science proves the claims of religions false, the only result i can gather is that the whole thing is a sham, created to explain our universe when our understanding was very small. so, atheism is our best guess.

i have seen science push the boundary of our knowledge, i can only assume (based on past experience) that science will continue to push our knowledge.

as i said before, you keep retreating to the limits of human knowledge because you know at that point all i can say is, "we dont know past the big bang." i posit that the universe is as old as the experts in the field say it is, if you have evidence otherwise, please submit it for peer review. of course, at this limit of human knowledge i can only toss out theories, like the big bang is a black hole collapsing in on itself. "well kershaw, what created the matter that went into the black hole in the first place!?" dude.. that's a ridiculous question. obviously no one knows. obviously we are working towards it. but to use the limits of our knowledge as evidence that a divine being exists is very much like the belief in a flat earth you brought up. just because we cant see past the curvature of the earth, it must be flat, right?

you understand the meaning of innate, right? across millenia and with no regard of culture or value systems humans understand there must be a Creator. i submit this IS evidence for such an existence.

dont be silly. at best, this is our innate ability to create false idols if a true divine being exists.

[shiftbmw]

the only reason we have the concept of deities is religion. that's it. without religion, there are no deities. science has consistently proven the silliness of religion. that the beliefs of religion are not valid. that is proof enough to me, that the deities we have created are no more true than religion behind that deity.

as you've pointed out science is our best guess based on the evidence in front of us. since science proves the claims of religions false, the only result i can gather is that the whole thing is a sham, created to explain our universe when our understanding was very small. so, atheism is our best guess.

Again, you've fallen into the trap of refuting religious sillyness when in fact, the issue transcends that. The sentence I've bolded in your quote is not an absolute truth. I repost my allegory of the fish pond with an addition to illustrate:

I created a fish pond in my backyard. I don't feed the fish, it is self sustaining. I don't interact with it at all other than the look at it occasionally. I have no obligation to make myself known to my fish. My fish can think millions of different people created the pond, but it doesn't change the fact that I was the one who did. My fish can think nobody created the pond, but I still created it. The thoughts, or religions of my fish have no bearing on whether or not I created the pond.

as i said before, you keep retreating to the limits of human knowledge because you know at that point all i can say is, "we dont know past the big bang." i posit that the universe is as old as the experts in the field say it is, if you have evidence otherwise, please submit it for peer review. of course, at this limit of human knowledge i can only toss out theories, like the big bang is a black hole collapsing in on itself. "well kershaw, what created the matter that went into the black hole in the first place!?" dude.. that's a ridiculous question. obviously no one knows. obviously we are working towards it. but to use the limits of our knowledge as evidence that a divine being exists is very much like the belief in a flat earth you brought up. just because we cant see past the curvature of the earth, it must be flat, right?

But that's the right question.

[Cliche Guevara]

I disagree. I think if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves, the only reasonable conclusion is that we have no clue.

Science currently addresses how we got from point A to point B, but it does not yet address why point A existed in the first place(unless there is something I am unaware of). As such, I don't think my opinion stands in opposition to any evidence. The same can be said about your opinion. In a case like this, what other tool do we have than our intuition?

This is an argument from ignorance. You're asserting that because we do not yet understand what was happening before the Big Bang that there is a god of some sort. You are making a positive claim, which always carries the burden of proof, with zero evidence based solely on the lack of scientific understanding of the pre-Big Bang universe, as well as your intuition. That is not a reasonable assertion and is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Remember, there was once a time when nothing was explained. Since then, everything that has been explained has been shown to be the result of mindless forces working on inanimate objects. How do you think everything else will turn out?

I worry about using words like "with certainty" because it sets the stage for us to suffer the same consequences as Mr. Newton in your example above. Like anything else, science evolves. As our understanding of the universe improves, it is conceivable that the big bang theory could become nothing more than a faint memory, replaced by a newer and more plausible theory. I'm not saying science will ever answer the question of creation, but I am saying it is possible.

When we use words such as "with certainty," it means we stop asking questions. If we stop asking questions, we'll never find answers.

I specifically and with good reason said "almost certainly," not "with certainty." We can be almost certain that there is not god because there is no evidence for a god. That is a fact that you can't get around. There is just as much evidence for and against a god as there for and against there being a pink unicorn on Jupiter, but you're not claiming to be agnostic about pink unicorns on Jupiter, are you?

Remember, people were scientifically certain that the earth was flat once upon a time.

No. You cannot equate modern science to the archaic methods they used to understand the universe hundreds of years ago. What's more, science has never made that claim that the Earth is flat, and the earliest known experiment regarding that question concluded otherwise. In 300 BC, Eratosthenes not only discovered that the Earth was round, but correctly calculated the circumference of the Earth. Sure, many, many people remained stuck in the ignorant belief that the Earth was flat for centuries after that, but science has known for over 2,000 years that the Earth is round.

[mrsleeve]

Militant Atheists remain militant

[Cliche Guevara]

Militant Atheists remain militant

Apparently arguing on the internet makes me a militant atheist. Can I call you a militant conservative for arguing politics on the internet? Fun fact, I have not once instigated a religious argument outside of this sort of forum.

[cale]

If you go to a crime scene and find a fingerprint, it doesn't necessarily mean anything without subsequent interpretation. Same thing...the world is just evidence, not proof.

The world is evidence for the laws of physics as we know them to be true, that is all.

A fingerprint is proof that an individual was there, no interpretation is needed to state that. Your comparing it to the world as evidence for creation is pathetic. You have to go to such extremes to postulate that, that it is simply unlikely.

I created a fish pond in my backyard. I don't feed the fish, it is self sustaining. I don't interact with it at all other than the look at it occasionally. I have no obligation to make myself known to my fish. My fish can think millions of different people created the pond, but it doesn't change the fact that I was the one who did.

And who created you to create that fish pond, someone did? Is it more likely for a vastly more complex creation to exist before a much simpler one, ie. a creator before it's creation? I'd wager no. There was causation yes, but assuming it's an intelligent conciousness is pretty bold.

Militant Atheists remain militant

So everyone who argues their views in a thread specifically meant for that purpose is militant? Keep watching Fox news, they're great at telling you how persecuted as a Christian you are... and you seem to be eating that shit right up.

[mrsleeve]

I am not a christian.

[cale]

I am not a christian.

Then your stupidity is genuine and not executable as cult behavior, sad.

[Cliche Guevara]

I am not a christian.

You focussed in on the least important part of his post and ignored the rest. You're doing a great job of defending your pathetic argument here.

[shiftbmw]

This is an argument from ignorance. You're asserting that because we do not yet understand what was happening before the Big Bang that there is a god of some sort. You are making a positive claim, which always carries the burden of proof, with zero evidence based solely on the lack of scientific understanding of the pre-Big Bang universe, as well as your intuition. That is not a reasonable assertion and is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Remember, there was once a time when nothing was explained. Since then, everything that has been explained has been shown to be the result of mindless forces working on inanimate objects. How do you think everything else will turn out?

In the realm of the unknown, all claims are positive. What is ignorant about saying "I don't know?" Don't confuse my argument with "We don't know, so god."

I specifically and with good reason said "almost certainly," not "with certainty." We can be almost certain that there is not god because there is no evidence for a god. That is a fact that you can't get around. There is just as much evidence for and against a god as there for and against there being a pink unicorn on Jupiter, but you're not claiming to be agnostic about pink unicorns on Jupiter, are you?

Again, we both have the same evidence to interpret. The world/universe and the laws that govern them. When you view the universe, you say "seems like a system that is a product of chance" whereas I say "seems like a system that is the product of design." The evidence is the same for either side of the argument, it is only our interpretation that differs.

And I don't rule them out, although I'd prefer if they were lime green.

No. You cannot equate modern science to the archaic methods they used to understand the universe hundreds of years ago. What's more, science has never made that claim that the Earth is flat, and the earliest known experiment regarding that question concluded otherwise. In 300 BC, Eratosthenes not only discovered that the Earth was round, but correctly calculated the circumference of the Earth. Sure, many, many people remained stuck in the ignorant belief that the Earth was flat for centuries after that, but science has known for over 2,000 years that the Earth is round.

Sure I can. The modern science of today will become "archaic methods they used to understand the universe hundreds of years ago" in hundreds of years. Flat earth a bad example? I'm sure you can think of a few good ones...doesn't change my point.