Religion, what's the point?

Silva said:
What characteristics?

And again, there is no distinction between the mechanism and the thing. Do you really not understand that? There is no reason for there be a cause to the universe besides your own lack of understanding.

And how the feck is that an argument for allah?
Click to expand...

Those are the basics of science. It's what science is built on. Analyzing and discovering the causes of every phenomenon.

Every event in the universe has to have cause, or it won't happen. If you don't believe in this, then you don't believe in science.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Microwave background radiation distribution suggests structure before the big bang. That doesn't mean that that structure wouldn't follow cause and effect or have laws governing it. There would be nothing supernatural about that.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point.
 
Danny1982 said:
Those are the basics of science. It's what science is built on. Analyzing and discovering the causes of every phenomenon.

Every event in the universe has to have cause, or it won't happen. If you don't believe in this, then you don't believe in science.
Click to expand...


What about random events.
 
Ubik said:
What about random events.
Click to expand...

We only call them random because we don't understand all the factors/forces influencing it fully. If we could we wouldn't only be able to make general conclusions about it, but we would be able to decide which way it would go every time.
 
Danny1982 said:
Those are the basics of science. It's what science is built on. Analyzing and discovering the causes of every phenomenon.

Every event in the universe has to have cause, or it won't happen. If you don't believe in this, then you don't believe in science.
Click to expand...

Again, what characteristics specifically. You can't claim there's a god with characteristics and not name them. Don't avoid the question.

If you think there needs to be an outside cause to the universe, I'm afraid you're the one who wasn't paying attention in class, otherwise scientists wouldn't overwhelmingly be atheists.
 
Silva said:
god is a human concept, the only thing atheists concede is the small possibility that it might be right, not by design, but by the mere accident that something which resembles god exists. However, religion is quite clearly bollocks. There is a big difference between the idea of god and religion.
Click to expand...

What is your idea of a god?
 
No, they're random. You're talking out of your arse, again.
 
Silva said:
I don't have one, personally, I only go off others ideas of god, which are bollocks.
Click to expand...

But you said you are prepared to accept something that resembles god exists. How so if you don't have one? because otherwise you will always reject any idea.

I hope you can see the clash in your statement.
 
Abbsta said:
But you said you are prepared to accept something that resembles god exists. How so if you don't have one? because otherwise you will always reject any idea.

I hope you can see the clash in your statement.
Click to expand...

He's still thinking about God in the same way he's thinking about a "blue lion".. He's still thinking about God as a "part of the universe", that he might accidentally discover someday when he's pointing his telescope into space..

He doesn't understand that religious people don't assume that God exists out of randomness (like a blue lion, or a unicorn...etc.). There is a necessity for God to exist, otherwise logically the universe can't exist. If God exists then it can't be "accidental". He must be the creator of the universe, or there is no point of him existing.
 
I don't think he's not talking about a personal God but rather, as some others have mentioned, a deistic conception.
 
Danny1982 said:
I know.. I just gave a simpler example to make a point..
Click to expand...
It was a shit example. The two things aren't related.


Abbsta said:
But you said you are prepared to accept something that resembles god exists. How so if you don't have one? because otherwise you will always reject any idea.

I hope you can see the clash in your statement.
Click to expand...

No, I said, there's a small possibility that someone has, by accident, conceived of a god that exists. Which, by itself is a meaningless argument. There may well be a nuclear cheese that exists, and which by accident Cider has conceived of.
 
Danny1982 said:
He's still thinking about God in the same way he's thinking about a "blue lion".. He's still thinking about God as a "part of the universe", that he might accidentally discover someday when he's pointing his telescope into space..

He doesn't understand that religious people don't assume that God exists out of randomness (like a blue lion, or a unicorn...etc.). There is a necessity for God to exist, otherwise logically the universe can't exist. If God exists then it can't be "accidental". He must be the creator of the universe, or there is no point of him existing.
Click to expand...

Then what created God? And what created that? And that?

Very simplistic, I know, but that does make it right up your alley.
 
Danny1982 said:
I know.. I just gave a simpler example to make a point..
Click to expand...


You gave a specifically human example because you think it supports your assertion that random events still have to be willed. You're wrong, as is normally the case when you discuss science.
 
Silva said:
It was a shit example. The two things aren't related.
Click to expand...

They are. They are both events than when we study after x times or x period of time, they follow the laws of probability, but our failure to understand the exact factors influencing it in every single moment (or time) makes it unpredictable for us on that level.
 
Danny1982 said:
They are. They are both events than when we study after x times or x period of time, they follow the laws of probability, but our failure to understand the exact factors influencing it in every single moment (or time) makes it unpredictable for us on that level.
Click to expand...

No, one happens at the macro level, the other doesn't. They're not comparable.
 
niMic said:
Then what created God? And what created that? And that?

Very simplistic, I know, but that does make it right up your alley.
Click to expand...

Nobody created "God", because "God" doesn't follow those cause-effect rules that our universe is built on.
 
Silva said:
No, one happens at the macro level, the other doesn't. They're not comparable.
Click to expand...

Being "too small for you to understand fully" doesn't change the fact that it's basically the same thing. A series of many events, that when looked at collectively they follow a certain pattern, and but can't be analyzed at "single incident/moment" level with certainty, at the moment.
 
I think that the point being made is god is one, s/he enapsulates everything?
 
Silva said:
I thought you said you can't know about god, given that god is outside of the universe. How can you then say this with such conviction?
Click to expand...

I told you I know he must have a few characteristics. But I still don't/can't know a lot about him. You don't have to understand something fully, and understand everything about it to know (or to think) that it exists.
 
Danny1982 said:
Being "too small for you to understand fully" doesn't change the fact that it's basically the same thing. A series of many events, that when looked at collectively they follow a certain pattern, and but can't be analyzed at "single incident/moment" level with certainty, at the moment.
Click to expand...

If you know something the scientists who came up with the theory don't, feel free to write to a scientific journal and publish your findings, you'll revolutionize quantum mechanics.
 
Bear Attack said:
I don't think he's not talking about a personal God but rather, as some others have mentioned, a deistic conception.
Click to expand...

Aha thanks.
Silva said:
No, I said, there's a small possibility that someone has, by accident, conceived of a god that exists. Which, by itself is a meaningless argument. There may well be a nuclear cheese that exists, and which by accident Cider has conceived of.
Click to expand...
Just to understand your position correctly: What Bear Attack said above is your position?
 
Danny1982 said:
I told you I know he must have a few characteristics. But I still don't/can't know a lot about him. You don't have to understand something fully, and understand everything about it to know (or to think) that it exists.
Click to expand...

How could you possibly know a single characteristic of something outside of our universe and of human understanding?

And, for the millionth time, what do these arguments have to do with allah and with religion?
 
Giggzinho said:
I think that the point being made is god is one, s/he enapsulates everything?
Click to expand...

The basic part is that he created the universe. It's the starting point of everything we know. He has to have created the universe or his existence will be pointless.
 
Abbsta said:
Just to understand your position correctly: What Bear Attack said above is your position?
Click to expand...
To an extent, deistic claims are nonspecific, which makes them less likely to be wrong than specific ones like in religion. It's still a very small chance though, and one that isn't worth accepting on its own merit.
 
Ubik said:
You gave a specifically human example because you think it supports your assertion that random events still have to be willed. You're wrong, as is normally the case when you discuss science.
Click to expand...

Nope, you're wrong. That's not the point I'm making.

I'm talking about "a cause" for everything, not a "purpose".
 
Silva said:
How could you possibly know a single characteristic of something outside of our universe and of human understanding?

And, for the millionth time, what do these arguments have to do with allah and with religion?
Click to expand...

Logic. Because there is a clear missing piece in the laws of the universe from the materialism point of view (the starting point that is the cause of everything, and isn't the result of anything). If God is to fill that missing piece, then he can't be made of the same material as the universe. Otherwise, simply, who created him?!

EDIT: May be we can discuss the second question another time. I really want to keep the debate as narrow as possible..
 
Materialism is the philosophical argument that only things in the universe exist, you moron. Your god isn't part of the universe, your god doesn't exist in that philosophical theory.



Danny1982 said:
EDIT: May be we can discuss the second question another time. I really want to keep the debate as narrow as possible..
Click to expand...
Is that code for you realize it doesn't?
 
Danny1982 said:
This is a lie. If every atheist really believes that he doesn't really know, they wouldn't be actively trying to convince others to believe that there is no God. Atheists only admit that they "don't really know" when they engage in a real debate. When most atheists talk they talk about how ignorant it is to think that God exists, and how there is no such thing as God, which most of the time reflects the ignorance of most atheists about atheism itself..

And if you need an "evidence", just check the meaning of the word atheism in the dictionary..
  1. a·the·ism

    /ˈāTHēˌizəm/

    Noun
    The theory or belief that God does not exist.
So stop kidding yourself. Atheists don't believe in that, and they don't admit it, except when they engage in a real debate that forces them to admit it.

And by the way, there are logical reasons that make me believe that multiple Gods and materialistic Gods can't exist. If there was to be a God, then he has to be only one (meaning going in one direction, rather than the mathematical "one" we use to count things) and he can't belong to our universe and can't follow its laws.

"Metaphors" is not something religious people invented. It's something 1- mentioned in the Quran for example many times, that God gives examples to people hoping they could understand, 2- it's something common we use everyday in our life.

Different people will interpret religious book in different ways to suit what they want. Hell you see people differ in their interpretations for human-written constitutions, how on Earth would you expect them all to agree on one interpretation for books talking about things we don't know much about (especially when you only focus on the parts that we don't know much about).. There is a difference between religious people and religion, something you don't seem to be able to grasp.
Click to expand...

That definition is incorrect. In fact it is impossible to believe there is no God. Unless you are mentally ill I suppose. It is one of the worst defined terms in almost every dictionary you read.
 
Danny1982 said:
There is a logical reason. Because in our universe, according to our laws, everything has to have a reason to happen. This logic will be flawed if we don't have a primary reason that was reason behind everything in the universe. That reason is what we call God.

The second bolded part, I'd let your fellow atheists handle this.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I literally have no idea what you are saying and/or what you think you are saying.
 
Danny1982 said:
The origin of the universe is not a gap.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.

Everything you discover is a mechanism,
Click to expand...
No

but you don't know where did this mechanism come from, or who decided that it should happen this way. Like the example I gave about somebody shot dead. You can argue that you're filling the gaps by discovering that he was dead because his heart was injured by a high speed bullet, that originated from a gun, though a mini-explosion that led to very high pressure which pushed the bullet in such a high speed...etc., but the matter of fact that you can't change, is that there must be somebody who arranged all this, and, ultimately pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...

Back to the argument that YOU don't understand stuff so a big invisible bloke must have done it. Childish and ridiculous.

Science is limited because it's based on the law of reason. Everything has to have a reason to happen, which is why science can't explain point 0.
Click to expand...

:lol:

It's almost as if a word can have more than one meaning. Go figure.
 
Wibble said:
1) Our understanding of things can and should change as the evidence changes but lets face it the evidence for God is non-existent

2) You also don't prove something by saying that there is no proof that it doesn't.

3) Huh? Rubbish. I feel stupider for interacting with you.
Click to expand...

Just broken down your post into 3 parts..and I do find it strange that you chosse to drum up on your arguements completely ignoring what I've written...However I will reemphasize if you care to read...

1) It is quite strange that when people say "Yes. Science allows for evidence to change and when evidence changes, I will change my view' and then proceed to quality it with an absolute statement 'What I say is right and there can never ever be any supporting evidence to the contrary'. Does that not contradict each other?

2) Yes, it happens . " It is called argumentum ad ignorantiam . The expression "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has been used in fields such as epistemology, medical research, archeology and criminalistics"

3) So "Singularity" is rubbish, huh? An extract from a lecture of Stephen Hawking called The Beginning of Time "At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."

Singlulrity is a term scientists coined to cover what they could not explain. Something akin to "God". No evidence is possible to support or disprove and it can't even be defined in the first place.
 
This thread is supposed to be about religion and why it's pointless, not whether or not there is/was a creator of the universe. The two things don't have to be connected to eachother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.