A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: luthier

To believe the gods claims without evidence is illogical.
To consider god claims as a possible solution is a mental exercise of reasoning, nothing more.

a reply to: edmc^2

"Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning? "

Maybe I am missing something. But if sentence one is true ( this scientific and incontrovertible fact),
then isn't sentence two false?
Someone or something has to judge what has no cause and end it, like evolution/god.

About the chicken and the egg. I thing the egg came first, if everything has a beginning.

a reply to: luthier

True. And this is why I was disagreeing with Thecakeisalie. This question isn't taboo. There are concepts and descriptions for how "god" would be outside of religion. What IS taboo though is saying that something trans-universal is even partway true. We have no clue how anything outside of the universe works. Speculation can be done all day though; provided everyone remains aware that it is speculation and not opinion being pushed as fact.

originally posted by: luthier

Religion did a lot of damage to god for sure.

We can agree on that -- if there's a god.

We can probably compromise on an intelligent energy force. (Multiple)

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Agreed about the questions of free will but meh, I enjoy my illusion and perception of it.
Fact remains that there is nothing to draw me towards blindly believing in gods because other people do.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: luthier

How does a being/god with zero evidence become a rational solution to you?
I would assert it is irrational and follows no logic whatsoever.

What is a 'God'/Creator allegedly made of? Energy? Matter? Something else? Where did the stuff a 'God'/Creator is made of come from? A big bang, of sorts, that created God? It just seems to be circular logic to me.

a reply to: luthier

Oh I'm all for hypothesis, theoretical physics, formulae maths and equations.
Just belief in deities without evidence, nope, that is silly.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't believe in any unverifiable gods so it's up to you to answer that if you're making any specific claims, not me.

a reply to: grainofsand

Sorry, I was agreeing with your comment and expounding on your thought. I should have said that.

a reply to: grainofsand

To consider any claim without evidence is illogical to you?

Think carefully about that.

God as a possible solution to avoiding making every one of your answers rely on something else to happen is tricky to blow off. People may think it's uncreative or non thinking but I would challenge anybody to honestly think through things using falsifiability instead of evidence in traditional empercism. I would also ask in a multiverse of possibility or probability where every possible situation occurs would Jesus, zeus, or superman exist?

It really depends, the only decent explanation I have found is we constitute reality in a way. It doesn't exist seperate from us but is a multitude of predetermined outcomes choices and other events play into.

"Spiritually" I find modern string theory and such as an interesting way to approach what may seem super natural. Possibly consciousness can exist self aware without the physical understanding we currently have.

So yeah killing your neighbor because he loves the wrong person because God told you is a problem for me and the social contract.

God as a designer or set of designers isnt insane.

We may someday have a box that creates planets by absorbing and converting particles.

We can make new species with genetic modification, etc.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Lol you never need to say sorry to me, it's just interesting discussion is all.

a reply to: luthier

Nope I'm all for considering any claim without evidence.
Believing claims without evidence is silly.

a reply to: grainofsand

OK maybe I completely misunderstood.

I agree with you in a sense that believing claims without evidence is usually bad. However you would be ruling out intuition and other innate qualities that may have usefulness such as instincts.

a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

Every story starts somewhere. Since mankind's first spark of awareness, questions have been raised and argued about.

A pot of soup needs to be stirred occasionally so that it tastes better.

I believe that the sphere of existence is in a state of constant change. Not just of thoughts, feelings, scientific data, but of time and space itself.

I have to answer your question with a yes and no. Alpha and Omega.

dbl post

a reply to: Annee

We don't even have to compromise. I don't believe in a necessary being. I just don't think it's a trivial concept when extracted from what man says god(s) is and left at a necessary being (s) or designers.

I always thought Aquinas did a good job for his era, just not in proving a Christian or biblical god. He robbed from the Greeks though it wasn't new.

We actually agree on plenty, I am just starving for philosophical conversation after moving deeper into the south. Maybe I am a jerk and stir the pot too much.

a reply to: luthier

We don't even have to compromise. I don't believe in a necessary being. I just don't think it's a trivial concept when extracted from what man says god(s) is and left at a necessary being (s) or designers.

Interesting. Your parents were necessary for you to be born. Do you believe that the importance of, for lack of a better word, necessary-ism stops where?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The premise of the formal argument is the opposite of circular.

It says god (s) are their own cause. They are a necessary being for all other causes, they have always existed in infinity outside of all other time and space with no cause needed for their existence.

The problem is you can replace this with a pantheist model easily and say the multiverse is its own cause and exists outside of time and space. Time and space is a hologram of reality that only exists in the dimension the observation is being made in.

Anyhow this stuff is just thoughts. A human being in my opinion is kind of bound by the anthropic principle.

a reply to: 3daysgone

Well its technically impossible to say the consciousness I am is contingent on my parents but rather the observations and consciousness created.

The only thing I know is that I constitute reality. I could be hooked up to machines in a hospital right now completely physically unconscious and "dreaming" would that be reality? Would I exist in this dream world". What if in the physical world I am a 6"5" black man and in the dream I am a short white guy. Or vice versa.

The rabid holes these places go are vast.

a reply to: luthier

I don't believe in intuition as a magic woo type thing either, I've seen nothing to convince me to believe such claims.
I don't see instinct as anything other than learned behaviour either, I instinctively take care walking on ice or whatever.

Nope, if there's no evidence for something, while I do not believe, I do not refute possibility...for similar lack of evidence reasons.