Theism vs Atheism

Topic started by Mortein on Feb. 7, 2011. Last post by Bigheart711 1 year, 9 months ago.
Post by Gaff (213 posts) See mini bio Level 11
@hitsusatsu11
@Gaff: Because its a completely hypothetical energy. Scientists observed that for some reason the universe was still expanding, even though gravity should eventually stop the expansion and eventually force the universe to contract. To compensate for this, they decided the universe must be full of some "thing" which keeps expanding it-this they named Dark Energy and declared that around 70 percent of the universe is made up of it.   
 
Science has not observed Dark Energy, nor does science claim to know what it is. 
Its was simply thought up to explain the data.
@Gaff
@hitsusatsu11
So, according to you:
1. Unexplained phenomena;
2. Think of something;
3. Done!
This is how science is done, right?

There's something missing here...
Speaking of things that are "unobservable", hypothetical", "thought up to explain the data"...
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,732 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@SilverGalford: As it says in the Apocrypha book of 2 Esradas "Weigh me a pound of fire, measure a bushel of wind, or call back the day that is passed."  
 
And again in Ecclesiastes: "As you do not know what is the way of the wind, or how the bones grow in the womb of her that is with child, so you do not know the works of God who makes everything"   

If humans cannot do simple things that we know about (fire, yesterday, the wind) then how can we hope to comprehend the ways of an almighty? None of our most abstract concepts can truly or adequately describe or confine God.  (Not that human ignorance in is itself proof of a God)
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,732 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@Gaff said:
" @hitsusatsu11
@Gaff: Because its a completely hypothetical energy. Scientists observed that for some reason the universe was still expanding, even though gravity should eventually stop the expansion and eventually force the universe to contract. To compensate for this, they decided the universe must be full of some "thing" which keeps expanding it-this they named Dark Energy and declared that around 70 percent of the universe is made up of it.   
 
Science has not observed Dark Energy, nor does science claim to know what it is. 
Its was simply thought up to explain the data.
@Gaff
@hitsusatsu11
So, according to you:
1. Unexplained phenomena;
2. Think of something;
3. Done!
This is how science is done, right?

There's something missing here...
Speaking of things that are "unobservable", hypothetical", "thought up to explain the data"... "
Ad hominem argument
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,321 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@hitsusatsu11 said:
" @Gaff said:
" @hitsusatsu11
@Gaff: Because its a completely hypothetical energy. Scientists observed that for some reason the universe was still expanding, even though gravity should eventually stop the expansion and eventually force the universe to contract. To compensate for this, they decided the universe must be full of some "thing" which keeps expanding it-this they named Dark Energy and declared that around 70 percent of the universe is made up of it.   
 
Science has not observed Dark Energy, nor does science claim to know what it is. 
Its was simply thought up to explain the data.
@Gaff
@hitsusatsu11
So, according to you:
1. Unexplained phenomena;
2. Think of something;
3. Done!
This is how science is done, right?

There's something missing here...
Speaking of things that are "unobservable", hypothetical", "thought up to explain the data"... "
Ad hominem argument "

Actually that isn't an ad hominem ad hominem = insult or preconceived idead 
example:mrassh0le supports Obamacare because he is black and canadian.
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,732 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@mrassh0le: It is an ad hominem, if rather convoluted.  In a round about way the validity of the premise of my overall argument (i.e belief in God) is linked to my supposed disbelief in Dark Energy, which I supposedly do not believe in because of lack of certain criteria. (And these same criteria are supposedly lacking in the question of the existence of God, and therefore I am being hypocritical to apply them to Dark Energy but not to God) 
 
Problem is I never stated whether I believe in Dark Energy or not, I simply provided the scientific definition. 
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,321 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@Gaff said:
" @hitsusatsu11
@Gaff: Because its a completely hypothetical energy. Scientists observed that for some reason the universe was still expanding, even though gravity should eventually stop the expansion and eventually force the universe to contract. To compensate for this, they decided the universe must be full of some "thing" which keeps expanding it-this they named Dark Energy and declared that around 70 percent of the universe is made up of it.   
 
Science has not observed Dark Energy, nor does science claim to know what it is. 
Its was simply thought up to explain the data.

"Dark Energy is a hypothetical phenomena, thats what it is classified as in the scientific community. I'm sorry that you aren't familiar with the concept of Dark Energy, and that you confuse it with Dark Matter but Dark Energy is an unobservable, hypothetical phenomena. Unless you have some independent research you'd like to share, you can't claim otherwise. (And if you did have some research indicating Dark Energy is anything more than hypothetical, then you'd certainly be a shoe in for the Nobel Prize in physics)  " 
You can't make a case for a thing that is unobservable by discrediting another thing that is unobservable,this goes agaisnt the law of non-contradiction.They determined that it must represent 70% based on how much gravity can take the universe in its growth they idd not just say "We hate God so we are gonna Dark energy did it" 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Nature_of_dark_energy 
here is a link to some of the research.
Post by hitsusatsu11 (10,732 posts) See mini bio Level 20
@mrassh0le said:

 unobservable by discrediting another thing that is unobservable,  

This is the ad hominem argument. 
 
I did not say I did not believe in Dark Energy, nor did I connect the topics of Dark Energy to God. 
I merely pointed out the scientific definition-that Dark Energy is hypothetical, not observable.  
 
And you can understand the comedic reaction I experienced when that self proclaimed "fact checker" chastised my (correct) claims about Dark Energy by linking me to a wiki about Dark Matter.  
 
I didn't at all equate Dark Energy to God, the two points were separate, but I suppose I might try something a little different and take the position of a "blank slate" neutral and directly compare the two, to see which is more logical: 
 
Dark Energy  
 
-Unobservable, hypothetical, the notion is created by Scientists to account for unexplained phenomena 
 
God  
 
-Unobservable, the notion was created by humans to account for unexplained phenomena 
 
So far they seem equally likely, but there is one more point God has in favor of his existence that Dark Energy does not 
 
- Many people have claimed to have personal encounters with God, and these are historically documented. (Prophets, Patriarchs ect.) 
 
So by taking the most skeptical approach possible, we find both Dark Energy and God are unobservable and (one could say) inventions of man, however no one actually claims to have had encounters with Dark Energy, nor has Dark Energy had a (claimed) impact on a nation within an historical context. Therefore, even though by the strictest criteria of absolute proof neither can said to be conclusively true, (as we cannot count witness accounts as explicit proof) it is still more logical to believe in God then in the existence of Dark Energy. 
Post by Newdeath (18,555 posts) See mini bio Level 19
@hitsusatsu11: It still does not mean much, most of the observations done are very consistent with the Big Bang Theory. 
 
ND
Post by SSJjanemba (2,176 posts) See mini bio Level 11
god is the big bang

Post by Addfwyn (408 posts) See mini bio Level 16
@hitsusatsu11: Yes and no, on one hand, you are correct in saying the substances are both unobservable, the fact that many people have had 'personal experiences' with god (argument to popularity) is irrelevant, unless they can somehow document that experience.  And again, concept A (in this case, Dark Matter) not necessarily being observable does not make concept B (in this case God) any more likely.   I'd even grant you that both are, currently, non-proven concepts.  Not necessarily unprovable, but I've never seen an appropriate proof as of yet.
 
@SilverGalford: What is your explanation/proof for the fact that some deity can exist outside the laws of physics.  Isn't it more reasonable to assume something a lot simpler than a twisted convolution of the laws of physics?  Also, the creation was written by men, not anything holy.  In fact, the majority of the accounts (assuming we trust the dating within the bible itself) well from non-observers well after the events occured. 
 
I'm trying really hard here, but you say that god is not corrupt, and not unfair?  Really?  Have you read the bible?  You said the bible is true, according to you (something generally not proven, but let's grant that premise) so how is god NOT unfair and corrupt?  Mass genocide, condoning slavery, self-contradictory, cruelty, I'm sorry but I am more moral than the god of the Bible.  Irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he exists, but if you're going to try to pass things like that by, not going to happen.  Now, he isn't the first god to be so unfair and cruel, but to try to say he isn't is ridiculous, assuming we are going so far as to grant its existence.
Post by Nevermind (942 posts) See mini bio Level 8
@Addfwyn said:  
@SilverGalford: What is your explanation/proof for the fact that some deity can exist outside the laws of physics.  Isn't it more reasonable to assume something a lot simpler than a twisted convolution of the laws of physics?  Also, the creation was written by men, not anything holy.  In fact, the majority of the accounts (assuming we trust the dating within the bible itself) well from non-observers well after the events occured.  I'm trying really hard here, but you say that god is not corrupt, and not unfair?  Really?  Have you read the bible?  You said the bible is true, according to you (something generally not proven, but let's grant that premise) so how is god NOT unfair and corrupt?  Mass genocide, condoning slavery, self-contradictory, cruelty, I'm sorry but I am more moral than the god of the Bible.  Irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he exists, but if you're going to try to pass things like that by, not going to happen.  Now, he isn't the first god to be so unfair and cruel, but to try to say he isn't is ridiculous, assuming we are going so far as to grant its existence. "
Exactly. The god of the bible justifies bigotry, slavery, genocide, women treated as property, etc. etc. Doesn't sound like a good guidebook to live my life by.
 
And as far as I am aware there have been no written records nor archeological evidence of the Exodus ever found. Now most accounts of the ancient world have been lost, but one would think that thousands of people wandering across the desert for many years would have left some kind of physical evidence of their journey behind.
Post by Guyver (3,406 posts) See mini bio Level 14
We can't have a simple conversation in here without unnecessary remarks from both sides lol
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,321 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@hitsusatsu11 said:

Dark Energy  
 
-Unobservable, hypothetical, the notion is created by Scientists to account for unexplained phenomena 
 
God   -Unobservable, the notion was created by humans to account for unexplained phenomena  So far they seem equally likely, but there is one more point God has in favor of his existence that Dark Energy does not  - Many people have claimed to have personal encounters with God, and these are historically documented. (Prophets, Patriarchs ect.)  So by taking the most skeptical approach possible, we find both Dark Energy and God are unobservable and (one could say) inventions of man, however no one actually claims to have had encounters with Dark Energy, nor has Dark Energy had a (claimed) impact on a nation within an historical context. Therefore, even though by the strictest criteria of absolute proof neither can said to be inconclusively true, (as we cannot count witness accounts as explicit proof) it is still more logical to believe in God then in the existence of Dark Energy.  "



Dark energy was adopted by scientist based on data and calculating of the universe's growth.It wasn't create by some mean spirited man simply cause he couldn't  it was accepted as the most likely hypothesis by even Steven Hawking.God on the other hand was as you said adopted because of the unabilty man faced had to account for natural phenomenons and to destroy the fear of death.So far dark energy seems more likely.

As for God being observed t,I am going to respectfully disagree ,all religions claim to have had poeples meeting with God and none of those instances were documented. 
I don't belive in God because it is a logical paradox. 
God is omnipotent,omnibenevolent,omnipresent, and omniscient  
This would make him perfect 
Human bodies are imperfect 
A perfect thing creating imperfect things is a logical paradox 
Therefore God doesn't exist 
 
Before you say God is beyond our human understating/logic well i would like to point out that this would make God unfalsifiable an unfalsifiable premise is also unprovable.If something is unprovable well it isn,t to be belived.

Post by Kurohige (3,681 posts) See mini bio Level 19

I believe in god, why? I guess I am scared of dying and going to hell, I suppose in the end I would rather beleive in a religion and risk nothing happening, than not and risk my soul burning forever. Not only that but it was something I was raised around. Although I  have thought about he proof factor in it, however there are approximately 11 million species of life on earth, including humans. Did all of these, including the universe itself, begin by chance?     Still I do question my onw belief sometimes, I feel guilty for considering myself a Christian seeing as how it seems that I am only commiting myself to the belief do to "fear" I guess. But I respect Athiest and their own beliefs, in the end both sides seem to have the same argument,  
Athiest: "There is no proof he exist (Scientificly)" 
Religous: "There is no proof he does not" 
 
in the end it is a "beleif" I can't speak for the bombers and other religion relating trageties though, that's another downfall. I also know in the Bible things such as slavery, man>women and more, not to mention the violence that comes of it. I can't even say I fully follow the bible's teachings considering I also don't say grace for every single meal, I don't always respect my neighbors nor my elders, I had sex  even though I am not married, ect. in the end I don't know why or how I can consider myself a true Chritian. Sorry for the rambling.
Post by Addfwyn (408 posts) See mini bio Level 16
@Guyver: I think it's been generally quite civil for a theistic debate.  Not once has somebody yelled that I am going to hell, which it usually has reached by this point. 
 
@Kurohige: That's fine, people are going to have their own belief, but the one point I'd like to address there is the issue of burden of proof.  Absolutely true that you cannot prove that God does not exist.  However, the burden of proof lies on the theist to claim he does.  You can't disprove that little invisible pink faeries fly around and seed the clouds and make it rain, or that there is an invisible toaster the entire universe revolves around millions of lightyears away.  However, that does not give any credence to those claims, because by no means can I prove them.  I have to assume that, for all practical purposes, there are no little invisible pink faeries that make the world go around.   
 
I do understand it's hard to break out of the way you were raised, that's true for many.  
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,321 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@Kurohige:
Ah don't go all Pascal's wager on us. 
This idea would only make sense if we lived in a world where christianity was the only religion.Knowing we live in a world without thousands of beliefs you would have to subscribe to almost every belief known to man to avoid hell.
Post by SilverGalford (2,951 posts) See mini bio Level 11

 Exactly. The god of the bible justifies bigotry, slavery, genocide, women treated as property, etc. etc. Doesn't sound like a good guidebook to live my life by.   


no , that was because of the circunstances in the past, remenber in that time wars were very usual , and slavery as well. it was something uninevitable ,God gave laws to protect  slaves .as for women care to explain what you mean by treated as property?   you must understand those circunstances   .God doesn't justify something because he wants to, he allows something to happen which is so different. , he has never justify those things .he always does something with a good reason.   the problem was humans as usual  who lived by those costumes. how could God make them understand? if god had forbidden those things at once, would humans have obeyed? .i don't think so.  

bigotry? in what sense? do you mean because God destroyed  those nations he was evil? even some archeologists who were excaving in those places  say that why didn't God destroy them before.  those nations were so evil,pure evilness, you don't have any idea what kind of disgusting and cruelty things they practiced. that's why God destroyed them ,and that was about to affect the entire earth ,  also because God knew they wouldn't change their minds. God can read your heart . and he knows when you are completely evil or not .that's why he acted in that way . now God can allow someone to think different to him , but in what way can that help?.the world is a big proof what i'm talking about. it's miserable , it's cruel , it's hopeless,it's unfair, it's so inmoral , it's corrupt , it's evil just like those evil nations . mostly nothing good comes from it.just evilness. to stop these things , God will destroy this world once for all , sooner or later. and nobody won't stop him from doint it.no matter what you can think or argument about it .  

 and he has very good reasons to do it as i explained before. i have seen many people suffering , many disgraces , humans "pretend" to be the good ones,the good guy ,but how can we judge God when we are so imperfects and sinners? that sounds illogical we don't have any right to do it ,at the end  we are the guilty ones, not god. he will judge everybody  according to their hearts and acts. that's it. 
 
look at the facts atheism has helped the world?? , the world is better without God? i don't think so.
Post by MrASSH0LE (2,321 posts) See mini bio Level 12
@SilverGalford said:
"
 bigotry? in what sense? do you mean because God destroyed  those nations he was evil? even some archeologists who were excaving in those places  say that why didn't God destroy them before.  those nations were so evil,pure evilness, you don't have any idea what kind of disgusting and cruelty things they practiced. that's why God destroyed them ,and that was about to affect the entire earth ,  also because God knew they wouldn't change their minds. God can read your heart . and he knows when you are completely evil or not .that's why he acted in that way . now God can allow someone to think different to him , but in what way can that help?.the world is a big proof what i'm talking about. it's miserable , it's cruel , it's hopeless,it's unfair, it's so inmoral , it's corrupt , it's evil just like those evil nations . mostly nothing good comes from it.just evilness. to stop these things , God will destroy this world once for all , sooner or later. and nobody won't stop him from doint it.no matter what you can think or argument about it .   and he has very good reasons to do it as i explained before. i have seen many people suffering , many disgraces , humans "pretend" to be the good ones,the good guy ,but how can we judge God when we are so imperfects and sinners? that sounds illogical we don't have any right to do it ,at the end  we are the guilty ones, not god. he will judge everybody  according to their hearts and acts. that's it.  look at the facts atheism has helped the world?? , the world is better without God? i don't think so. "
Atheist countrys have been shown to have lower crime rates saying that we need God for morality is a fallacy.Morality comes from our instincts and our entourage, 
Nothing excuses punishing a whole nation simply for the crime of certain poeples of this nation even know they represent the majority,God is omnipotent he could have punished the evil ones and not the innocent ones.
@SilverGalford said:
no , that was because of the circunstances in the past, remenber in that time wars were very usual , and slavery as well. it was something uninevitable ,God gave laws to protect  slaves .as for women care to explain what you mean by treated as property?   you must understand those circunstances   .God doesn't justify something because he wants to, he allows something to happen which is so different. , he has never justify those things .he always does something with a good reason.   the problem was humans as usual  who lived by those costumes. how could God make them understand? if god had forbidden those things at once, would humans have obeyed? .i don't think so. 
yea omnipotence is kind of useful in situation like that 
Post by Justice (764 posts) See mini bio Level 11
@Kurohige said:

"
I believe in god, why? I guess I am scared of dying and going to hell, I suppose in the end I would rather beleive in a religion and risk nothing happening, than not and risk my soul burning forever. Not only that but it was something I was raised around. Although I  have thought about he proof factor in it, however there are approximately 11 million species of life on earth, including humans. Did all of these, including the universe itself, begin by chance?     Still I do question my onw belief sometimes, I feel guilty for considering myself a Christian seeing as how it seems that I am only commiting myself to the belief do to "fear" I guess. But I respect Athiest and their own beliefs, in the end both sides seem to have the same argument,  
Athiest: "There is no proof he exist (Scientificly)" 
Religous: "There is no proof he does not" 
 
in the end it is a "beleif" I can't speak for the bombers and other religion relating trageties though, that's another downfall. I also know in the Bible things such as slavery, man>women and more, not to mention the violence that comes of it. I can't even say I fully follow the bible's teachings considering I also don't say grace for every single meal, I don't always respect my neighbors nor my elders, I had sex  even though I am not married, ect. in the end I don't know why or how I can consider myself a true Chritian. Sorry for the rambling.
"


Man, your a deep guy. O.o 
 
On a side note I visioned Tousen saying that lol
Post by Guyver (3,406 posts) See mini bio Level 14
@Addfwyn
I'm sorry, but I somewhat disagree.
Mandatory Network

Submissions can take several hours to be approved.

Save ChangesCancel