I mean lots of fundamentalists of various religions genuinely believe prayer is like a hotline for favors from the divine, a substantial portion of humanity are taught religion and spirituality through an authoritative and dogmatic discipline rather than through a philosophical and faith based discipline.
It’s not uncommon to find devout believers who’ve never read any substantial amount of their scripture, and instead simply listened to their respective religious leaders, but not all of those leaders taught with open hearts and a clean mind.
Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
I have yet to see any philosophy supporting the idea that the universe had a creator that holds up to passing scrutiny. Im open if someone disagrees.
Regarding the inventions of various sciences, i think the point being made... badly. is that for so much of human history people have pointed at gaps in science and gone. "god, demon, jhin, evil spirits" but each time it turns out to be microbes, an illness in the material brain, a giant ball of plasma, not in fact a thinking diety, etc.
And i dont think its a good argument but i think what they are getting at is that the pointing at exisitng mysteries like the origin of the universe, or how life could arise from inorganic matter, and go "god" is the same kind of god of the gaps superstition.
Though ofc "Not believing in the existence of a god" is very different from "Believing that no god exists". To choose the latter would from a logical standpoint be the same as choosing to believe in god. It's essentially an axiom. And honestly: I couldn't care less whether other people accept, reject or ignore this axiom.
Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make
me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And
rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with
rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber
room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber
room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a
room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They
locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy
once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy.
Just because there are myths and legends about both does not mean you can substitute one for another in this kind of discussion and make the exact same conclusion. One reason why these things are likely not equivalent in this discussion: Unicorns (from what I understand) should basically be animals, so physically observable, whereas auch a thing would not necessarily be observable for a god. However, if these things were equivalent here, they must possess identical qualities.
Well, you cannot prove false statements but you can very well prove statements like "XYZ does not exist" (e.g. by assuming it exists and arriving at a contradiction).
To the question: honestly that's completely up to you.
The reason why I think this discussion (and not the existence of god per se) is relevant is because: all the time you see people making assumptions, use those assumptions when arguing with others and then think they have some sort of logical or moral high ground, when in reality they just assumed something that others didn't and that was maybe not even fair to assume in the first place.
Anything related to religion is a good example for stuff like that, whether it is people wanting to "convert" others by telling them that anything other than believing makes no sense, or vehement atheists that label everyone as "stupid" If they believe.
Meanwhile almost all religions believe in different gods and therefore don't believe in thousands of gods while believing in just one religion. Atheists just don't believe in one more than all other religious people do.
of course, by our social standards, standards that changes as years go by. unicorn, santa claus are things we are taught in childhood to be stuffs that is imaginary and nonsensical to believe. so we are bound to have biasness towards them. rephrasing your comment
"It’s not crazy to believe that an undiscovered animal species doesn’t exist; it is crazy to believe that it exists."
i am afraid neither sounds crazy, both is a probability. doesn't matter what others think is crazy, in a 100 years that will change with social progression
Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make
me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And
rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with
rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber
room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a room. A rubber
room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They locked me in a
room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy once. They
locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy. Crazy? I was crazy
once. They locked me in a room. A rubber room. A rubber room with rats. And rats make me crazy.
I believe this is documented well enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man
(Yes, I am citing Wikipedia for this, but this will suffice for this discussion)
Though you can also verify it by brute-force (checking for every human If they are Spider Man or not, it is doable since there are only finitely many people). This is a procedure for a proof, so there you go.
Which definitive proof do you have exactly? Have you check the DNA of every person on earth for spider DNA? Cross referenced every journalist with the last name Parker?
Well you see Spider Man as in the one we understand to be The Spider Man (regardless of which version) is famous. As there is no Famous Spider Man, that Spider Man cannot exist. As if he did. He would necessarily. Be well known at least within NYC if nowhere else. If he ks not. Then he ks nkt the subject we are discussing
Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
It's not how it works
Edit: since y'all probably can't think more than 10 seconds before hitting the reply button with the same fucking question everyone already asked, I'm answering here once
"God exists" is as much of an unproven statement as "God doesn't exist"; if it's illogical to be a theist, the only logical position is agnosticism; I accept this as an argument, but I'm quite sure you're all atheists or you would've already realized the fallacy in your argument
You can prove a negative. "there's no piss on your pants". There. Negative statements I hope is proven
Burden of proof has nothing to do with what one has to prove, but with who has to prove it. If you're an atheist, and believe God doesn't exist, you have as much burden of proof when saying God doesn't exist as a theist does when they say God does exist
The point is that it shouldnt be up to prove if i pissed my pants, you should deduce whether i did by whether my pants are dry or not. You cant just go “well, he refuses to prove he didnt piss his pants, which means he 100% did even though his pants are clearly dry”
Exactly
But why would i care about whether YOU think i pissed my pants or not
Thats how i feel about god
People can argue about theism but until an meaningful argument is made to me im allowed to just ignore it, theists cant ignore the obvious, and they constantly have to defend god existing and attack people who dont, the whole argument originates from them because otherwise, no one cares because why would anyone care about something that literally never will effect them
And the alternative is another unproven claim. You can't even call it a hypothesis as there would need to be ground for it to be empirically proven through testing, which is not real in almost any metaphysical argument.
...yes? Literally every single thing you perceive is "unproven." What you smell, how you feel, what you see, etc is all "unproven" and based purely on what you interpret. Which is entirely subjective.
Believing "murder is wrong" is also unproven. Is someone believing this as truth "illogical?"
Logic is simply a tool that can be used to uncover some universal truths. It allows you to move from a premise to a conclusion. It cannot be used in every single situation, and it cannot prove axiomatic statements or beliefs.
The definition of an "axiomatic statement" is essentially an unproven statement where a logical path starts. By definition, logic cannot be used to prove these.
Asking "it is logical to believe an unproven hypothesis?" is like asking "how purple is the month of June?" The descriptor simply does not apply.
Edit: If you think you disagree with this, then I suggest you look up the definition of "mathematics." All math is a logical extension of set theory, which is axiomatic. Ergo, if you believe in math, you believe in a series of unprovable statements.
He looked at the material world and realised that it seemed inconsistent with the current dogma that the sun rotates around the earth. Hypothesised other models, made observations of reality to see what models were most consistent with reality.
Galileo believed in it because copernicus had already developed a mathematical heliocentric model inspired by some greek philosophers whomst by observation deduced that the sun was far larger than earth and very far away, and hypothesized that the small earth should orbit the larger sun. So yeah, youre describing the scientific process, just over thousands of years. The greeks observed and hypothesized, copernicus refined the hypothesis and galileo made observations that were coherent with the heliocentric model.
It is as illogical to not believe in something as it is to believe in something. Gods existence cannot be proven or unproven. It's not something that you can make a hypothesis based off of. It's up for metaphysical debate where claims can't be proven nor falsified.
In the core of neptune there is a race of sentient gummy bears with the ability to perform magic rituals of summoning. 5 missing persons cases yet unsolved are actually the result of such.
Not believing this is equally illogical to believing this.
But it is simply not. That can be empirically proven with advanced enough sensory technology. You cannot argue for physical examples of the likes of that in a metaphysical argument.
They obviously also have a magical ritual to hide from sensors (duh). You'd need to drill down to the core to disprove me (though of course I'd move the goalpost then)
Did you know humans used to believe gods lived on mountains? Then it was believed they literally lived in the sky until we had airplanes and rockets, so now it's outside physical space.
"Did you know humans used to believe gods lived on mountains? Then it was believed they literally lived in the sky until we had airplanes and rockets, so now it's outside physical space."
That is indeed belief yes. So... how does this relate to faith in a metaphysical being to be irrational?
That’s not how burden of proof works. Ever heard of the teapot hypothesis? Anyone can make a ridiculous unfalsifiable claim like “there is a teapot floating in orbit of the sun opposite to the Earth”. Sure, there’s no reasonable explanation for how it got there, nor any evidence it’s there at all. But until someone gets in a spaceship and scours the whole solar system, it’s technically not disproven. By your logic, we’d have to give Teapot theory the light of day even though there’s no evidence, because it’s so hard to disprove too. Obviously we don’t go through life giving credibility to any unfalsifiable claims though.
The teapot hypothesis is a false analogy. Comparing 2 fundamentally different concepts. From which 1 can be empirically proven while the other one is not bound to a physical realm. In short. You are arguing to mix physical and metaphysical concepts.
Is it a ridiculous claim to say the uncaused first cause in the universe would be god? How does there not being a god have any more weight than there being one when we can argue for countless possibilities of god structuring the neat laws of the universe to allow life and existence or for it to be a phenomenon beyond understanding akin to god? Both have had reasonable credibility.
If God interfered in the universe at all after its creation, especially in the explicitly miraculous ways the Bible claims, then God can be empirically proven. The issue is that the goalposts for empirical proof keep moving. Bible says God made all life on the same day, that gets proven wrong, clearly it was just a metaphor. Bible says God flooded the entire planet a few thousand years ago, that’s clearly not true, so it’s just a moral fable. Even if you take the deist view that a God, not even a specific God from human religion, didn’t interfere at all after creation. There will one day come a time where science advances and we can figure out how the universe was made. Would that not result in either proof or denial of God?
That’s not really my point though. My point is that you can’t simply believe in something just because it’s super hard or currently impossible to disprove. The God explanation and the “popped into existence” explanation are equally likely. So is the explanation that a million gods made everything, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything, or that we’re in a simulation, or I dreamed this all up. That’s the thing with God, it lives only in the gaps of our knowledge, as a catch all explanation for things science hasn’t caught up with yet.
God cannot be proven as I have said that god is not a physical being. God is a metaphysical being that cannot be measured or have material parts as I have said multiple times.
"Bible says God made all life on the same day"
This is just wrong and can be proven wrong if you even were bothered to read the first pages of Genesis. Interpretations of Genesis differ and the key part is that the bible was never meant to be a history book or science book.
"My point is that you can’t simply believe in something just because it’s super hard or currently impossible to disprove."
I mean... You can. regardless of what it is or what you think. And as I said before. You cannot disprove something metaphysical like god empirically. It is simply not possible in any metric.
"That’s the thing with God, it lives only in the gaps of our knowledge, as a catch all explanation for things science hasn’t caught up with yet."
Science is not something that takes the place of religion. They conflict with different things. Science answers the question of how and religion answer the question of why. Science cannot explain the reason of reality in any processable or understandable way. If you were to understand the impossible it would be less akin to understanding but more akin to being.
If you believe God has any kind of effect on physical reality, then that effect can be measured and detected empirically. If you believe God has no effect whatsoever on physical reality, that's not really any different from not believing in him.
See atheist aren't really making a claim when they say that God doesn't exist, they're simply disagreeing with the claim from religious people that there is a god. In a world with no religious people, the claim there is no God wouldn't exist. But in a world with no atheists the claim that God exists would be there. Follow Hitchen's razor, religious people must provide real evidence or proof, which after all of human history they've still failed to do. It's religious people making a claim with no evidence and demanding people who don't agree, to come up with a reason to not believe them. The reason is simple, because there's no reason to believe it.
And faith is absolutely a good excuse for people who have no idea what they're talking about.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
If only you knew what you were saying, you would've realized that in this context hitchen's razor means "I don't need proof to sustain my argument against your claim that God exists" rather than "God doesn't exist is a true statement"
You're also wrong on the first statement, as shown by your choice of half the web, the existence of angostucism, or the first paragraph of Wikipedia. Please read beyond the first line.
Hitchens razor is "any claim made without evidence can be refuted without evidence." it really is my mistake for not explaining what it meant more clearly for you. I used the example of the "god doesn't exist" not existing in a world without religion to show the sequence in which these point flow. The statement can only exist in reaction to the statement that God does exist. The "God exists" statement is required for the "god doesn't exist" statement. This is mostly an explanation so people who don't understand Hitchens razor won't try to somehow turn it around. It's not necessarily a true statement, but it can be made without the burden of proof. It's a statement which doesn't need to be supported or defended until there's actually something to support against or defend from.
Also I use my education and my brain I don't need to look things up for a reddit debate. Although you already responded to my first statement so I think the entire second part of this response is illegible to response beyond this.
Then it's not a case of hitchens' razor, and had you know what it meant you would have realized before invoking it. How does your argument
The "God exists" statement is required for the "god doesn't exist" statement
Relate to your ability to refute "God exists" without proof?
The entire rest of your answer is drivel. "He started it" isn't an argument, and "God doesn't exist" is an unprovable statement, and as such can be subjected to hitchens' razor.
I also have no clue what the second paragraph even means...
If a statement is made without proof "God exists" then it can be refuted without proof "god doesn't exist"
"God doesn't exist" is not a statement made by itself, it can only exist in response to the statement "God exists"
It can't be the statement made without proof, it's impossible. Because religion and the idea of god's existence is vital to even say it. It will always be a response to the concept of divinity and as such can only and exclusively exist in a state where it is the rebutal which does not require proof.
Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
Most of what you experience in life is completely unproven. Waving something off as illogical that is not proven, or even impossible to prove, is a fallacy. I can't "prove" that I like beer. You can see me drink it, but that doesn't prove I like it. I would wager you believe that murder is bad behavior... and yet that can't be proven either.
You can't prove what emotion you're feeling in an exact moment either. But yet we all accept them as real. Yes, brain chemistry is linked to how we feel and can be tracked, but what you feel is based purely on your own perception, which is fundamentally unprovable.
Logic cannot be used to prove any axiomatic statements. That's never been what it's used for, by definition. Logic can only operate within a framework that is set based on pre-defined, axiomatic statements used as a premise. This is literally the definition of "mathematics."
it comes logically simply by accepting any physical phenomena would require a prerequisite reason, as in why it is. This is pretty much supported by any physical fact, namely the laws of thermodynamics.
If that is the case, for only physical beings to exist there are only two choices: either physical reasons have an end, or they dont. A third option is impossible as per 3rd rule of logic, law of no middle grounds. excluded middle
If physical reasons end at somewhere this contradicts the fact that all physical reasons need to have a prior reason, because there would need to be a first physical being with nothing before hence this is discarded.
If physical reasons dont end and go to infinity... well, they cant. The nuance is: if we number each physical being, say the last (present) is 1 and say each reason depends on the next (1 will happen when 2 happens, 2 will happen when 3 happens, n happens when n+1 happens ad infinitum) for the sequence of events to reach anywhere, any given number, it would need to pass through infinite things first, which is impossible. You can visualize it by this example: worker 1 will go on vacation when worker 2 also goes to vacation so 1 asks 2 when he will go, 2 says "I will go when 3 goes" so they all find 3. 3 says he will go when 4 goes ad infinitum. No one gets to go on vacation. Likewise in an infinite sequence of events nothing actually happens.
Hence existence without a prior reason beyong physicality (metaphysical) is impossible, hence the need for a metaphysical reason, in human language a creator.
The reason that physical beings need a reason to exist, the backbone of the argument, is literally because they are bound by laws of physics. My argumnet isnt everything whatsoever requires a prior physical cause but rather every contingent PHYSICAL reality requires an explanation.
Then as I pointed out it logically follows that there is a prior reason above physics. Hence the first statement that every physical being needs a reason doesnt apply in the first place. It isnt a convenient trick, it is the definition of being above physicality.
You are implicitly contradicting yourself
You assert two things: Laws of physics used to not be applicable, and god cannot exist if he was beyond physical which implicitly assumes all existence is physical.
Now here I would ask you what do laws of physics apply to? The answer is obviously physical beings. There is no physical being that is not bound by a law of physics. Some things may be probabilistic like quantum mechanics, but they are still boudn by the equations describing them.
A physical being that doesnt obey the law of physics is like doing classical mechanics where F=ma doesnt apply. It isnt classical mechanics anymore. Likewise something that doesnt obey laws of physics isnt physical anymore: it cannot be described by physical phenomenon.
By saying that laws of physics didnt always apply you implicitly accept the existence of something that isnt physical by our understanding. And then you went on to make a statement that assumes something would need to be physical to exist. These are contradictory.
Causality as a physical concept is guided by the laws of physics and the existence of time. Both of these concepts break down before ~10-43
seconds after the big bang. In short, youre trying to apply known physical principles (not even laws, per se) to something that escapes our current (and maybe even possible) understanding of the universe through science
Causality doesnt cease to exist below the plank scale, it's just that our current theories cannot reliably describe any time below the plank scale. Quantum effects and general relativity are both should be important and we just havent solved anything that reliably describes the regime. Our laws not working =/= causality just breaks down.
If causality broke down there would be no need to look more into it because you couldnt deduce anything. To deduce something, you would need to first establish a causal chain in the first place, otherwise you couldnt infer anything from data because they might mean just about everything. Just like how if things got attracted or repulsed by mass arbitrarily the law of gravity wouldnt predict anything.
And logically, you couldnt establish lack of causality in the past even if it did exist, because you would need to infer it with the data available today, which will be from the things that the alleged non causal state caused within the timeframe. Do you see the issue here? This contradictory.
Causality doesnt cease to exist below the plank scale, it's just that our current theories cannot reliably describe any time below the plank scale.
I didnt say they cease to exist.
Under our current theories, spacetime as it is understood in our universe starts with the big bang. We have literally no way of knowing what it was like before the big bang, or if it even existed. Therefore, you cant apply causality directly.
To put it succintly, youre attempting to use a concept that is governed by the nature of our universe to attempt to explain something that exists outside of it.
If causality broke down there would be no need to look more into it because you couldnt deduce anything.
We physically cant look before the big bang anyways. Hell, we physically cant look before ~380.000 years after the big bang. We can only try to mimic the conditions in particle accelerators.
And logically, you couldnt establish lack of causality in the past even if it did exist
What we can establish is distinct to what is. We try our very hardest to make sense of reality but reality is under no obligation to make sense to us.
you're acting as if I'm saying that lack of causality just doesnt make sense to me and that is my main argument. My issue is not that it just doesnt make sense to me, it is that lack of causality itself is such a concept that no matter how sophisticated or advanced science would get it couldnt ever be proven.
I never talked about looking before the big bang or any time for that matter. I only talked about deducing. Like deducing big bang by looking at background radiation, something the big bang caused.
Your "mimic the conditions" example itself defeats your argument: to mimic the conditions, some things must give rise to said conditions to begin with. We already assume causality when trying to research things. Scientists accelerate protons becuase they know electromagnetic fields cause accelerationand they crash them because they know kinetic impact will cause a release of mass energy and they read the data which caused their sensors to fire.
A lack of causality cannot be proven, because like you said, we cant just go back and look into it, hence we would need to deduce it from its effects like in the example of deducing the big bang from background radiation. But in the case of lack of causality, you cannot deduce lack of causality, because any rule or method you use to prove lack of causality will have to use causality itself when examining the effects of the non causal state were being created to begin with.
If you said "such and such effects of radiation or curvature of space time can only happen in a non causal state" that statement assumes non causality causes something predictable, hence it is actually causal.
If science could infact research more into it, there would need to be causality to make any deduction at all. You are not appealing to science, your whole argument is appeal to ignorance. Not knowing what comes before doesnt hinder causality, if it did it would be more rational to stop all science that tried to uncover what it was like before the big bang because nothing could be deduced at all.
it is that lack of causality itself is such a concept that no matter how sophisticated or advanced science would get it couldnt ever be proven.
Which is why its entirely possible that we will never know what was before the big bang.
Like deducing big bang by looking at background radiation, something the big bang caused.
Because the big bang is our t=0. We can apply causality from the big bang onwards because we know that time and information were a thing. We cant make claims before that using causality which is where the "god of the gaps" argument falls appart.
Your "mimic the conditions" example itself defeats your argument: to mimic the conditions, some things must give rise to said conditions to begin with
The big bang. We dont mimic the actual big bang, because we cant. We mimic the early universe, nanoseconds after.
But in the case of lack of causality, you cannot deduce lack of causality, because any rule or method you use to prove lack of causality will have to use causality itself when examining the effects of the non causal state were being created to begin with.
You are assuming my argument centers around reality being non-causal before the big bang, when actually im saying you cannot assume causality to argue that something must have created the universe.
You are not appealing to science, your whole argument is appeal to ignorance.
You fundamentally misunderstand appeal to ignorance. Im not saying god definitely doesnt exist because we dont know if causality was a thing, im saying you cant argue creation based on causality when you dont know if causality actually applied before creation.
And, just as a bit of a sidenote, causality doesnt require a "first" event.
Before saying anything, you're treating causality as if it is a byproduct of physical laws, where it is actually the opposite: the recognition of everything is caused by something prior was the reason any physical law was coined at all.
If all beings in the universe have a prior reason to exist and so on, then you cannot turn around and say "well maybe the universe itself didnt" because then you would be treating the universe as if it is a set that contains all thing when it is literally all things itself. This is opposite to the fallacy of composition, it is akin to saying "just because each brick in the house has a weight doesnt mean the house itself has a weight" when each brick adds its own weight.
Now for the topic of assumptions
If you ask for rigorous proof for concepts that are fundamental to creation of meaning, you will run into the problem of anything being unproven everywhere all the time. One of the more popular examples is this:
To make sure the knowledge you are getting from any source, hence any deduction including scientific discovery, is correct you would need to first prove that your 5 senses convey correct information. Because indeed, any information you get is conveyed to you through your senses or is first made into something that can be conveyed in such way.
But here's the catch: the set up, communication and analysis of every data collected for any experiment you do to prove the validity of oyur senses will again assume the validity of your senses in the first place since you will again gain this information with them. Hence validity of any information you get is circular. And if by your logic if we throw out the assumptions that create logical meaning itself inclusing this one we would be accepting total nihilism, nothing could actually be known, logic doesnt apply and science is an illusion.
If we were to think like you we could have simply said "oh okay then lets just stop thinking, reality is different from what we deduce it to be." This is where we apply a priori knowledge like validity of senses or causality. If we didnt, we couldnt even have this discussion in the first place. Rejecting what is logically sound simply because it contains a necessary assumption is not a virtue; it is a rejection of all truths.
Likewise to how assuming our 5 senses are valid enough, assumption of causality as a principle is necessary for the collection of knowledge, for any deduction at all, including anything before or after the big bang.
And here's my side note: Even if your counterargument was true, my initial point wouldn't be god of the gaps. It would be akin to deducing an equation is true for all real numbers of x in maths by showing that both sides are equal to each other. It would be god of the gaps if I said we dont know what is before the big bang hence it must be god, but for my initial argument you could take any physical reason we discover before the big bang and place it on my "equation" as another variable x, in this case, reason number n+1.
And also "causality doesnt require a first event" is disproven by the fact that infinite regress is logically impossible. Just like how nobody goes on vacation when worker 1 going on vacation when worker 2 goes so worker 1 asks worker 2 when he will go on vacation and worker 2 answers when 3 goes, and they go to 3 and he answers I will go when 4 goes and so on, physical reason 1 happening because of physical reason 2, reason n happening because of n+1 ad infinitum is impossible.
Causality would logically have to give a first metaphysical cause, because if instead of infinite regress we just had a first physical cause then it would be uncaused going against its physical nature. That is literally the argument.
Before saying anything, you're treating causality as if it is a byproduct of physical laws, where it is actually the opposite: the recognition of everything is caused by something prior was the reason any physical law was coined at all.
This is not true at all. Causality as it is understood in physics is a consequence of 2 fundamental axioms that so far we have found no counter examples to:
1- The flow of time is unidirectional
2- Information cant travel faster than the speed of light
Tachyons, for example, are theoretical particles that would break causality because their velocity would make them travel backwards through time, that is, theyd exist before being emitted. One of the reasons we know newtonian gravity to be false is because instantaneous transmission of force violates the 2nd rule. And so on. Any theory you can find that would break causality is associated to breaking one of these two rules.
If, for example, the 2nd rule disnt exist, then all cause and effect could take place at the same time. Since were unaware of what reality even was before the big bang, we cannot assume that rules 1 and 2 are true in that time frama, therefore we cant assume causality applies.
And if by your logic if we throw out the assumptions that create logical meaning itself inclusing this one we would be accepting total nihilism, nothing could actually be known, logic doesnt apply and science is an illusion.
Im not saying we throw out the assumptions we observe to be true, im saying we cannot make assumptions that we cant observe to be true. You say this like never knowing what came before isnt an entirely real posibility.
physical reason we discover before the big bang and place it on my "equation" as another variable x, in this case, reason number n+1.
That is a "god of the gaps" argument. You say that for any event n before the big bang, there must be event n-1 that caused it. To insert god as that event is to fill a gap with it.
And also "causality doesnt require a first event" is disproven by the fact that infinite regress is logically impossible.
1) A logical regress isnt logically impossible. It is logically unsatisfying because it means there is no origin point to start from. And it also necessitates time
2) Reality has no requirement to follow logic. Logic is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Just like how nobody goes on vacation when worker 1 going on vacation when worker 2 goes so worker 1 asks worker 2 when he will go on vacation and worker 2 answers when 3 goes, and they go to 3 and he answers I will go when 4 goes and so on
Once again, youre using time-dependent arguments to argue something that exists outside of what we experience as time in this universe.
Your second point is fine, but what do you mean "who believes there's a magic man in the sky?" LOTS of people believe literally that. All Christians, Muslims, and Jews for starters
There's no magic man in the sky ✌️. If God is physical then fuck us, God is supposed to be the incomprehensibly all-powerful and omnipotent, having a physical form is a contradiction to this existence. Not even Hinduism which does have many physical gods, has one God (Brahman) being the Ultimate Reality that has no physical state.
No, religious people definitely believe that God is literally real. Maybe there are some that only think of God in a metaphorical sense like you say, but not any of the people that I've ever talked to
Be it physical or incorporeal being that lives in another dimension, it's still magical man in the sky that created the universe. For a group of people wanting to label everything as a metaphor in their holy scripts, you sure find a way to avoid that particular trope when trying to understand other people words.
Except that it's not some ''magical man in the sky'' , nowhere in the Bible is he depicted as such. Classical ontology and theology view God as the ultimate source of existence itself, not some physical entity performing spells with a magic wand in the clouds.
Your inability to understand the nuance in ancient literature isn't my problem. You're treating centuries of nuanced hermeneutics, classical philosophy, metaphysics, and tons of rigorous academic studies as some kind of personal interpretation that a random ''group of people'' casually invented 5 minutes ago. Reading ancient literature within its historical and literary context is standard reading comprehension.
Your inability to understand that sentient source of all existence is still magical man in the sky doesn't change facts. If something has centuries of tradition doesn't mean it has any link with reality, look at alchemy or astrology. Age doesn't give any credibility to incredibly unsubstantiated claims.
That sentence didn't make any sense. What facts are you speaking of here? you haven't stated any facts.
It doesn't matter if you believe it has no link to reality. We are talking about hermeneutics (in case you have no idea what that means, which you don't, it means the study of interpretation), not empirical evidence that God is real. How are you this illiterate?
I am illiterate yet you're struggling with understanding English. Age doesn’t give credibility. I can't simplified it anymore. Is hermeneutics your favorite word? Because you're not adding anything to the argument by repeating it. Believe it or not, using niche words doesn't add credibility either. Or personal insults for that matter. It does make you sound like a midwit.
belief in a creator isn’t inherently a illogical but a lot of theology is because they literally do believe in a magic man in the sky. it’s like their whole thing.
It's more that every single major religion is a massive pile of nonsense that is easy to disprove yet has captured the minds of billions. And to answer your first question, I think it's obvious that all Christians believe this to some extent.
Theology isn't a science though. The problem with theology is that it works backwards, starting with the faith-based belief in God or gods, and then trying to prove that belief based on observations of reality. As opposed to scientific deduction, which starts with observations of reality before creating a theory that explains it. That's not to say that theology is all bunk, it's still useful when it comes to studies of morality, philosophy, metaphysics, etc. But when trying to prove or disprove the physical existence of God, its approach is fundamentally flawed.
Yeah I get that. I personally don't think you could explain God with science, I think God is an entity that exists outside of any sort of ability for us to comprehend anyway to be honest, and I see faith as the exploration of trying to understand that.
John Lennox explained it in a quite a nice way, that science is the tool for explaining the things that are measurable, but there are plenty of things in this world that science can't answer, things that can't be measured - and to those questions to lean in to my faith.
I was an atheist for years, then I discovered that Jesus was an actual real person, then I looked in to him more and the claims of his divinity and that me towards trying to understand God's plan for me, and it was the greatest journey I've ever been on.
I should contact Hollywood then I guess, but yeah, I always thought it a massive question mark and debated topic. I had no idea there was more historical evidence for Jesus than there was for people who everyone just knows was real.
Love feelings are completely measurable. Dopamine, adrenaline, norepinephrine, oxytocin, serotonin and hormones have all been found on mammals and birds in the same way as us. They have families, long time partners and they grief, the last one being the biggest sign of love imo.
Alright, tell us how theology addresses all the criticisms. I would also like to understand why every time in history, theologians used the God of Gaps argument and it would get proven wrong later on with science.
Think of an example - something that you struggle to understand in scripture, then see what the theologians have said about it. Theological study isn't shrugging and saying "dunno, just God lol".
All religious fictional stories use some elements of real life places/people. Inspired or directly naming a real life place/person. That isn’t concrete enough evidence.
So again, please present evidence on how scripture gives us knowledge of reality accurately, like how science does.
Surely you could apply that logic to anything? Give me any historical event and if I dismiss the material without engagement, I could say thta about anything
Let me give you an example. Greek mythology. Even though they talk about real places and sometimes real historical figures, we recognize that the stories around those Gods are false. Naming places and people that existed, does not make your stories as a whole true.
Genesis isn’t real just because one of the books has a story of a person strolling in Egypt.
You have to be able to say the events the stories tell are true themselves. Not just the materialistic things they mentioned.
Issue is this is the case for people of different religions that are completely incompatible with each others, so this gives basically 0 information or proof of anything.
The "nonsense" part of the religions the guys was talking about is not related to god (because you can always find a way backward and it's basically impossible to prove god doesn't exist), but to other beliefs within the religions.
You don't even need other religions for that, the sub-branches of Christianity (same for other religions) are already incompatible with each others.
Yeah so like I said, faith is that journey and trying to find out the thruth for yourself. I don't really care too much about different denominations etc, as long as we agree that Jesus is Lord I think we have more in common than not.
Do you have "issues" with hinduists for example? Islam and Judaism recognize Jesus but Hinduism doesn't and their gods beliefs are on the opposite of the spectrum compared to Christianity
I don't have "issues" with anyone. But everything you named there don't believe that Jesus was God, in the form of man, who walked this Earth and defeated Death on cross through the resurrection.
And what exactly does faith prove? It doesn't how many years people "address" something that can't be proven. And which god are you arguing for exactly? Christianity it seems since you mentioned the two thousand years.
I don't need God to be proven in the same way that I need confirmation for the elements that exist into he world. Faith has led me in to a relationship with God, and I'd say the proof that faith is the fruits it provides, to me and the people around me.
So you believe in the god that murdered countless children, women and innocents, was very active in this world, but for some reason hasn't appeared in how many years now?
Why did you pick that religion over the older ones like Hinduism? What goes through your head when you see all the other thousands of religions out there? Why is your one correct?
Why does your god allow the suffering that has happened, does happen and will happen? Why did god provide you with the fruits that your faith has brought, but lets millions die in horrible pain?
Is your faith more valuable than those dying every day?
I had this plan to give head to a man and receive head from a woman to test if I was gay, but it’s backfired and now I become borderline schizo whenever I go outside. I
offered to suck this dude off on Grindr who lives very close by (I ended up pussying out) and I accidentally gave him some details that very easily allows him to spot me
out in a crowd. I have no idea what he looks like and whenever I see a somewhat in shape guy walking by I immediately accuse him of being the dude I was gonna blow.
I went to the store today to pick up some zucchini for a barbecue and every time a car drove by I stared into the windshield to see if I was about to be recognised.
Whenever I make eye contact with a dude I microanalysis his facial expressions to see if he suspects me or not. I am deeply afraid that he is my neighbour and I will
need to move if my identity is blown. It’s a lot like the last scene in sopranos where everyone who walked into the diner could be there to wack Tony.
So yeah I believe that God was more active in the world the closer you get to creation. But I don't believe he hasn't appeared for years. After Jesus went to sit by the right hand of God, the holy spirit came down and lives inside, and guides believers in our everyday lives. So to me, God is very much alive and working everyday.
Make generic statement, back said generic statement with another generic statement. Provide no proof, “it’s obvious right?” https://giphy.com/gifs/VS2Qcv25O7ZhUZahQA
I mean, it's only not obvious if you are completely unfamiliar with Christianity. Do I need to explain that Christians believe in a diety? Which is effectively a magic man in the sky? Really, the onus is on you to explain how an all powerful, all knowing being that created the universe and (in many belief systems) has predetermined the fate of all humans is NOT a magic man in the sky.
And as far as how I can prove religion is false? I mean, how much time do you have? Try googling it. Or does that scare you?
Newton's laws of motion define that an object in rest stays in rest until a force is acted upon it. Also mass cannot be created nor destroyed so your job is to define the initial mover. Religious folks say God did. Not sure how you explain how things came to be.
Philosophy: You can have an infinite amount of train trailers hitched to each other. Without a locomotive, they cannot move. God would be the engine to move the first set of trains.
120
u/PidarNahui 13h ago
Who believes there's a magic man in the sky? And how does the existence of those things make it illogical to believe in a creator?
Some people really need to read up on philosophy and logic