Almost all the time I come here, I see an abundance of threads (basically arguments) between theists and atheists on the validity of their view points. After all is said and done, the validity of both is tied to the history of the sources - which is inexplicable by either party.

Quite a number of atheists believe existence as we know it today either came from the big bang or one of the other lesser known scientific explanations for reality and existence. But unfortunately Theists can nail them with the question - what caused the big bang? And what came before the big bang? That is a question that has gotten no satisfactory answer.

However, this does not mean the Theists have held the atheists to a checkmate, because the atheist have a counter-question of their own; if God created everything, then who created God? For us to have been designed, then our designer must have been pre-designed, in which case, who is God's designer? How can God be said to have created reality if he/she/it exists within the same reality? On this front too, no satisfactory answers have been provided, the usual answer being that we'll find out when we get to heaven or that it's God's will that we don't know his source, or that God's existence is beyond human comprehension.

In other words, a stalemate.

So is there really any need to keep arguing about who is right and who is wrong?

senbonzakurakageyoshi:
Almost all the time I come here, I see an abundance of threads (basically arguments) between theists and atheists on the validity of their view points. After all is said and done, the validity of both is tied to the history of the sources - which is inexplicable by either party.

Quite a number of atheists believe existence as we know it today either came from the big bang or one of the other lesser known scientific explanations for reality and existence. But unfortunately Theists can nail them with the question - what caused the big bang? And what came before the big bang? That is a question that has gotten no satisfactory answer.

However, this does not mean the Theists have held the atheists to a checkmate, because the atheist have a counter-question of their own; if God created everything, then who created God? For us to have been designed, then our designer must have been pre-designed, in which case, who is God's designer? How can God be said to have created reality if he/she/it exists within the same reality? On this front too, no satisfactory answers have been provided, the usual answer being that we'll find out when we get to heaven or that it's God's will that we don't know his source, or that God's existence is beyond human comprehension.

In other words, a stalemate.

So is there really any need to keep arguing about who is right and who is wrong?

Absolutely no need. Both points are objectively valid. However, if we would probe deeper into the weird realities of life, we would agree that there are so many mysteries in the world that science is unable to comprehend. It would be only sentimental to claim that there is no such thing as "spirituality" or "ethereal".
There is a growing number of atheists today because our religious leaders who should serve as the true image of Christ, have been eaten up by monetary desires, hence giving way for atheistic beliefs that religion is a scam and religious leaders are cunningly exploitative.
Atheists do not believe in God because they want proofs. They need signs that contradict scientific/natural theories. They need miracles like amputees recieving their limbs back or the medically certified dead coming back to life. Unfortunately these miracles no longer happen, not because God doesn't exist(as atheists think), but because we humans have turned our backs away from God. Do you know how holy and sacrificial Jesus, His disciples and other prophets of old who performed these miracles lived? Since we now live in greed and all kinds of sin, God no longer uses us to perfom these miracles as He did in the past. This does not mean that God doesn't exist!

It is obvious that there must be God. Why? The universe shows clear evidence of plan and design.
What is not obvious is the nature of God and why the universe was made and the purpose. We cannot know or measure what came before the big bang because x,y,z,t I.e space and time started with the bang. As a matter if fact, the expression "before" and after all stays within the xyz and t planes.Also all our perceptions and measurements are xyzt bound.

@ senbonzakurakageyoshi: There's a tried and true answer to the question of who designed God. It's nobody. Nobody designed God since God is the first cause. So you see it's not a stalemate. It's a win for the theist.

UyiIredia:
@ senbonzakurakageyoshi: There's a tried and true answer to the question of who designed God. It's nobody. Nobody designed God since God is the first cause. So you see it's not a stalemate. It's a win for the theist.

It's not exactly tried, true or satisfactory. I'm a Christian, but even I know that answer is not just conclusive. Everything as it is is preceeded by something. It's how we know we have roots, ancestors, history. Something always comes before. It's all too evident in nature. If we say nobody designed God is a satisfactory enough answer, then it's only logical that an atheist saying the big bang "just happened" should also be satisfactory and conclusive. But we theists don't take it as good enough. So how can we expect an atheist to also take God not having a cause as satisfactory if we cannot accept the big bang not having a cause as satisfactory because they are practically the same explanation for two different phenomena.

senbonzakurakageyoshi:


It's not exactly tried, true or satisfactory. I'm a Christian, but even I know that answer is not just conclusive. Everything as it is is preceeded by something. It's how we know we have roots, ancestors, history. Something always comes before. It's all too evident in nature. If we say nobody designed God is a satisfactory enough answer, then it's only logical that an atheist saying the big bang "just happened" should also be satisfactory and conclusive. But we theists don't take it as good enough. So how can we expect an atheist to also take God not having a cause as satisfactory if we cannot accept the big bang not having a cause as satisfactory because they are practically the same explanation for two different phenomena.

It's different with the big bang. One must ask what kick-started the process of the Big Bang. And there is no way it was self-starting.

Nice

Amplitron:
It is obvious that there must be God. Why? The universe shows clear evidence of plan and design.

Your first premise is wrong, the universe doesn't show evidence of plan and design when it is very chaotic...objects slam into objects randomly,every second, three stars somewhere in the universe is exploding, asteroids collides with planets destroying whatever life form could be on it, galaxies collides,even ours is on a collision course with andromeda...that's a very chaotic universe, there is no plan or design observed

What is not obvious is the nature of God and why the universe was made and the purpose. We cannot know or measure what came before the big bang because x,y,z,t I.e space and time started with the bang. As a matter if fact, the expression "before" and after all stays within the xyz and t planes.Also all our perceptions and measurements are xyzt bound.

Now because science can't explain what happens before the big bang, doesn't mean an intelligence is behind it when obvious, the universe doesn't show signs of intelligibility. What it means is that science doesn't know and we should strive to know it and not assume before hand the answer, if that's how scientist of the past assumed answers to scientific questions,do you think you would have modern medicine that you depend on, or your mobile phone to communicate, or the internet to get on nairaland. No, the benefits of science is for all of mankind, and so when you try to undermine the scientific method by claiming they dnt know what happened before the big bang is just pure ignorance and it is called the god of the gaps argument.

UyiIredia:


It's different with the big bang. One must ask what kick-started the process of the Big Bang. And there is no way it was self-starting.

Of course but because there is no answer now doesn't mean there won't be an answer 50 years from now, or a 100 or even 500...science is evolving at an exponential rate.

2000years ago, 99% of people believed the earth was flat, the also believed the earth was the centre of the universe, 400 years ago,nobody knew why anything that goes up must come down, they assumed it to be the work of god, until Isaac Newton explained that gravity was a force,he himself ddnt understand how the force was being transmitted, he called it the work of god.

100 years ago, Einstein explained that gravity is not a force but a property of space...do you see how god was been pushed back further and further to the background, now in our time, in the boundary of our knowledge, people want to claim that because we don't know something , God did it, well learning from history, that has never worked, I dnt see any reason for it to work now

donnffd:


Of course but because there is no answer now doesn't mean there won't be an answer 50 years from now, or a 100 or even 500...science is evolving at an exponential rate.

2000years ago, 99% of people believed the earth was flat, the also believed the earth was the centre of the universe, 400 years ago,nobody knew why anything that goes up must come down, they assumed it to be the work of god, until Isaac Newton explained that gravity was a force,he himself ddnt understand how the force was being transmitted, he called it the work of god.

100 years ago, Einstein explained that gravity is not a force but a property of space...do you see how god was been pushed back further and further to the background, now in our time, in the boundary of our knowledge, people want to claim that because we don't know something , God did it, well learning from history, that has never worked, I dnt see any reason for it to work now

2000 years ago many folks knew the earth was found not flat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

UyiIredia:


2000 years ago many folks knew the earth was found not flat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Are you really sure about that? Read your own link, it says something else...

Even at that, go back many years, people believed in things we do not believe in now...

So what exactly is your point?

donnffd:

Your first premise is wrong, the universe doesn't show evidence of plan and design when it is very chaotic...objects slam into objects randomly,every second, three stars somewhere in the universe is exploding, asteroids collides with planets destroying whatever life form could be on it, galaxies collides,even ours is on a collision course with andromeda...that's a very chaotic universe, there is no plan or design observed
Now because science can't explain what happens before the big bang, doesn't mean an intelligence is behind it when obvious, the universe doesn't show signs of intelligibility. What it means is that science doesn't know and we should strive to know it and not assume before hand the answer, if that's how scientist of the past assumed answers to scientific questions,do you think you would have modern medicine that you depend on, or your mobile phone to communicate, or the internet to get on nairaland. No, the benefits of science is for all of mankind, and so when you try to undermine the scientific method by claiming they dnt know what happened before the big bang is just pure ignorance and it is called the god of the gaps argument.

Your interpretations of my post is flawed.
Well, let me make it clearer.
As a scientist I know that science is actually studying the plan called nature. As a matter of fact science will be impossible if there was no design or plan. What do you think is called a formula? If you say F=kMm/r^2 you are actually referring to the natural design of attraction between two macro objects. When you say xx or xy in genetics you are referring to the design of sex assignment.
OK, you talked about chaos and collisions. Lol. Those too have definite patterns that they follow. You may look up Chaos Theory.
As at today April 2016 we have no means of measuring what started before the beginning of xyzt I.e space and time. We may have in the future. If we do we might be able to understand the purpose of the universe or multiverse.

Amplitron:


Your interpretations of my post is flawed.
Well, let me make it clearer.
As a scientist I know that science is actually studying the plan called nature. As a matter of fact science will be impossible if there was no design or plan. What do you think is called a formula? If you say F=kMm/r^2 you are actually referring to the natural design of attraction between two macro objects. When you say xx or xy in genetics you are referring to the design of sex assignment.
OK, you talked about chaos and collisions. Lol. Those too have definite patterns that they follow. You may look up Chaos Theory.
As at today April 2016 we have no means of measuring what started before the beginning of xyzt I.e space and time. We may have in the future. If we do we might be able to understand the purpose of the universe or multiverse.

My issue with that is what you call design or plan, you used the Newtonian formula of gravity, which described gravity as a force, I hope you know that gravity is the curvature of spacetime, because you see pattern in some chaotic event doesn't mean it has a purpose or it was designed, that's a fallacy.

And because you can ask a question in the English language doesn't make it reasonable, e.g what is the color of jealousy, or what is the purpose of the universe...it's like asking what is the purpose of a mountain or the purpose of mars or Pluto...There is no purpose, its just a cosmic accident

Well, we both agree the patterns are irrefutable. Our interpretation of that is what differs. I see lots of patterns that are linked and say it points to intelligent design.

Amplitron:
Well, we both agree the patterns are irrefutable. Our interpretation of that is what differs. I see lots of patterns that are linked and say it points to intelligent design.

dont you see other patterns that are not linked? Back to the old arguement- how did this intelligent designer come to be, did he just come into existence by chance out of nothing and nowhere?

And we are back... to arguing.

In my interactions here I have learnt to appreciate the view points of everyone even the ones I don't agree with. I find that that makes my thought life much more richer and less pressured into trying to prove my view point as superior. If ever these needless arguments are going to stop then people must realise that no view point is objectively superior and someday we may find that we, like blind men touching different parts of an elephant, are only describing the very same thing.

matrix600:
dont you see other patterns that are not linked? Back to the old arguement- how did this intelligent designer come to be, did he just come into existence by chance out of nothing and nowhere?

matrix600:
dont you see other patterns that are not linked? Back to the old arguement- how did this intelligent designer come to be, did he just come into existence by chance out of nothing and nowhere?

matrix600:
dont you see other patterns that are not linked? Back to the old arguement- how did this intelligent designer come to be, did he just come into existence by chance out of nothing and nowhere?

Other unlinked patterns? I thought I already answered that but I can make it clearer. Science is possible only because all the patterns are linked. Phenomena that are apparently thought to be in complete chaos have been proven to have their own type of patterns. Try research Chaos Theory. Also, note that when a law seems not to be working at some boundary conditions you can still find patterns and other laws to describe the situation.

Now,about how the intelligent designer came to be. I already answeted that too but here it is again. We are restricted by xyzt i.e space and time which started at the instance of the big bang. Hence, we do not yet have any means of using any fragment from within space time to objectively reach and observe pre big bang phenomena.

senbonzakurakageyoshi:
Quite a number of atheists believe existence as we know it today either came from the big bang or one of the other lesser known scientific explanations for reality and existence. But unfortunately Theists can nail them with the question - what caused the big bang? And what came before the big bang? That is a question that has gotten no satisfactory answer.

But atheists wouldn't even have to answer this question for their position to still be the more valid and logical one. Even if we had no clue what led to the universe in it's present state, "A Jewish God Yahweh poofed it here in 7 days, then morphed humans out of clay" would STILL be just as unsupported of a claim to make. Just like "The universe is a simulation being run by alien cats", or "A great goat burping the galaxy into existence."

No proof, no acceptance. The atheist position is simply to not accept any claims of a supernatural deity that are unsupported. If theists were saying, "I think some form of a creator deity exists, but I'm aware that could very well be false, or a different entity entirely that's nothing like Yahweh", there would be little need for these discussions. But theists, depending on their specific religions, are putting forth a specific named deity, who supposedly performs specific acts in our world, and insisting that it is absolutely real and true without any doubt. Yet they have not put forth sufficient evidence at all for any reasonable, unindoctrinated person to believe in said deity, so those assertions are rejected by the atheist.

Atheists are not bound to the big bang, or any other idea of how the universe came about. We are willing to change our views on that particular issue based on logical, reliable & un-biased or emotional evidence. Which no religion to date has provided.

cloudgoddess:

But atheists wouldn't even have to answer this question for their position to still be the more valid and logical one. Even if we had no clue what led to the universe in it's present state, "A Jewish God Yahweh poofed it here in 7 days, then morphed humans out of clay" would STILL be just as unsupported of a claim to make. Just like "The universe is a simulation being run by alien cats", or "A great goat burping the galaxy into existence."

No proof, no acceptance. The atheist position is simply to not accept any claims of a supernatural deity that are unsupported. If theists were saying, "I think some form of a creator deity exists, but I'm aware that could very well be false, or a different entity entirely that's nothing like Yahweh" , there would be little need for these discussions. But theists, depending on their specific religions, are putting forth a specific named deity, who supposedly performs specific acts in our world, and insisting that it is absolutely real and true without any doubt. Yet they have not put forth sufficient evidence at all for any reasonable, unindoctrinated person to believe in said deity, so those assertions are rejected by the atheist.

Atheists are not bound to the big bang, or any other idea of how the universe came about. We are willing to change our views on that particular issue based on logical, reliable & un-biased or emotional evidence. Which no religion to date has provided.

Isn't this agnosticism?

senbonzakurakageyoshi:


Isn't this agnosticism?

What you call agnosticism is atheism. Atheism is simpler than you imagine.

jayriginal:


What you call agnosticism is atheism. Atheism is simpler than you imagine.

Agnostics would beg to differ.

What i see in all this inconclusive arguments is the inability of people to simply accept.

I don't know

That you have no idea how the universe started does not mean a deity should be invoked to fill that gap of ignorance.

it simply means You don't know

There is no shame in not knowing only when irrational assumptions and primitive superstitions fills the gap left by ignorance.

Gods may exist or not but If you are only going to hide your god behind the curtain of scientific ignorance (hiding it a premise where science is yet to reach in study) then as more scientific breakthroughs come your god will always be a receding value.

You may find many places to place your Gods not necessarily for universal causality that entails hiding them behind the curtain of scientific ignorance

Just know that atheists draw conclusions from facts while, theist make conclusions then look for the facts.

senbonzakurakageyoshi:


Agnostics would beg to differ.

No they wouldn't.

jayriginal:


No they wouldn't.

If they were the same, there wouldn't be any need to have two different words defining each.

senbonzakurakageyoshi:


If they were the same, there wouldn't be any need to have two different words defining each.

An elephant is an animal.

Do you understand?

jayriginal:


An elephant is an animal.

Do you understand?

Kindly explain how that analogy applies to the distinction between Atheists and Agnostics

senbonzakurakageyoshi:


Kindly explain how that analogy applies to the distinction between Atheists and Agnostics

I did with my first post. I told you clearly that what you refer to as agnosticism is atheism. You made the point that they have two different names and I countered by telling you that an elephant is an animal. Or if you like, man is a mammal.

An atheist doesn't believe in God(s). That's all there is to it. It's when people now want to go into peculiarities that you start hearing of positive, negative, weak, strong, evangelical, new etc atheists.

senbonzakurakageyoshi:


It's not exactly tried, true or satisfactory. I'm a Christian, but even I know that answer is not just conclusive. Everything as it is is preceeded by something. It's how we know we have roots, ancestors, history. Something always comes before. It's all too evident in nature. If we say nobody designed God is a satisfactory enough answer, then it's only logical that an atheist saying the big bang "just happened" should also be satisfactory and conclusive. But we theists don't take it as good enough. So how can we expect an atheist to also take God not having a cause as satisfactory if we cannot accept the big bang not having a cause as satisfactory because they are practically the same explanation for two different phenomena.

Beautiful.

UyiIredia:


It's different with the big bang. One must ask what kick-started the process of the Big Bang. And there is no way it was self-starting.

How different. You want us to believe god popped out of no where, but the big bang did not pop out of nothing?
It is a stalement we cannot tell you exactly how existence started and religion does not have an answer either. It is time to be honest with ourselves no one knows how existence came to be.
If god exists and he had to create everything, then it is enough prove that nothing can be created without a creator. So who created god?

donnffd:


Your first premise is wrong, the universe doesn't show evidence of plan and design when it is very chaotic...objects slam into objects randomly,every second, three stars somewhere in the universe is exploding, asteroids collides with planets destroying whatever life form could be on it, galaxies collides,even ours is on a collision course with andromeda...that's a very chaotic universe, there is no plan or design observed



Now because science can't explain what happens before the big bang, doesn't mean an intelligence is behind it when obvious, the universe doesn't show signs of intelligibility. What it means is that science doesn't know and we should strive to know it and not assume before hand the answer, if that's how scientist of the past assumed answers to scientific questions,do you think you would have modern medicine that you depend on, or your mobile phone to communicate, or the internet to get on nairaland. No, the benefits of science is for all of mankind, and so when you try to undermine the scientific method by claiming they dnt know what happened before the big bang is just pure ignorance and it is called the god of the gaps argument.

People like you keep me online. Not some dimwits whose arguments would only lead to brain drain and discard of reasoning.
Good points you raised there.

senbonzakurakageyoshi:


Isn't this agnosticism?

It is.
An atheist like me does not believe in god simply because of the defination of god. God could be anything. If you tell me, the origin of time and space is god. I am fine with it. But it becomes a mockery when you say he is human like, it talks, it has a kingdom called heaven etc. God could be energy, god could be dark matter or plasma. I don't really care. So yeah if people worshiped the sun as their god. It's all right. But we now know the sun is not the ultimate source of energy. If we eventually know how life came to be and people choose to start worshiping it, that is their choice. My point is god exists depending on what you call god. But the characteristics we give god is what is unacceptable.