345 replies to this topic

[A941]

Do you believe in Gods or do you think that religion is nonsense?
How many Atheist do we have in the forum?

[Mind]

Maybe we should point people toward this older thread/poll about religious affiliation...just a thought.

[Luna]

I voted Agnostic.
I don't believe in God, I am very skeptic regarding all supernatural, weird, holy, whatever.

I doubt they exist, especially the way they are told. If they exist, I doubt they care for us anyways.
But yet, just because I am not convinced, it doesn't mean they are not there, so I am keeping an open mind that maybe, but pretty much failing to believe any theory that crosses me.

[forever freedom]

I think that the chances of the existence of a supreme being are too slim to consider. Just because something can't be disproven, doesn't mean that it should be considered seriously.

[Teixeira]

I voted "other", because I believe in God (not gods).
Let´s demonstrate mathematicaly the possibility of God´s existence. Let´s imagine LOVE. When we say we love somebody or everybody, is there a limitation for that love? Does it have to stop at some level? The answer is NO! We can always increase indefinetely love. So, mathematicaly, love can tend to infinite! That demonstrate the possibility of God´s existence, because God is infinite love (by definition). So, all we have to do is to find somebody that can love beyond all limits, and we have the prof of the existence of God!!
(Of course that near those limits some strange phenomena must occur. It´s as simple as that!).

Edited by Teixeira, 20 December 2009 - 10:29 PM.

[Moonbeam]

Let's imagine STUPID instead.

[CerebralCortex]

I voted atheist. But I'm also an agnostic. One is a statement of belief the other is a statement of knowledge. There is no evidence to suggest any god(s) exist therefore I'm an atheist. I don't know if a god exists or does not exist therefore I'm agnostic. I'm just as agnostic to the existence of the invisible pink unicorn (I've always wondered how he could be pink and invisible at the same time).

[Teixeira]

Let's imagine STUPID instead.

Ok. But what are your conclusions?.

Have you a serious argument? Follow it!

[hotamali]

If anything, Omega Point Theory(Tipler)

[shadowhawk]

I am a theist. (Christian)

The Wonder of the world. Varghese Scientist
http://www.amazon.co...y...5314&sr=1-1

There is a God. Richard Swinburne (Christian)
http://www.amazon.co...w...5958&sr=1-3

Creation out of Nothing. William Lane Craig (Christian)
http://www.amazon.co...g...6341&sr=1-1

There is a God. Antony Flew (ex world famous Atheist)
http://www.amazon.co...-...6975&sr=1-1

On Guard. William Lane Graig (Christian reasons by one of my teachers)
http://www.amazon.co...t...7392&sr=1-1

[eternaltraveler]

I am a theist. (Christian)

The Wonder of the world. Varghese Scientist
http://www.amazon.co...y...5314&sr=1-1

There is a God. Richard Swinburne (Christian)
http://www.amazon.co...w...5958&sr=1-3

Creation out of Nothing. William Lane Craig (Christian)
http://www.amazon.co...g...6341&sr=1-1

There is a God. Antony Flew (ex world famous Atheist)
http://www.amazon.co...-...6975&sr=1-1

On Guard. William Lane Graig (Christian reasons by one of my teachers)
http://www.amazon.co...t...7392&sr=1-1

you want us to buy these books?

why don't you just tell us your point instead.

[shadowhawk]

I am a theist. (Christian)

The Wonder of the world. Varghese Scientist
http://www.amazon.co...y...5314&sr=1-1

There is a God. Richard Swinburne (Christian)
http://www.amazon.co...w...5958&sr=1-3

Creation out of Nothing. William Lane Craig (Christian)
http://www.amazon.co...g...6341&sr=1-1

There is a God. Antony Flew (ex world famous Atheist)
http://www.amazon.co...-...6975&sr=1-1

On Guard. William Lane Graig (Christian reasons by one of my teachers)
http://www.amazon.co...t...7392&sr=1-1

you want us to buy these books?

why don't you just tell us your point instead.

I think they are good books but I have no interest in you buying them unless there is something that interests. Having been a member of Imminst since January 2009 I have daily read many posts by people with a different view point than mine. Sometimes they have recommended books and I have bought and read them. I never wondered whether they expected (“wanted”) me to buy them. That is up to you.

My point is to respond to the topic “Faith?” It appears I am one of few Christians answering the poll, there are reasons for being a Theist. I assume you answered the same poll I did. Did you have a point when you answered the poll? Perhaps if you shared your point for the question I could answer that.

Who is “us?” Are you speaking for someone else? Interesting.

[eternaltraveler]

why don't you just tell us your point instead.

there are reasons for being a Theist.

But we have to buy those books to figure out what those reasons are? You didn't even comment on those books, you just spamed us with a big list.

Who is “us?”

"us" is anyone reading this thread....

Edited by eternaltraveler, 12 May 2010 - 11:54 PM.

[ken_akiba]

I think life is created so in this sense, I believe in God.
But I also think (any given) religion is created by man, thus two are irrelevant.

I read
There is a God. Antony Flew.

Good book.

[AdamSummerfield]

I'm an atheistic agnostic.

[shadowhawk]

why don't you just tell us your point instead.

there are reasons for being a Theist.

But we have to buy those books to figure out what those reasons are? You didn't even comment on those books, you just spamed us with a big list.

Who is “us?”

"us" is anyone reading this thread....

Let me again repeat “No, you do not have to buy these books.” Give it a break. Why would anyone familiar with the forum, as you are, think that?

You must think you are being spamed all the time because, since I have joined I have seen hundreds of such lists. It is one of the interesting things about ImmInst and makes reading it worthwhile. I bookmark such sources all the time and have bought and read a few dozen books found here. They don’t always agree with me. Warning, don’t ever go in a library.

You can find good book reviews in the books I recommenced which are to lengthy for here. The subject of theism is to big for this format .but let me introduce a couple of ideas.

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Who wrote the laws of nature?

I should expect your response to these questions within the framework of your own response to the “Faith?” topic. I would be happy to discuss them with you and anyone reading this thread.

Being a Christian, here is a more specific source to that by NT Wright. “Simply Christian.” He is a theologian.
http://www.amazon.co...r...786&sr=1-10.

Hope this source doesn’t overwhelm.
.

[ken_akiba]

Why is there something rather than nothing?
Who wrote the laws of nature?

I would like to hear your view on these (Mine will be most likely Cliché :-)

[AdamSummerfield]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Absence of arbitration is impossible. Whatever any scenario, questions can be asked of it. Although existence is indeed more arbitrary than non-existence.

Who wrote the laws of nature?

What created whoever wrote the laws of nature? Why should one assume that an intellect ("who") "wrote" the laws of nature? Isn't it more sensible to attribute order to natural processes capable of generating such than to assume the existence of an intellect?

[shadowhawk]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Absence of arbitration is impossible. Whatever any scenario, questions can be asked of it. Although existence is indeed more arbitrary than non-existence.

Who wrote the laws of nature?

What created whoever wrote the laws of nature? Why should one assume that an intellect ("who") "wrote" the laws of nature? Isn't it more sensible to attribute order to natural processes capable of generating such than to assume the existence of an intellect?

Adam: Theists often state there is something rather than nothing because God had purposes in creating it. Pardon me for quoting the Bible in the presence of good Atheist and Agnostic friends but it says, “The heavens are telling the glory of God, and the firmament declares His glory.” (P:s. 19:1)

Sense the beginning of recorded history humans have wrestled with this question. It is so basic a question but impossible to answer without faith. For millennia two basic faith answers have been given. One believes matter is eternal (physical universe) and the other believes an eternal God did it. Of course there are many nuances to these positions. Both recognized something without a beginning and a different nature, than being caused, was necessary to explain things. Something with the necessity of being caused is inadequate to completely explain itself. It is referred to in philosophy as the necessity for an adequate cause. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Gen. (1:1)

Is Matter eternal or caused? I know of the many competing theories of the beginning and cause of the universe. I am a big Bang theorist but if the history of Science shows anything, a hundred years from now, it will be considerably changed. Given that, I want to focus on “change.” The universe changes and everything has a beginning, a present and an end. That is a basic law of nature. Because the cosmos has a changing nature at its foundation, I do not believe the physical universe itself is an adequate cause.

I got tied up with work; today and will stop here. That will give you a chance to respond to what I have said so far.

[AdamSummerfield]

One believes matter is eternal (physical universe) and the other believes an eternal God did it.

Both solutions are illogical since both violate causality.

[AdamSummerfield]

It is so basic a question but impossible to answer without faith.

It's actually impossible to answer without being illogical.

[DukeNukem]

Voted atheist, but consider myself a Humanist.

Modern Humanists, such as Corliss Lamont or Carl Sagan, hold that humanity must seek for truth through reason and the best observable evidence and endorse scientific skepticism and the scientific method. However, they stipulate that decisions about right and wrong must be based on the individual and common good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Religion, like grains, are absolutely necessary for the rise of civilizations, as they provide relief from societal anxiety, they provide law, they provide social fabric and glue, and they give rise to leadership (and leadership is necessary for great works and progress).

We now have science and government that fill religion's necessary roles. But, religion remains, because over tens of 1000's of years, natural selection at the group level has left all of us with a "god gene" that strongly predisposes us in the belief of supernatural oversight, despite the absurd silliness of religion in the light of modern, enlightened knowledge.

Edited by DukeNukem, 15 May 2010 - 02:57 PM.

[drus]

i would consider myself a spiritual agnostic. faith? what is that really? think about it for a second. it's a personal approach to try and understand something that cant really be fully understood rationally. blind faith is not a good thing in my opinion. however, coming to faith through reason is, or at least CAN be a good thing.

[shadowhawk]

It is so basic a question but impossible to answer without faith.

“Both solutions are illogical since both violate causality. “
"It's actually impossible to answer without being illogical."

Each solution begs for causality. Causality is not illogical to ask and is an aspect of everything we know to exist. Evolution demands it. Even if evolution is rejected this does not change the below necessity of causality. What do you mean by “causality?” How are you logical in saying causality makes something illogical? Are you being logical rejecting causality as illogical given it seems to be a law of existence?

(1) Whatever comes to be has a cause of its coming to be; (2) The universe came to be; (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its coming to be.

[shadowhawk]

why don't you just tell us your point instead.

there are reasons for being a Theist.

But we have to buy those books to figure out what those reasons are? You didn't even comment on those books, you just spamed us with a big list.

Who is “us?”

"us" is anyone reading this thread....

Waiting...will you respond or were you flaming me?

[eternaltraveler]

Waiting...will you respond

respond to what exactly? You want me to answer those two questions? I thought others did fine, but ok.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I don't know and neither do you.

Who wrote the laws of nature?

it doesn't have to be a "who", and I don't know and neither do you.

Thinking you know something without evidence is known as a delusion.

Therefore, the universe has a cause of its coming to be.

and therefore you know what the cause is and it has a long beard and grants wishes to people who worship it and even sent it's own son to die for our sins... What arrogance.

were you flaming me?

No.

Thanks for playing

Edited by eternaltraveler, 18 May 2010 - 02:39 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Waiting...will you respond

respond to what exactly? You want me to answer those two questions? I thought others did fine, but ok.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I don't know and neither do you.

Who wrote the laws of nature?

it doesn't have to be a "who", and I don't know and neither do you.

Thinking you know something without evidence is known as a delusion.

Therefore, the universe has a cause of its coming to be.

and therefore you know what the cause is and it has a long beard and grants wishes to people who worship it and even sent it's own son to die for our sins... What arrogance.

were you flaming me?

No.

Thanks for playing

You are welcome. And thank you also, this is not a flame.

[Teixeira]

One believes matter is eternal (physical universe) and the other believes an eternal God did it.

Both solutions are illogical since both violate causality.

The scientific experiment of Antoine Soarez (swiss scientist), at quantum level, demonstrated that causality is violated (you cannot establish a causal relation between cause and effect, so to speak).
What do you have to say about that?

[shadowhawk]

One believes matter is eternal (physical universe) and the other believes an eternal God did it.

Both solutions are illogical since both violate causality.

The scientific experiment of Antoine Soarez (swiss scientist), at quantum level, demonstrated that causality is violated (you cannot establish a causal relation between cause and effect, so to speak).
What do you have to say about that?

Hi Teixeira
Let me start with position 1. What ever begins to exist has a cause. You seem to be asking why this is true. It is true because if it has no cause it would have to come from nothing. To claim something came from nothing is worse than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat you have the magician and a hat The universe is much greater. It (The Cosmos characterized by cause and effects relative to this level of existence) is an existence where cause and effect are the overwhelming law of nature.
See
http://www.amazon.co...g...2606&sr=1-1

Does Soarez demonstrate that there is no cause and effect? I don’t think so. On a quantum level there are all kinds of casual questions but not effect answers, yet. Things (particles in a vacuum) seem to appear from nowhere. We are still in the middle stages of a developing science here and sometime in the future we will develop our understanding enough to see realities at all levels are consistent with and work with each other. For now we don’t understand how the laws work.


Notice Soarez didn’t start with nothing. He existed, an experiment was started with intelligence (his) energy was input (maybe) in a vacuum. All of these are things and a little understood cause. It is a distortion to claim this is actually nothing. Even a vacuum is not nothing. Nothing does not mean just an empty space but it means the absence of anything. Nothing has no properties at all. There isn’t anything to have properties. It is incorrect to say “nothing” is unstable for example. An Ashiest would have to say, the universe came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing. This is the faith of a true Atheist. I think this requires a greater leap of faith than Theism.

For now I await more answers and strongly suspect the cause and effect law holds true on all levels of existence in the physical cosmos.

[AdamSummerfield]

It is so basic a question but impossible to answer without faith.

“Both solutions are illogical since both violate causality. “
"It's actually impossible to answer without being illogical."

Each solution begs for causality.

Correct, and any solution for either also begs for causality.

Causality is not illogical to ask...

I did not say it was, I said it was illogical to violate causality.

What do you mean by “causality?” How are you logical in saying causality makes something illogical?

I think you've answered the former yourself:

(1) Whatever comes to be has a cause of its coming to be;

The latter: I didn't say causality "makes something illogical", I said it is illogical to violate causality.

Are you being logical rejecting causality as illogical given it seems to be a law of existence?

I didn't reject causality, I said it is illogical to violate it.