Jump to content

Fed up of non believers


Recommended Posts

The universe quite clearly exists, it's either always existed (which doesn't appear to be the case) or it had a beginning.

 

Just curious, do you conceptualise yourself as being different from the universe? Did you come in to the world, or did you come out of it?

 

As for the universe we find ourselves to be in; we know about it because this universe is self-aware (we are the universe manifesting in to a form that is self-aware).

 

What is the context within which the universe resides? Is it possible for other universe to also exist separately within that same context? What if those universe did not evolve to be self-aware? How would anyone know they existed?

 

Science can't explain 'before' the beginning, or what 'caused' it, but that's no reason to invent a sky pixie to pin it on. It just means that we haven't figured it out yet.

 

It's not really 'science' expelling anything, it's us explaining things, more to the point, it's the universe (in the form of us) explaining itself. Oh the irony...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it really doesn't.

 

Special pleading.

 

Why are you willing to apply these conditions to god but not the universe itself?

 

How am I using special pleading? I’m not omitting anything pertinent or asking for an exemption to supernatural rules to explain a supernatural Being.

 

You’re asking for natural rules to be applied to a supernatural Being. That, my friend, is special pleading.

 

God is logically - without special pleading of any sort - timeless, and does not need a creator.

 

If you accept that god can exist without a 'causal necessity' then why not the universe?

 

Because there exists plenty of scientific arguments that the universe had a beginning.

 

It was brought in to existence- and along with space, time and matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How am I using special pleading? I’m not omitting anything pertinent or asking for an exemption to supernatural rules to explain a supernatural Being.
Firstly, lol @ 'supernatural rules'. I like that show a little, but it's a pretty inconsistent and silly and they don't even stick to their own rules. ;)

 

You’re asking for natural rules to be applied to a supernatural Being. That, my friend, is special pleading.

 

God is logically - without special pleading of any sort - timeless, and does not need a creator.

It's special pleading because you are trying to define god into existence.

 

I don't accept that 'supernatural rules' are a thing (except for the mythos of that average TV show I mentioned) so you're going to need to demonstrate that they exist first if you want to use them in an argument.

 

You're arguing for the existence of a supernatural being by defining supernatual beings as the only things which don't need to be created.

 

Why is that? If god can exist without having a cause then why can the universe not exist without having a cause?

 

Because there exists plenty of scientific arguments that the universe had a beginning.
I didn't say no beginning, I said no cause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Because there exists plenty of scientific arguments that the universe had a beginning.

 

 

There isn't a shred of evidence that it had a begging, but there is some evidence that the visible universe expanded rapidly about 13.7 billion years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, do you conceptualise yourself as being different from the universe? Did you come in to the world, or did you come out of it?

If you think of the universe as being the spacetime, then we aren't part of that. We are obviously a product of the universe and the matter within it and the physical laws that apply though.

 

As for the universe we find ourselves to be in; we know about it because this universe is self-aware (we are the universe manifesting in to a form that is self-aware).

 

What is the context within which the universe resides? Is it possible for other universe to also exist separately within that same context? What if those universe did not evolve to be self-aware? How would anyone know they existed?

Difficult (impossible at the moment) to answer. There are various theories that postulate the existence of other universes, which just pushes the questions up a level, if universes exist within the brane (for example) then what is that that they exist within and where did it come from or come into existence.

 

 

 

It's not really 'science' expelling anything, it's us explaining things, more to the point, it's the universe (in the form of us) explaining itself. Oh the irony...

 

True, the scientific method is just a tool we use to help us form our explanations.

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2014 at 09:53 ----------

 

I've decided that I don't believe a god exists, but I don't know one doesn't. Tomorrow I might receive a revelation from Vishnu for all I know, extremely unlikely though it is.

That's just keeping an open mind to new evidence isn't it? That doesn't make you agnostic as far as I understand the definition of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just keeping an open mind to new evidence isn't it? That doesn't make you agnostic as far as I understand the definition of the word.

 

I don't think he was arguing your point, more an affermation or extension of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answer one simple question. Is it possible for someone, when asked what their religious belief is, to answer 'agnostic' without any further explanation?

 

Any thoughts yet?

 

Depends if you're conducting a census or having a conversation.

 

'Agnostic' is a label, it doesn't tell you anything about what the individual actually believes.

 

Lets take you for example

 

You've said that you don't accept the evidence to justify a belief in god(s).

 

Therefore you have an absence of belief. Which really doesn't make you a 'by the book' agnostic.

 

But hey, you can call yourself what you want. You certainly won't be going to Hell for it.

 

PS

 

You can talk about evidence for non-belief, for most atheists that I've ever spoken to, the lack of evidence is the evidence.

Edited by SnailyBoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems simple to me that one can answer agnostic.

There is no need for further explanation.

 

Well that would be my view also.

 

Tends to explain why the word is included on it's own, with a simple definition and no codicil attached to it in any dictionary you care to consult.

 

Unfortunately harvey, there are one or two who lack the simple commonsense to accept that fact.

 

They are in fact that obtuse, that even when it is explained to them, on more than one occasion that someone is an agnostic, and a definition provided which came directly from a quote explaining the differences between the three basic points of view, they still continue to argue.

 

This irritated me at first ,but then came to amuse me greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.