Atheists? Have you been feeling a bit "agnostic" lately?

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Actually The Big Bang Theory is an actual scientific theory not a hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence.



It has already gone through these steps.

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

 

Apologies if I misrepresented you.

No problem, perhaps I could have been a bit clearer in explicating from the start. These things happen. Glad we can reconcile.

It might be construed as faith if a supporter of spontaneous big bang theory from nothing declared his belief as an absolute statement of certainty. I do not know a single person who holds this position, however, since the idea is merely a hypothesis and nothing more.

That's what I was getting at. Every atheist I've met has been that type. I see that apparently none exist here, so far, and no one that has replied here seems to have met any atheists of this type. I suppose, as it's beginning to turn out, I live in a different part of the world and have interacted with a whole different group of atheists.

It's also not the only hypothesis out there. I lean towards the idea that it was due to the interaction of hyperdimensional branes in the multiverse, but again I would never assert that as a fact so I can't see how that can be construed as faith.

Well, this is a perfectly logical, reasonable, and rational stance from a premise of requiring evidence. No evidence should equate to no absolute certainty.

I should also point out that there are theists who accept big bang theory as well.

I have met those, but there is nothing wrong with that system of belief. Usually they incorporate it into their religious convictions and call it a part of God's method of creation. Makes sense to me within its context.

Grimpachi
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

Actually The Big Bang Theory is an actual scientific theory not a hypothesis because of the overwhelming evidence.

It has already gone through these steps.

edit on 18-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Oh I know - I was referring to the 'Universe from nothing' idea.

I don't know about god, the biggest question i have is: Who created god? if he made us in his image then who made him?

reply to post by Idiosonic


I think God is an Atheist...she doesn't believe in a higher power than herself.

Grimpachi
reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

 

This is an enjoyable conversation.

Yet.

I am glad that it is for you. I am quite bothered by it. No offense. I will give this one last attempt in light of giving you the benefit of the doubt, and if you and I still cannot see eye to eye then I will leave it alone. I'm not attracted and not interested in conversations online, with a single individual (not limited to you), that require me to explain myself 3 or 4-fold. Since the material is in text, I see no reason why one or both individuals need to re-explain themselves continuously. Simply put, the substance is there in text to read over. I am quite meticulous about paying attention to detail, and I prefer it from others as well. In person conversations are a bit different because real time data can be forgotten or lost. Text is right here to scour over as many times as needed. Moving on.

That example does not follow the logical fallacy you quoted.

Well, it is a Latin phrase meaning quite literally that, "after this, therefore because of it". What I was using this phrase in conjunction with was that the atheists I have met induce that -"nothing" was the cause of the universe, therefore because of "nothing" the universe was created or exists.-

That is fallacious logic. Correlation does not always equate to causation. Also, it is a flalse inference in the sense that there can never be proof of nothing. Thus it is a purely blind assumption to presume that "nothing" was the cause or force that started all as the premise.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase for "after this, therefore, because of this." The term refers to a rhetorical fallacy that because two events occurred in succession, the former event caused the latter event.[1][2]
In addressing a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, it is important to recognise that correlation does not equal causation.
Magical thinking is a form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which superstitions are formed based on seeing patterns in a series of coincidences. For example, "these are my lucky trousers. Sometimes good things happen to me when I wear them."

Well, we can quote sources and provide links to all kinds of different opinions about what it means all day long and successfully eschew any kind of consistent definition so tbhat what I'm trying to convey no longer makes sense. I'm not trying to partake in that game.

I'm going by the definition of the Latin phrase, "after this, therefore because of this".

X happened before Y
Therefore, X caused Y

Right, let X represent "nothing" and let Y represent the "universe". Now, let's plug our newly specified variable ino the equation.
-Nothing happened before the universe,
Therefore, nothing caused the universe.-

Not only is there no substantial physical evidence for this, but it falls into a well known logical fallacy within the realm of logicians.

The big bang theory is not meant to, nor does it try to answer what came before. The big bang is an attempt to explain what happened. Many people have made the mistake of trying to attribute more to the theory, however, the theory is only about what happened at the moment the singularity exploded and started expanding.

Yes, I agree with this. To be clear - I was never asserting otherwise, nor the opposite. My qualm was with those atheists that do think there is an answer, and that answer being "nothing".

I find that statement irrational and illogical.

Based on what premise? Please explain yourself. I'd love to have a genuine bilateral conversation on your perspective, but I'd like more of a response than just, "I disagree", or "you're wrong". Explanations please. It helps me understand quicker, instead of taking several replies just to get to the bottom of it.

Faith is required of the believer not the disbeliever. Look up the definition of "faith".

I did, just for you and I. "Strong or unshakable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence", is more along the lines of the definition I am leaning on, but c'mon, we should already know that based on the context of this discussion.

So, for someone to say they disbelieve in something and then to assert that there is proof that the thing doesn't exist, they are then using faith. To steer away from both belief and disbelief would require no faith.

This is not about what may have at one time have been there.(past tense) It is true the money may still be there, however I have exhausted all means to find it, even digging up the ground and nothing was found. Logic and rationality says there is nothing there, for me to believe otherwise would label me a complete fool.

I have covered this in my last post. I covered both scenarios. It absolutely not being there, and it possibly existing. Why go over this again?

The scenario was to demonstrate how belief and non belief do not both require faith.

It is true that nonbelief does not always require faith, but in the scenario I am presenting to you, I am showing you one where it does.

An agnostic is a non-believer that does not require faith.

All agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic.

Example: some atheists claim flat out that there is no God, or that nothing caused the universe to begin, or that God did not cause it to begin. These are statements supported by no evidence and that require faith. Some atheists base their nonbelieving disposition on such statements.

Yet with both scenarios 0 evidence could be found so the logical position would be "they do not exist". Most religions do state within their "sacred texts" where their deities reside so even though we cannot rule out a deity not described in "sacred texts" we can rule out the ones that are described.

No. You are making an illogical jump. In your scenario it is almost safe to say that it was not there or that it did not exist, I have already admitted to this. This is only because you know the area that you have to search in, and that area has been searched, you also know what you are looking for, and what you are looking for was not found. In your scenario I'd assume that we are looking for dollar bills, coins, gold, etc. Typical, easy definition of money.

In my scenario we cannot deduce that it does not exist because we have not finished searching the perimeter. My perimeter is not as small an simple as the size of a house. Instead it is all of existence. We may never be finished searching. Furthermore, we are not exactly sure that we know what we are looking for. In your scenario we know exactly what it looks like, in mine we do not.

Both scenarios are not the same and do not have identical conclusions, instead, as I mentioned already, they possess opposite outcomes.

The big bang theory does not say it was the result of "nothing". I do not know who told you that, but they were wrong.

Yes. I have already admitted so much. I am not arguing the validity of the big bang. I am refuting atheists that claim that "nothing" was the cause.

I hope we can see eye to eye. Sorry, I have developed low patience over the years.

reply to post by boymonkey74


she? does god have a gender?

reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

It isn't that you are not explaining yourself, the problem is that you are basing your argument on a faulty premise and then applying "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" incorrectly.

The big bang theory states that all matter and energy was condensed into a single point. "All matter and energy" =/= "nothing".

I think you have mixed up the idea, that some atheists have, that there is nothing before being born and after death with the big bang theory.

To further confuse things there are atheists, like me, that believe that there exisits more than just the material, contrary to the definition that you posted earlier.

reply to post by daskakik


Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile a metaphysical/spiritual plane with the absence of deities?

daskakik
reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

 

It isn't that you are not explaining yourself, the problem is that you are basing your argument on a faulty premise and then applying "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" incorrectly.

No, I am not using it incorrectly.

There is no faulty premise.

I'm not the one stating that the cause is nothing. Are you even paying attention to what is being presented? Sorry, but are you? It's coming off to me that you're not.

I have said that others have stated this to me, and that in fact I disagree with it, and I find it to be false.

I bet you think that I am saying that ALL atheists think that nothing was the cause. If this is so, it is because you DO NOT pay attention. Honestly, who in their right mind wants to talk to people that continuously demonstrate that they do not pay attention?

The big bang theory states that all matter and energy was condensed into a single point. "All matter and energy" =/= "nothing".

Correct. No where was it ever stated otherwise on anyone's account. What I have displayed here is that the atheists that I have met proclaim that there was no cause, that the cause is nothing, that there was no before and that there is no God. No proof exists for this.

All we know is that at one place in time it appears that all matter and energy was condensed into one point. We do not know for how long that point existed in our local universe before expanding, where it came from, nor what the cause of the expansion may be now, or at the time of the first instance of expansion.

I have stated multiple times that I am not here to prove or disprove the big bang theory.

I think you have mixed up the idea, that some atheists have, that there is nothing before being born and after death with the big bang theory.

No, this is not the case. If this is what I thought, then that is what I would have typed.

To further confuse things there are atheists, like me, that believe that there exists more than just the material, contrary to the definition that you posted earlier.

Again, I did not discount you or any other atheist for that matter. I clearly stated that all I was referring to was those atheists that I had met in my life at that current time. There is no contradiction here. I said, more than once, that I was referring to my personal experiences, and that I did not disallow for the possibility of people like you.

reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis


As an atheist, I would like to add something here. I'm not saying that the cause was nothing, and I'm not saying it wasn't nothing. I am saying that that particular place in the puzzle is as yet unfilled, and while I don't know exactly what it looks like, someone might toss me a puzzle piece and I can compare the piece to the hole and recognize that it doesn't fit. That's what's going on here. We don't have the answer, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize an erroneous guess if we see one.

"I don't know" leaves plenty of room for "That doesn't look right."

reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

It may have been others who said it but you are presenting it here as an argument.

I bet you think that I am saying that ALL atheists think that nothing was the cause.

I'd be more inclined to believe that you either misunderstood what some may have said.

Someone saying that there was nothing before the big bang doesn't mean that they believe that that "nothing" caused the big bang.

If some do believe that then they are mistaken about the big bang and you're still basing your argument on that mistake.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by daskakik

 

Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile a metaphysical/spiritual plane with the absence of deities?

The same way that I reconcile the physical/material plane with the absence of deities.

I guess this would be a good time to bring up the idea of Ignosticism.

Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term "God" does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore the term "God" has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.

reply to post by daskakik


I guess it's time to call myself an ignostic atheist then, eh? Because that term - and its definition - expresses many of the issues I've always had with theism. Too many assumptions, too little basis. Thanks for sharing that nugget with me.

daskakik
reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

 

It may have been others who said it but you are presenting it here as an argument.

I am not presenting it as MY argument, and that is what is important. It is an argument that has been made by others.

I'd be more inclined to believe that you either misunderstood what some may have said.

Or what? You said "either", that word portends two coming things and is usually followed by the coordinating conjunction "or".

And no, I know exactly what was said to me and exactly what these people believed, despite what you think.

Someone saying that there was nothing before the big bang doesn't mean that they believe that that "nothing" caused the big bang.

This is true in the correct context. When that's the belief beheld by the believer then what you are saying is true. I do not disagree with that. However, as I have already mentioned, that was not the case.

If some do believe that, then they are mistaken about the big bang, and you're still basing your argument on that mistake.

I am basing my argument on their mistake, yes, but I am not making a mistake in my counter-argument.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis

 

As an atheist, I would like to add something here. I'm not saying that the cause was nothing, and I'm not saying it wasn't nothing. I am saying that that particular place in the puzzle is as yet unfilled, and while I don't know exactly what it looks like, someone might toss me a puzzle piece and I can compare the piece to the hole and recognize that it doesn't fit. That's what's going on here. We don't have the answer, but that doesn't mean we can't recognize an erroneous guess if we see one.

"I don't know" leaves plenty of room for "That doesn't look right."

edit on 19-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Well then you have faith that there is no God. You, as an ignostic Atheist, deduce that there is no God. This is a position of faith. You believe that there is no God.

Both you and the theist have faith in something that cannot be proven and you both use the same reasoning. As soon as I am able to create a topic of my own, I'll explain this completely.

reply to post by PansophicalSynthesis


Who exactly is making this argument that you are arguing against? I don't think anyone here is making the claim that nothing created something or whatever. If there is someone, then your contention rests solely with that user or those users, correct?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


That argument in particular was an example, and yes, you are correct. Up to this point in time, none have come forward expressing such a conviction.

If you are attempting to set this up into a subsequent trap that, "because no one here falls under the category of your example, thus you need to go away", you are again making another logical fallacy.

I was originally here to respond to the O.P. I then received several replies and have been in individual discussions with these participants.

IF this is what you are hinting at, then you can do yourself a favor and not reply to me. Otherwise we're all good, and feel free to tell me why you asked that question.

PansophicalSynthesis
I am not presenting it as MY argument, and that is what is important. It is an argument that has been made by others.

I didn't say YOUR argument. I said AN argument.

Or what? You said "either", that word portends two coming things and is usually followed by the coordinating conjunction "or".

Was going to say something else but I guess the flow stopped.

I am basing my argument on their mistake, yes, but I am not making a mistake in my counter-argument.

Great, what was the point again, because to me it seemed like you were trying to clear up what the OP was getting at but the fact is that we understand what he and what you are saying, we just happen to disagree.