What Atheists Believe

#203
#203
Berry4Heisman14 said:
I am a athiest and I don't think anyone truly knows how the world got here. But i dont think a god made us cause if a god did then who made god? People say faith gotta have faith but u can have faith in anything and that doesn't make it true. Or they say he had just been here forever. That's completely illogical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The beginning is equally illogical regardless of whether or not you believe in a creator. Either way, we are counting a starting point but something had to exist prior by definition.
 
#204
#204
Berry4Heisman14 said:
I am a athiest and I don't think anyone truly knows how the world got here. But i dont think a god made us cause if a god did then who made god? People say faith gotta have faith but u can have faith in anything and that doesn't make it true. Or they say he had just been here forever. That's completely illogical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Where did the first atom come from? Are you saying that at first there was nothing and then nothing became something? This argument can go both ways.
 
#205
#205
BigOrange15 said:
Where did the first atom come from? Are you saying that at first there was nothing and then nothing became something? This argument can go both ways.
Click to expand...

At first there was nothing, then God came from nothing.

At first there was nothing, then the elements came from nothing.

Both work. Both are equally viable. I don't believe in a personal god, but a creator* god is viable.

*Creator as in set everything in motion, not intelligent design creator.
 
#206
#206
volinbham said:
The beginning is equally illogical regardless of whether or not you believe in a creator. Either way, we are counting a starting point but something had to exist prior by definition.
Click to expand...

Disagree. I think the assumption that time is linear is flawed. Perhaps there was no beginning, and there will be no end? What if everything, including time, exists in a closed manifold? I don't understand why that is such a hard concept to fathom.

Time is simply a measure of change. Therefore, time could not have existed prior to energy and/or matter. Time is simultaneously introduced at the moment that energy and/or matter are introduced.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with the bold, but I may not understand what you mean. Einstein once said change is an illusion, it isn't happening. We experience time as a series of moments progressing from the future, to the present, to the past. But that isn't what is really happening. Time actually acts like space.

The analogy (which Einstien was really good at) goes like this...say you get on a plane and fly to Singapore. You look out the window and see Singapore after a long flight. You didn't bring Singapore into existence, it was always there. You simply displaced yourself in space to get there. Time acts the same way...you don't bring events in the future into existence, you just get there by displacing yourself in time. Change isn't really happening, everything just is.
 
#207
#207
Berry4Heisman14 said:
I am a athiest and I don't think anyone truly knows how the world got here. But i dont think a god made us cause if a god did then who made god? People say faith gotta have faith but u can have faith in anything and that doesn't make it true. Or they say he had just been here forever. That's completely illogical.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

So then you have faith in your own, what you call logic?
 
#208
#208
rjd970 said:
Disagree. I think the assumption that time is linear is flawed. Perhaps there was no beginning, and there will be no end? What if everything, including time, exists in a closed manifold? I don't understand why that is such a hard concept to fathom.
Click to expand...

is there no prior and no after in this example?

If everything just is then isn't the entire idea of evolution meaningless?
 
#209
#209
volinbham said:
is there no prior and no after in this example?
Click to expand...

Correct.

If everything just is then isn't the entire idea of evolution meaningless?
Click to expand...

Not entirely. Evolution would be circular also, meaning that one timetable goes extinct and then the next begins with a different environment. In a nutshell.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#210
#210
VOLatile said:
Correct.



Not entirely. Evolution would be circular also, meaning that one timetable goes extinct and then the next begins with a different environment. In a nutshell.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

circular still has prior and after; it just doesn't have start and finish.
 
#214
#214
volinbham said:
circular still has prior and after; it just doesn't have start and finish.
Click to expand...

You can look at it that way, but if it is circular, which comes first, the "prior" or the "after"? Chasing the tail is actually a good analogy.

In that sense, it would seem that there is no "before" or "after", only "is".

...and yes, change is still an illusion, evolution included. I'm not sure what "meaning" you are referring to with respect to evolution. It doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
 
#215
#215
rjd970 said:
You can look at it that way, but if it is circular, which comes first, the "prior" or the "after"? Chasing the tail is actually a good analogy.

In that sense, it would seem that there is no "before" or "after", only "is".

...and yes, change is still an illusion, evolution included. I'm not sure what "meaning" you are referring to with respect to evolution. It doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
Click to expand...

Characteristics historically attributed to a higher being. Something has to lay outside the boundaries of human dimensional linear understanding and natural law. I don't think it is a leap to call that something...God...or as I prefer to say All the way with Yaweh....but that is just me.
 
#216
#216
Lexvol said:
1. Characteristics historically attributed to a higher being.

2. Something has to lay outside the boundaries of human dimensional linear understanding and natural law.

3. I don't think it is a leap to call that something...God
Click to expand...

1. Doesn't mean a thing.

2. Why?

3. I do.

JMO,IMHO...
 
#218
#218
rjd970 said:
You can look at it that way, but if it is circular, which comes first, the "prior" or the "after"? Chasing the tail is actually a good analogy.

In that sense, it would seem that there is no "before" or "after", only "is".

...and yes, change is still an illusion, evolution included. I'm not sure what "meaning" you are referring to with respect to evolution. It doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
Click to expand...

given that evolution is a relatively gradual process (as conceived) then I think the "prior" and "after" are pretty clear. Evolution implies from one thing into another. If there isn't some transformation from one thing to another then something hasn't evolved - they are completely separate entities.

compare this to the Singapore example - the person moved between two existing points. Where someone was didn't evolve into Singapore.
 
#219
#219
Lexvol said:
Characteristics historically attributed to a higher being. Something has to lay outside the boundaries of human dimensional linear understanding and natural law. I don't think it is a leap to call that something...God...or as I prefer to say All the way with Yaweh....but that is just me.
Click to expand...

I respect that you believe that, and you may well be right.

But it's a leap, in either direction, whether something does or does not live beyond natural law - and a sizeable one.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#221
#221
Tenacious D said:
I respect that you believe that, and you may well be right.

But it's a leap, in either direction, whether something does or does not live beyond natural law - and a sizeable one.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

what is natural law? isn't that something man devised? isn't it changing as man changes?
 
#222
#222
rjd970 said:
You can look at it that way, but if it is circular, which comes first, the "prior" or the "after"? Chasing the tail is actually a good analogy.

In that sense, it would seem that there is no "before" or "after", only "is".

...and yes, change is still an illusion, evolution included. I'm not sure what "meaning" you are referring to with respect to evolution. It doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
Click to expand...

I understand most of this (I think) - but even if time is not linear, or extrapolate the theory to the distant reaches of a seemingly endless universe and everything is cyclical (I don't know if those things are true - but supposing that they are:

Time has a beginning, wherever and whatever form it takes. From where did it first arise?

Space - as infinite as it now appears (and may be) began somewhere, sometime - however distant or long ago it may have been.

My point being - there was a moment where neither time or space existed, and in the next, it did. From what did it originate - and went from "nothing" to "something".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#224
#224
Tenacious D said:
I respect that you believe that, and you may well be right.

But it's a leap, in either direction, whether something does or does not live beyond natural law - and a sizeable one.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Without question....but sticking with the original intent of a thread (my perception of the intention anyway) it is just as much a leap to say there is nothing. Both are logical/illogical at the same time.
 
#225
#225
volinbham said:
what is natural law? isn't that something man devised? isn't it changing as man changes?
Click to expand...

Excellent question - but one of these others who have a far better understanding of it than I do may be able to answer it, where I cannot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top