This weekend apparently around 30k atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, etc. filled the National Mall in Washington D.C., showing that we actually are capable of some sort of united action. Bravo! Unfortunately, I couldn’t make it, but I did get into a theological discussion with an old friend of mine, who is now a devout Christian.
Will Radik:…It’s currently (and may be forever) beyond our comprehension. I don’t see why god is an answer to infinite regress. So nothing couldn’t spring from nothing, therefore god and then he made the stuff out of nothing. It doesn’t answer any questions. It’s just saying you have an answer when you really don’t. Where did god come from?
He didn’t come from anywhere because he’s magic.
So he sprang from nothing then?
No… he didn’t have to because he’s god.
Well you see god nullifies the idea that creation created itself because he’s not in creation! Whatever sphere he’s in doesn’t count and therefore he’s immune from infinite regression!
Oh. Huh? So wherever god is in existence didn’t have to create itself, nor did he. For some reason. Uh. Forgive me, but it just sounds like made up nonsense gyrated to be inaccessible and therefore non-falsifiable.
“The people who would say “Show me observable evidence” were actually the ones who had none.”
You’re shifting the burden of proof. If you tell me the world is made of green cheese, the burden is on you to prove it, not on me to prove that it’s not. There’s no need to prove the lack of existence of a god exist because there’s nothing to indicate that it needs proving in the first place.
Anyway. Feel free to believe what you want, but don’t say that everyone demanding evidence has none, because that’s silly.
Also I don’t think your claim that atheists (or agnostics, if you want to get technical) don’t know anything about Christianity is a little presumptuous. Maybe in your anecdotal experience, but not in mine.
Will Radik’s religious friend: If we claim that god created space and time, you say that space and time always existed and that god cannot exist because he would be bound by them. So instead you simply say that space and time must be universal absolutes with eternal and infinite qualities. But where do space and time, gravity, mass and energy come from, and what forces these forces to act in the manner they do? No one knows, you say, yet you say it cannot be an eternal and infinite absolute that made it this way. But you cannot say why this is.
Will Radik: That’s exactly the sort of gyrating I’m talking about.
“If we claim that god created space and time, you say that space and time always existed and that god cannot exist because he would be bound by them.”
I never said god (or gods) cannot exist. I never said time and space always existed. in fact we’re pretty sure that they didn’t, at least in our universe. But that doesn’t preclude that it came from another universe which had time and space.
“So instead you simply say that space and time must be universal absolutes with eternal and infinite qualities.”
I never said that, either. See above.
“But where do space and time, gravity, mass and energy come from, and what forces these forces to act in the manner they do? No one knows, you say, yet you say it cannot be an eternal and infinite absolute that made it this way. But you cannot say why this is.”
When did I make any assertion that “it cannot be an eternal and infinite absolute?” All I said was that plugging a divine being in as the answer to infinite regression is not a satisfying answer, since it doesn’t explain how he (or any other divine creator being) would escape that regression. hence the question is still open.
You see, you’re confusing my saying I don’t have the answer (and I don’t believe you do) with me saying I do have an answer. Aquinas was smart and his “proofs” are interesting (as an exercise in logical obfuscation) but they don’t have truth in their premises, and are thus not sound despite whatever “truth preserving” qualities his logical gyrations have.
Will Radik’s religious friend: The idea that another universe might exist is also without evidence. Additionally the burden of proof is upon atheists to prove spontaneous generation without a catalyst is possible, because the evidence of all of existence is more likely to have come from an origin or catalyst than to have no source at all.
: “The idea that another universe might exist is also without evidence.”
Show me where I said there are definitely other universes. You’re arguing against a straw man there. Of course, if you were up on your cosmological physics, you would know that it’s likely there are other universes and we might be getting close to scientifically verifying it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2011/11/However. That’s interesting, but it’s a complete non sequitur and I’m not sure why you even said this.
“Additionally the burden of proof is upon atheists to prove spontaneous generation without a catalyst is possible, because the evidence of all of existence is more likely to have come from an origin or catalyst than to have no source at all.”
I don’t think so. First off, you’re thinking about something we don’t even have the cognitive capacity to understand and applying ideas from our narrow perspective like, “catalyst” and “nothingness” to it. You have no frame of reference for a discussion of the origin of everything, but you’ve slapped the name of God on it and said case closed, and then, you try to shove the burden of proof unto people who say you’re imagining things, when you’re the one making extraordinary claims. Nice try, but it’s clear you’re lodged within the channels of your biased wish-thinking and not any logical thought process.
Atheists don’t have to prove anything, because they’re not the ones making extraordinary claims. They’re simply refuting your extraordinary claims, or at least advocating that we question them rather than just accepting them as fact when we they have no basis in fact whatsoever.