Atheism

Bi0Hazard: Agree, however I don't think that being outside the universe means you can't have a personal relationship.

I'm not sure how 'personal' God could get if we assume he exists outside of the universe.

Not at all, the inflation cosmological model doesn't negate a transcendent God. Unless there is some hidden assumption your making.

Forget transcendent God. The inflation cosmological model negates any God as, by definition, God is the creator of the universe. And before the Big Bang there was no space, time, matter, gravity, etc. (only quantum fluctuations - which are, in essence, nothing). This means that a deity cannot possibly have caused the Big Bang since it wouldn't be in existence and there would be no time (meaning that God couldn't create the universe because that would require time - it is impossible and incoherent for God to have made the universe in 'literally' no time).

Famousdebater: I'm not sure how 'personal' God could get if we assume he exists outside of the universe.
God can communicate with our minds and our world. God is omnipresent and immaterial. Personal God means that God can be related to as a person. God has/is a mind, being personal.
Forget transcendent God. The inflation cosmological model negates any God as, by definition, God is the creator of the universe. And before the Big Bang there was no space, time, matter, gravity, etc. (only quantum fluctuations - which are, in essence, nothing). This means that a deity cannot possibly have caused the Big Bang since it wouldn't be in existence and there would be no time (meaning that God couldn't create the universe because that would require time - it is impossible and incoherent for God to have made the universe in 'literally' no time).
God exists outside of time and created it. Space, time, matter, and the laws were all Gods creation. At the beginning, all of these were created, Gods creation required no time, it was simultaneous with creation. God creating the universe was what started time, being an event. Time exists because of the occurrence of events, God creating the universe is an event(starting event) starting time. God could create space, time, and matter without previous time.

Bi0Hazard: God can communicate with our minds and our world. God is omnipresent and immaterial. Personal God means that God can be related to as a person. God has/is a mind, being personal.


Well if we're assuming he's omnipresent then he isn't outside of the universe is he?

God exists outside of time and created it. Space, time, matter, and the laws were all Gods creation. At the beginning, all of these were created, Gods creation required no time, it was simultaneous with creation. God creating the universe was what started time, being an event. Time exists because of the occurrence of events, God creating the universe is an event(starting event) starting time. God could create space, time, and matter without previous time.


That seems completely incoherent to me. Creation requires time. You can't make something in no time. That is logically invalid. You say that God creating the universe is an event which started time. But how can an event occur in no time.

And even if we assume that you are correct, you still haven't provided any logical justification for God's existence or why I should buy the fact that God started the Big Bang as opposed to me just believing that it occurred without a God.

Famousdebater: Well if we're assuming he's omnipresent then he isn't outside of the universe is he?
God is outside of the universe and is omnipresent. This will sound contradictory if your thinking in purely materialistic terms, since existing outside of the universe means you are away from us. However, Outside of the universe is not a location, since there is no space(which is where things have a location), God doesn't have a location. God is an immaterial presence, not bound by space and time, but is present everywhere. Not present in the way material things are present, but present in the way of immaterial transcendence. When you think of God, you can't think of it in materialistic terms, since God is not material but transcends our universe. So, saying that this is absurd because something being present would have to be bound by our universe is just presuming that God is material.
That seems completely incoherent to me. Creation requires time. You can't make something in no time. That is logically invalid. You say that God creating the universe is an event which started time. But how can an event occur in no time.

Your looking at time in a different way. You are assuming that in order for events to occur, time must already be there. However, time exists because the events occur. Time came with the first event(God's creation). There was no "before" the universe began, since there was no time(no events). An event happened with other events following, making what we call "time".
And even if we assume that you are correct, you still haven't provided any logical justification for God's existence or why I should buy the fact that God started the Big Bang as opposed to me just believing that it occurred without a God.
Not trying to, simply responding to your points. I wouldn't be able to convince you anyways since hardly anyone accepts that their beliefs are wrong even if provided with tons of evidence(God's existence can not be proven by reasoning anyways).

Bi0Hazard: I wouldn't be able to convince you anyways since hardly anyone accepts that their beliefs are wrong even if provided with tons of evidence(God's existence can not be proven by reasoning anyways).

I'm actually very open to new points of views and have changed my opinions a lot because of various arguments I've heard about various different topics I've discussed with people. So if you have arguments, then I'd be very interested to hear them.

Bi0Hazard: If you believe that god exists outside of space and time, cannot be tested, cannot be proven, has no observable effects on the universe, cannot be distinguished from non-existence & has no means of belief except irrational belief . . . then what leads you to believe that this thing is a god, and not a fairy?
I know that sounds dismissive and demeaning, but it's a serious question. All that I have read about fairies describes them as beings of magic, and magic by its very nature is, well, "beyond nature", it's supernatural. So, I mean it, what is the difference between your god and a fairy?

Kelnius: The thread continues...
If you believe that god exists outside of space and time, cannot be tested, cannot be proven, has no observable effects on the universe, cannot be distinguished from non-existence & has no means of belief except irrational belief . . .
Yes, God is not observable through science. This doesn't mean it is irrational, unless you are assuming naturalism/scientism.
then what leads you to believe that this thing is a god, and not a fairy?
A fairy has certain characteristics(like a small human with wings). God existing outside of the universe and being an infinite, eternal, and necessary being is not limited to these characteristics. God transcends space and time, so isn't limited to shape, size, and time frames.
So, I mean it, what is the difference between your god and a fairy?
God is necessary(a necessary truth rather than contingent).
God is omnipotent.
God is eternal.
God is morality(moral standard).
God is immanent.
God is immutable.
God is omnipresent.
God is omniscient.
God is transcendent.
God is righteous(being the moral standard).
God is sovereign.
God is one.
God is timeless and spaceless.

Bi0Hazard: I'm not assuming naturalism, I'm just explaining how science works. Science doesn't assume that the supernatural doesn't exist, that is Philosophical Naturalism ; and science doesn't make such broad and sweeping claims.
Science utilizes Methodological Naturalism , which is nothing more than a method of learning about the laws of nature and reality by observing phenomena and testing natural causes and events related to them. That's not a claim about the supernatural, it's just a realistic expectation that if something is real, then it is within reality, and so has effects on reality in accordance with the nature of reality, and natural law.
Or, in simplest terms "if it's real, it is a part of nature". So, if a god is real, then it is a part of nature. If that seems unrealistic of you, then you accept that you're assuming mysticism/supernaturalism; and I would ask that before you continue under this assumption, that you prove that supernature is real. Because if it's real, it's part of nature. Whilst the two may seem incompatible by their words "super" nature may not appear to be a part of nature, so we can use a more accurate term, if you wish, and call it "magic".

Next, you said that god is not observable. If that is the case, how did you determine that god is necessary; omnipotent; eternal; morality; immanent; immutable; omnipresent; omniscient; transcendent; righteous; sovereign; one; timeless and spaceless. ?
These are properties which would be observable if they existed. Perhaps not all of them, but the first seven, definitely. Just because you say "god is unobservable" that isn't a get out of jail free card. If it's unobservable, then fine, we don't understand it, and cannot confirm it. Like dark matter or alien life, we can theorize, but cannot specify.
But you didn't say "we don't understand it", you went on to list a dozen or so qualities that you believe qualify this god. How in the name of all that is good and gracious did you determine these qualities, despite the fact that you freely admit that you have never observed them?

You just said fairies don't exist because they are humans with wings and these are not qualities which exist in a magical being, yet you describe an entity with so much more than that, but think it makes more sense. How can you reasonably expect anyone to accept that? And if you don't, why do you consider it reasonable for you to accept that?

Kelnius: I'm not assuming naturalism, I'm just explaining how science works. Science doesn't assume that the supernatural doesn't exist, that is Philosophical Naturalism ; and science doesn't make such broad and sweeping claims.
It can only observe the natural world.
Science utilizes Methodological Naturalism , which is nothing more than a method of learning about the laws of nature and reality by observing phenomena and testing natural causes and events related to them.
Exactly.
Or, in simplest terms "if it's real, it is a part of nature". So, if a god is real, then it is a part of nature.
That is you assuming naturalism.
If that seems unrealistic of you, then you accept that you're assuming mysticism/supernaturalism;
I don't agree with it.
and I would ask that before you continue under this assumption, that you prove that supernature is real.
You can't, just as you can't "prove" naturalism.
Because if it's real, it's part of nature.
You are just presupposing naturalism.
Whilst the two may seem incompatible by their words "super" nature may not appear to be a part of nature, so we can use a more accurate term, if you wish, and call it "magic".
No, "supernatural" is more accurate.
Next, you said that god is not observable. If that is the case, how did you determine that god is
necessary; omnipotent; eternal; morality; immanent; immutable; omnipresent; omniscient; transcendent; righteous; sovereign; one; timeless and spaceless.
?
That is the concept of God(monotheist). It doesn't have to be observable in order for it to be a concept.
These are properties which would be observable if they existed.
Not in this case, because God is not observable.
Just because you say "god is unobservable" that isn't a get out of jail free card. If it's unobservable, then fine, we don't understand it, and cannot confirm it. Like dark matter or alien life, we can theorize, but cannot specify.
We don't fully understand God, since God transcends our universe. For example, we can't understand an immaterial, spaceless, or timeless nature since we only experienced a world of space, time, and matter.
But you didn't say "we don't understand it", you went on to list a dozen or so qualities that you believe qualify this god.
Yes, because that is the concept of God, which you apparently never heard of.
How in the name of all that is good and gracious did you determine these qualities, despite the fact that you freely admit that you have never observed them?
This is a widely accepted concept that I just so happen to believe in. However, you can determine these with something called the "Kalam cosmological" Argument. Through analysis of the beginning of the universe.
You just said fairies don't exist because they are humans with wings and these are not qualities which exist in a magical being
I never even said that fairies don't exist(but I do believe they don't), I said that God and a fairy are not the same thing. God is outside of the universe and therefore spaceless and timeless. These simple limited qualities are inconsistent with the concept of God.
yet you describe an entity with so much more than that, but think it makes more sense.
To me, it makes less sense. I see reality as having to be grounded in a thing that exists infinitely. Infinity is what makes reality a reality. Every possible thing is possible because of an element of every possibility, which is in something I call God.
Basically, I see the source of reality as the concept of God.
How can you reasonably expect anyone to accept that?
Philosophy and reasoning. There is no "proof", it is a matter of determining whether you think there are good enough reasons to accept God's existence.

Kelnius: Or, in simplest terms "if it's real, it is a part of nature". So, if a god is real, then it is a part of nature. If that seems unrealistic of you, then you accept that you're assuming mysticism/supernaturalism; and I would ask that before you continue under this assumption, that you prove that supernature is real
That seems unfair that he has to prove that the supernatural is real while you didn't prove that naturalism is true.

Krazy: He started his post by explaining that he doesn't assume naturalism.

admin: He started his post by explaining that he doesn't assume naturalism.
He believes everything that exists is part of nature and there is no supernatural. That's naturalism.

Besides, he said this.
Because if it's real, it's part of nature.
That's obviously an assumption.

Krazy: What? No no no. It's not an assumption, that's just what the word "Nature" means. Nature is just "that which exists in the material world (i.e. the universe) which was not interfered with by man" ( dictionary reference ). So, if we didn't make it, it's natural.
So, when I say that science has a philosophy of Methodological Naturalism, that's not an assumption of naturalism, that's an assumption that if anything magical or "supernatural" or strange or alien or counter-intuitive were to exist, then we cannot assume meaning, purpose or design, we must study phenomena in order to understand it.
That's what Methodological Naturalism is, the assumption that we can only learn about reality through study.

So, if after all that you are saying "but, you're saying I have to prove magic", yes, I am. Because that's how reality works. If I asked you to prove gravity, time, force, chemistry, physics, density or matter, you could do so (some more easily than others, but you could do it). I'm asking of you no more than I would ask of reality.

Kelnius: that's an assumption that if anything magical or "supernatural" or strange or alien or counter-intuitive were to exist, then we cannot assume meaning, purpose or design, we must study phenomena in order to understand it.
That's what Methodological Naturalism is, the assumption that we can only learn about reality through study.
What if we conclude design from scientific observation?

Bi0Hazard: If we observe design, then we must accept design.
But, to begin with, I do not know how we would or what specifically you mean. We cannot assume design, but methodological naturalism is about accepting what is; and if design "is" and we observe it then I would accept it. However, if we did (or even could) observe design, then we could not go on to make assumptions about the designer (or designer s ), or even if there was a designer, depending on your definition of design. Some people believe natural selection to be a kind of "design", and if we accept that as a mechanism for design then it opens up the possibility of subjective purpose leading to design. But even in this instance, we cannot assume what that purpose was, or why it was designed as it was; we must look at the facts to determine what it does, not ultimately "why" it does.
We could only accept what we see, that something was designed, but until there is proof of a designer, we could not make assumptions about such a designer, or its goals.

. . . even I think I went a bit recursive there. Let me know if there's something I need to explain further.

Kelnius: We cannot assume design, but methodological naturalism is about accepting what is; and if design "is" and we observe it then I would accept it.
Not assume, but conclude. What if it is historical science that can not be directly observed?

Bi0Hazard: Something that cannot be directly observed must be indirectly observed[/] in order for it to be scientifically plausible.
But, what on Earth is "historical science"? Do you mean archaeology?

Kelnius: It is hypothesizing past causes to explain current observable phenomena.

Kelnius: So, when I say that science has a philosophy of Methodological Naturalism...
Science doesn't have a philosophy. People have philosophies. Your philosophy is naturalism. You see the world with that set of lenses. And if naturalism was true, logic wouldn't exist, and neither would science. The laws of logic are immaterial, so under evolution or naturalistic thought, logic wouldn't even make sense.

Krazy: Science *does* have a philosophy of methodological naturalism. Consider, for instance, cooking. Cooking may be a practice that cannot "hold" a point of view; but to cook, you hold the view that taste and easy digestion is important and beneficial (otherwise, you'd eat food raw).
Simiarly, whilst science is just a model of thought, it only exists under the ideal that methodological investigation of phenomena in the natural world can lead to demonstrative models of those phenomena.

Also, you're conflating Materialism with Naturalism. Logic is a rational conclusion from Methodological Naturalism, being "immaterial" doesn't affect its observation, because it can be investigated, observed and tested. It's something we can, methodologically, reveal.

And, despite the fact that I **explicitly** defined what I mean by Methodological Naturalism, you still don't seem to understand what it means. At this point, I can only explain that as wilful ignorance on your part. Scroll up and read what "Methodological Naturalism" means, because until you do, I can't help you to understand what I'm saying