Deep into Atheism

Robin Hood

Robin Hood

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter


i think this is where we differ in perspectives. i think the idea of a creator of the universe is very scientific. i am quite certain that our existence is not a random chance. the probability that the moment we are living exists by chance is zero. well let's say epsilon. the amount of events that need to correctly line up since the beginning of the universe till now is utterly and ridiculously tremendous. that's not to tackle the idea of a causal universe springing out of nothingness, that simply defies science.

from a scientific perspective, it is more likely that this universe has been created. that by itself poses a series of questions, the answer to which may not necessarily be religion. but the bottom line is that it is curiosity, not fear, that motivates this line of thinking. why do we exist? where did we come from? where are we heading to? these are all scientific questions, motivated by scientific curiosity, it is simply applied on a very abstract domain, but the time will come when part of the answers might become available.

with that in mind, i am not a big fan of organized religion. but i am an avid supporter of some theories that contribute to the ascension and the progress of the human race in an everlasting quest towards perfection.

Let's suppose the formation of the universe was a series of mutually-exclusive events E1, E2, E3, ...Ei (where i is a natural number and i > 3).
The probability of all these events to happen by chance is P = E1 x E2 x E3 x ... x Ei ≈ 0 (where ≈ means approx equal).
Lets suppose P = ε, where ε ≈ 0, acording to the laws of probability, E, which is the series of the events mentioned above, is considered to be so low probable that it is considered impossible.

This is how I see it.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Religion is about everything except creation or answering questions. Instead it is a lie after the other, contradiction after the other

    The creation as it was written in the Bible and Koran, and believed for thousands of years ended up being all wrong and proven by science and evolution.
    Muslims still do not believe in evolution and Christians . ah well .. we stretch every God day to make it represent millions of years.

    Instead, i open the Kuran which calls everyone else filthy and dictates to me which women i can sleep with, and a surah about war booty, and i open the Bible, it talks about miracles unproven and both promising a lot of pain in the afterlife if i do not follow an invisible man.

    These fairy books ended up being offensive political tools to occupy lands and kill infidels and the questions about creation remain unanswered.

    The holly books answer no questions of creation ....
    i will highlight where you are wrong.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Let's suppose the formation of the universe was a series of mutually-exclusive events E1, E2, E3, ...Ei (where i is a natural number and i > 3).
    The probability of all these events to happen by chance is P = E1 x E2 x E3 x ... x Ei ≈ 0 (where ≈ means approx equal).
    Lets suppose P = ε, where ε ≈ 0, acording to the laws of probability, E, which is the series of the events mentioned above, is considered to be so low probable that it is considered impossible.

    This is how I see it.
    the next logical step is to conclude that the probability that there is a creator orchestrating the universe is (1- epsilon), which is 100%, well approximately :p
    i was just having this same conversation with Nayla 2 minutes ago :icon10:
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    the next logical step is to conclude that the probability that there is a creator orchestrating the universe is (1- epsilon), which is 100%, well approximately :p
    i was just having this same conversation with Nayla 2 minutes ago :icon10:
    I did not single out the possibility of a creator.

    The honest answer is "I do not know"

    you do not know either, you assume and think there is one ...
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I did not single out the possibility of a creator.

    The honest answer is "I do not know"

    you do not know either, you assume and think there is one ...
    science and causality indicate that the likelihood of a creator exceeds the other likelihoods.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    science and causality indicate that the likelihood of a creator exceeds the other likelihoods.
    I would like to see :)

    Even if there is a creator, his books are outdated by humanity and science. We need a new version, update.

    please God, the secular, atheist countries are so peaceful and human and advanced while the ones following your books are retarded.
    Sharia for example? omg ....

    Adam and Eve? this is God's explanation of the creation? Angels and Djinns?
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    i think this is where we differ in perspectives. i think the idea of a creator of the universe is very scientific. i am quite certain that our existence is not a random chance. the probability that the moment we are living exists by chance is zero. well let's say epsilon. the amount of events that need to correctly line up since the beginning of the universe till now is utterly and ridiculously tremendous.
    I can't believe this statement came from a scientist!
    It is a big FALSE!

    The idea of a creator has zero scientific evidence to it. It remains a hypothesis devoid of any experimentation or any scientific testing! It is not even a scientific hypothesis, let alone be a theory or a possibility!

    And not one single scientific theory for the origin of the universe suggests its existence by mere chance!
    Every single one of those theories has been at least tested mathematically and in order to qualify as a theory it means it passed the mathematical test and awaits physical experimentation which is not possible in our current time by our current technology.

    And in case you are talking about purpose, the idea of a creator doesn't solve or address this at all! The question remains the same. If not about the purpose of this universe and life, and then what is the purpose of that creator's existence in the first place, and what is the purpose for its creations!!
    It could very well be that there is no purpose at all. But this doesn't mean we exist by mere chance either.

    There are already tested theories that suggest a particular mechanism by which our universe was created. And that is not a chance by any mean.

    Then, why not consider the possibility of us existing by a chance anyway? How is this against science?!
    What's wrong in that?

    from a scientific perspective, it is more likely that this universe has been created.
    Again, what is the source of your information?!
    How is it from a scientific perspective more likely that the universe has been created?

    If you want to quote science, you ought to do it the scientific way!

    that's not to tackle the idea of a causal universe springing out of nothingness, that simply defies science
    What?!!
    Here is one book for you to read: A Universe from Nothing, for Prof. Lawrence Krauss. He is a physicist and a cosmologist.

    And other theories as well. All worth discussing and considering and are pretty scientific!

    that by itself poses a series of questions, the answer to which may not necessarily be religion. but the bottom line is that it is curiosity, not fear, that motivates this line of thinking. why do we exist? where did we come from? where are we heading to? these are all scientific questions, motivated by scientific curiosity, it is simply applied on a very abstract domain, but the time will come when part of the answers might become available.
    No these are not scientific questions!
    These are philosophical questions that may never be answered simply because these come from our imagination and in reality may not address factual event!

    The question, "why something rather than nothing?", is scientifically flawed until we find reason to ask such a question!
    For now, the scientific question shall be "how something rather than nothing?"..

    Again, purpose is a virtual term flowing in our minds. We like and tend to give significance to ourselves (proven by science). Therefore, we naturally reject the idea that there is no purpose behind our existence. So it takes some effort to learn to accept the possibility of this fact.
    By asking why here, we actually mean how! "How" alone could very well explain everything we are after!

    with that in mind, i am not a big fan of organized religion. but i am an avid supporter of some theories that contribute to the ascension and the progress of the human race in an everlasting quest towards perfection.
    So what exactly do you believe in?
    Is it Jesus? God? another deity? or any sort of yet unknown supernatural existence?
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    Let's suppose the formation of the universe was a series of mutually-exclusive events E1, E2, E3, ...Ei (where i is a natural number and i > 3).
    The probability of all these events to happen by chance is P = E1 x E2 x E3 x ... x Ei ≈ 0 (where ≈ means approx equal).
    Lets suppose P = ε, where ε ≈ 0, acording to the laws of probability, E, which is the series of the events mentioned above, is considered to be so low probable that it is considered impossible.

    This is how I see it.
    You consider this science?! With all seriousness??

    You are assuming things the way you want.

    And then talking about low probabilities, which may very well not turn out to be the case at all, our planet of one of billions of billions of planets!
    If it indeed turns out that the succession of events leading to life on Earth is extremely low, there you have it. A very obvious example of such a case!
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You consider this science?! With all seriousness??

    You are assuming things the way you want.

    And then talking about low probabilities, which may very well not turn out to be the case at all, our planet of one of billions of billions of planets!
    If it indeed turns out that the succession of events leading to life on Earth is extremely low, there you have it. A very obvious example of such a case!
    I should have specified, I don't intend this as a scientific explanation, I ain't even a scientist. That's just my opinion about the plausibility of God's existence, maybe in a few years, after more science courses, I will have another opinion.
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    Religion is about everything except creation or answering questions. Instead it is a lie after the other, contradiction after the other

    The creation as it was written in the Bible and Koran, and believed for thousands of years ended up being all wrong and proven by science and evolution.
    Muslims still do not believe in evolution and Christians . ah well .. we stretch every God day to make it represent millions of years.

    Instead, i open the Kuran which calls everyone else filthy and dictates to me which women i can sleep with, and a surah about war booty, and i open the Bible, it talks about miracles unproven and both promising a lot of pain in the afterlife if i do not follow an invisible man.

    These fairy books ended up being offensive political tools to occupy lands and kill infidels and the questions about creation remain unanswered.

    The holly books answer no questions of creation ....
    I'd like to highlight that the discussion about man made organized religions, be it the Abrahamic ones which make the majority of the religious populations in the world, to any other religion, is totally different to the debate whether there is a sort of supernatural dimension!

    The former is just a discussion and analysis of some evidences, proofs, and history.
    The latter is a legit debate among intellectuals.

    We know for sure that these organized religions are man made. It's not up for debate.

    And therefore, I'd like to ask members to keep discussing these religions to other respective and related threads if we are to keep this thread going and make good use out of it.
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    I should have specified, I don't intend this as a scientific explanation, I ain't even a scientist. That's just my opinion about the plausibility of God's existence, maybe in a few years, after more science courses, I will have another opinion.
    Ok. But I still fail to categorize this under any form of logic! Be it mathematical or philosophical!

    You have just assumed an infinite set of events! Of course the probability of these happening mutually will be tending to zero! This tells nothing at all.
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    BTW, if someone says natural science can study God, then s/he is committing a gross error. God is a metaphysical being/concept.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    I can't believe this statement came from a scientist!
    It is a big FALSE!

    The idea of a creator has zero scientific evidence to it. It remains a hypothesis devoid of any experimentation or any scientific testing! It is not even a scientific hypothesis, let alone be a theory or a possibility!

    And not one single scientific theory for the origin of the universe suggests its existence by mere chance!
    Every single one of those theories has been at least tested mathematically and in order to qualify as a theory it means it passed the mathematical test and awaits physical experimentation which is not possible in our current time by our current technology.

    And in case you are talking about purpose, the idea of a creator doesn't solve or address this at all! The question remains the same. If not about the purpose of this universe and life, and then what is the purpose of that creator's existence in the first place, and what is the purpose for its creations!!
    It could very well be that there is no purpose at all. But this doesn't mean we exist by mere chance either.

    There are already tested theories that suggest a particular mechanism by which our universe was created. And that is not a chance by any mean.

    Then, why not consider the possibility of us existing by a chance anyway? How is this against science?!
    What's wrong in that?
    Again, what is the source of your information?!
    How is it from a scientific perspective more likely that the universe has been created?

    If you want to quote science, you ought to do it the scientific way!

    What?!!
    Here is one book for you to read: A Universe from Nothing, for Prof. Lawrence Krauss. He is a physicist and a cosmologist.

    And other theories as well. All worth discussing and considering and are pretty scientific!

    No these are not scientific questions!
    These are philosophical questions that may never be answered simply because these come from our imagination and in reality may not address factual event!

    The question, "why something rather than nothing?", is scientifically flawed until we find reason to ask such a question!
    For now, the scientific question shall be "how something rather than nothing?"..

    Again, purpose is a virtual term flowing in our minds. We like and tend to give significance to ourselves (proven by science). Therefore, we naturally reject the idea that there is no purpose behind our existence. So it takes some effort to learn to accept the possibility of this fact.
    By asking why here, we actually mean how! "How" alone could very well explain everything we are after!

    So what exactly do you believe in?
    Is it Jesus? God? another deity? or any sort of yet unknown supernatural existence?
    to be honest with you i think that some atheists, and without really understanding it all that much, attempt to invest the term "science" against the poor religious folks :p. an idea can be scientific without being proven, and it will remain scientific after if gets proved or disproved. for example, the source for gravity is not very well understood, there are several researches on the subjects, and at the end only one theory will turn out to be true, but all the other researches are scientific ideas.

    probability theory suggests that this universe and intelligent life are created rather than came to be by pure chance, you can check the probability sequence couple of posts above, there is a scientific merit to this derivation.

    the why supersedes the how in the scientific method. the question was not "how did the apple fall from the tree?" but rather "why did the apple fall from the tree?"

    i believe that there is an orchestrator to the universe, but how does my religious preference pertain to this conversation? :)
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I'd like to highlight that the discussion about man made organized religions, be it the Abrahamic ones which make the majority of the religious populations in the world, to any other religion, is totally different to the debate whether there is a sort of supernatural dimension!

    The former is just a discussion and analysis of some evidences, proofs, and history.
    The latter is a legit debate among intellectuals.

    We know for sure that these organized religions are man made. It's not up for debate.

    And therefore, I'd like to ask members to keep discussing these religions to other respective and related threads if we are to keep this thread going and make good use out of it.
    I agree somehow with this. The concept of God and the concept of religion are not the same. The concept of religion is a set of positions people believe in without needing evidence or logical explanation, while the concept of God (whether He exists or not) is us trying to explain (with logic or without) the origin of our world.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    I'd like to highlight that the discussion about man made organized religions, be it the Abrahamic ones which make the majority of the religious populations in the world, to any other religion, is totally different to the debate whether there is a sort of supernatural dimension!

    The former is just a discussion and analysis of some evidences, proofs, and history.
    The latter is a legit debate among intellectuals.

    We know for sure that these organized religions are man made. It's not up for debate.

    And therefore, I'd like to ask members to keep discussing these religions to other respective and related threads if we are to keep this thread going and make good use out of it.
    You cannot completely separate the two.

    Atheists are often faced in debates with religious scholars.

    Religions like to believe that they have all the evidence for a superpower, they like to call creator.

    Now you can debate with non religious about superpower dimensions, or with religious scholars. One does not need to restrict the debate, they all have some view to add to the table.
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    I agree somehow with this. The concept of God and the concept of religion are not the same. The concept of religion is a set of positions people believe in without needing evidence or logical explanation, while the concept of God (whether He exists or not) is us trying to explain (with logic or without) the origin of our world.
    Ye and No.
    you can debate God through religion and logic, or through logic alone.
    Even religions use science and logic ...
     
    Robin Hood

    Robin Hood

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Atheists: what makes you believe you are right?
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    to be honest with you i think that some atheists, and without really understanding it all that much, attempt to invest the term "science" against the poor religious folks :p.
    I already hinted in my previous post that not all atheists are the same! One is bound to find ignorants and a**holes everywhere.

    However, if you want to quote science in your arguments, it won't work out when you push some assumptions and label them scientific!
    Same as there are atheists who pretend to know science, there are religious or believers who pretend the same as well!

    an idea can be scientific without being proven, and it will remain scientific after if gets proved or disproved. for example, the source for gravity is not very well understood, there are several researches on the subjects, and at the end only one theory will turn out to be true, but all the other researches are scientific ideas.
    I explained above what differentiates a scientific theory, from a scientific hypothesis, from non-scientific ideas and assumptions!

    The theories explaining the source of gravity you are referring to, are very well mathematically tested, and above all constructed using the scientific method, which sets a certain guidelines to follow (in general): make observations, analyze them mathematically, then construct a hypothesis. From there the experimental phase will start to comparisons will be made. Further experiments with the aid of simulation techniques might be performed as well. With the precise considerations of special conditions and exceptions.
    Only then a scientific theory could be approved!

    So it's not up to you or just anybody to label a theory as scientific or not! It depends on the work done and authenticity of this work and the approval of the experts in the respective fields!

    Back to the different gravitational theories, we haven't developed yet the needed technology to test these theories physically in order to know the correct one.

    What you are suggesting about an orchestrator or creator have zero relation with science or any scientific work!

    What is your major if I may ask? Because from what you stated, it seems that either you playing us for fools or lacking some basic scientific knowledge!

    probability theory suggests that this universe and intelligent life are created rather than came to be by pure chance, you can check the probability sequence couple of posts above, there is a scientific merit to this derivation
    The sequence you quoted above is literally some random assumption that is based on zero observation or any collected information.
    And moreover, it tells nothing!

    You seriously need to study the theory of probability well or over again to know what it is about and when to be used!

    the why supersedes the how in the scientific method. the question was not "how did the apple fall from the tree?" but rather "why did the apple fall from the tree?"
    We still don't know why the gravity is there and why it is such a weak force! And we might never know as it is very well possible that there is no reason or purpose for the existence of gravity! It could turn out, which is most likely, that quantum gravitons and the resulting gravitational field is just a result of a certain quantum interaction.

    When Newton observed that Apple falling from the tree, the first question it occurred to his mind was why is that apple falling straight downward.
    But what he was after is how is that happening! According to what mechanism and rules? And that is what he worked on for is life time!

    i believe that there is an orchestrator to the universe, but how does my religious preference pertain to this conversation? :)
    Well do you simply accept to debate someone on a certain subject without knowing that someone's stance or take on the subject?
     
    F

    false Morel

    New Member
    I agree somehow with this. The concept of God and the concept of religion are not the same. The concept of religion is a set of positions people believe in without needing evidence or logical explanation, while the concept of God (whether He exists or not) is us trying to explain (with logic or without) the origin of our world.
    You cannot completely separate the two.

    Atheists are often faced in debates with religious scholars.

    Religions like to believe that they have all the evidence for a superpower, they like to call creator.

    Now you can debate with non religious about superpower dimensions, or with religious scholars. One does not need to restrict the debate, they all have some view to add to the table.
    I don't care who would like to participate in this discussion, be it the religious, believers, agnostics, atheists, or whatever..

    What I wanted to hint that the topic to discuss is atheism, and not organized religions.
    Religious adherents could debate about the concept of their deity from their own perspective.

    But it is wise not to divert into discussing what organized religions are about and how they integrate into our societal lives..

    Let's keep this thread to discuss atheist reasoning, and their stance against religous faith and spirituality in general..
     
    Genius

    Genius

    Legendary Member
    Atheists: what makes you believe you are right?
    I do not consider myself an atheist. But to answer your question why atheists cannot claim to be right because, in my opinion:

    It is as hard to prove the absence of God as it is to prove his presence. Someone who believes cannot prove the existence of God, an atheist cannot prove his nonexistence.

    Note however that we are not discussing Atheists vs organized religions. I am strictly replying based on absence/presence of God.
     
    Top