Theist vs Atheist debate Thread.....

[Thraxox]

For Philosophical topics between Atheism and Theism. Logical answers are needed along with reason and evidence.

First to comment about a particular discusison will be regarded as the subject.

[Thraxox]

Me first: Evolution does not prove the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless being suck as a God.

[Elroy The Great]

i believe in a god like being AKA creator. the very 1st thing had to come from somewhere.

(ok hotshot, where did god come from ?)

ill ask him when i see him

[betmen]

there are already master thread about this topic, it called religion or religion vs atheist thread. it got thousands of replies and very hot debates resulting multiple permabans. before the whole trump thing the thread was hot and stickied in the front page of the lounge.

[Furn]

If god made me, how can he judge me ?

[Lomasexual]

the very 1st thing had to come from somewhere.

No, it didn't.

Firstly, things come into existence for no reason at all, and they do it all the time. Generally speaking, this is happening on the quantum scale - but the underlying principle also explains how the entire universe can have come into existence from nothing.

There is a caveat to that - the 'nothing' refers to a lack of matter, energy, space/time. What the current theories do rely on is the laws of physics.

So where did these laws of physics come from? In the specific sense (why these laws) the answer can be found in M-theory.

In a more general sense of why any laws exist at all? Good question.

Secondly, the idea of a primal cause is one which is rooted in human sensory bias. Our entire experience is filled with cause and effect, cause and effect. For everything that happens, we are pre-programmed by evolution to see some kind of agent behind it, or at the very least, some casual factor.

The problem with this outlook though, is that it relies on the passage of time. Cause precedes event in the temporal sense. You can't have this kind of a cause/event relationship in the absence of a temporal dimension.
The whole 'there has to be something before X which started it all' fails - because there has to be a temporal dimension for the 'before' to make sense; but this renders the whole statement inherently false.

We can't really try to apply the reasoning that we inherit from our sensory experiences to the beginning of the universe. Whatever answers there are will not and cannot satisfy the sense of logic or rightness we get from this.

Consider this - if the temporal dimension was a different 'shape' - or if there was more than one temporal dimension (like we have 3 dimensional space) then what we know of cause and effect would be radically different. And when it comes to the conditions around the beginning of spacetime, these kinds of scenarios could be real.

[Elroy The Great]

No, it didn't.

Firstly, things come into existence for no reason at all, and they do it all the time. Generally speaking, this is happening on the quantum scale - but the underlying principle also explains how the entire universe can have come into existence from nothing.

There is a caveat to that - the 'nothing' refers to a lack of matter, energy, space/time. What the current theories do rely on is the laws of physics.

So where did these laws of physics come from? In the specific sense (why these laws) the answer can be found in M-theory.

In a more general sense of why any laws exist at all? Good question.

Secondly, the idea of a primal cause is one which is rooted in human sensory bias. Our entire experience is filled with cause and effect, cause and effect. For everything that happens, we are pre-programmed by evolution to see some kind of agent behind it, or at the very least, some casual factor.

The problem with this outlook though, is that it relies on the passage of time. Cause precedes event in the temporal sense. You can't have this kind of a cause/event relationship in the absence of a temporal dimension.
The whole 'there has to be something before X which started it all' fails - because there has to be a temporal dimension for the 'before' to make sense; but this renders the whole statement inherently false.

We can't really try to apply the reasoning that we inherit from our sensory experiences to the beginning of the universe. Whatever answers there are will not and cannot satisfy the sense of logic or rightness we get from this.

Consider this - if the temporal dimension was a different 'shape' - or if there was more than one temporal dimension (like we have 3 dimensional space) then what we know of cause and effect would be radically different. And when it comes to the conditions around the beginning of spacetime, these kinds of scenarios could be real.

i still stick by my ''where did the very 1st thing come from'' angle. something had to set something else in motion. someone had to put that dimension ''there'' in that way. someone had to make things fit a formula.

funny thing is, when we all meet at the pearly gates, were all gonna say ''see, i told you.''

[Elroy The Great]

If god made me, how can he judge me ?

parents judge their children all the time

[Lomasexual]

Me first: Evolution does not prove the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless being suck as a God.

No it doesn't.

It does disprove literal creationist myths though.

More to the point, there are infinite things which evolution does not prove the non-existence of.

So it becomes meaningless in almost every context to say that evolution does not prove the non-existence of something.

Or, put the other way, saying that "Evolution does not prove the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless being suck as a God." adds absolutely nothing in support of the existence of such an entity.

[Lomasexual]

i still stick by my ''where did the very 1st thing come from'' angle. something had to set something else in motion. someone had to put that dimension ''there'' in that way. someone had to make things fit a formula.

You can stick with it if you want. You will hardly be alone.

If you want to explore the concept further though, I have plenty of alternative ideas which it might be interesting to consider.