It comes from the fact that there is no empirical evidence that a creator doesn’t exist (because evidence of a lack of existence is illogical) and from the fact that there is no explanation for the beginning of the universe that is logically sound (at least not yet). An infinite timeline doesn’t make more sense than an external being setting the timeline in motion
First off evidence of non-existence is not illogical. It is just hard to get access too. Here is evidence of the non-existence of a largest prime: well I tested the first billion numbers and I kept on finding primes. Now this is empirical and not very good but it is still evidence. I can do the same with say the Loch Ness monster. Setup sonar in the lake and find nothing. Again this isn’t killer evidence but it is evidence. Additionally any god you advance that has contradictions in its properties is illogical and all I need to do is point those out. For example the Christian god is a clear violation of the law of identity.
Secondly not being able to disprove something doesn’t mean we accept it. It means we mark it as possible and do something else. I can’t disprove that there is a teacup orbiting between Mars and Saturn that doesn’t mean that there is one or that I should believe that there is one.
and from the fact that there is no explanation for the beginning of the universe that is logically sound (at least not yet).
Gods of the gaps. Not having an explanation doesn’t mean we get to advance a supernatural one. In every case in history we have done this we find out we were wrong eventually.
An infinite timeline doesn’t make more sense than an external being setting the timeline in motion
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. And you are just moving the problem around. You reject an eternal universe and fix it by adding an eternal being.
You’re missing my point even though you’re so close to getting it. Because we lack sufficient evidence for both the purpose of proving there is a creator/creative force/god AND for the purpose of proving there is no god, it takes faith to believe in either. I suppose you could claim to believe in neither. I suppose agnosticism doesn’t really take faith.
I get “your” points fine. It was argued over a thousand years before you or I were born.
We have no evidence of X that doesn’t mean we have to have faith to believe in not-X. Not-X is the default, X is what must be demonstrated.
We have no evidence of unicorns, we have no evidence that there isn’t unicorns. So I am not convinced that there are unicorns. I have to do nothing. If you want unicorns you get me the photos.
Also you are mixing up agnostic (a statement about knowledge) with atheist (a statement about belief). An agnostic atheist is someone who admits they can’t be completely certain but believes there is no god. It is not the halfway mark between atheist and theist. I am an agnostic atheist. I concede that there could be some alien somewhere that is powerful enough that the word god applies to them, I really don’t think there is one but I can’t disprove it.
And anyway this is being nice. In reality we do have evidence against your skydaddy it is hardly neutral.
Sure. We have the existence of evil, we have a solid set of physical laws that leave no room for the supernatural, we have an explanation for how we got here from the Big Bang onward that shows no evidence of intelligence operating behind it, and we have the violations of logic that most gods that are worshipped today violate.
The only types of gods we can still pretend exist are diest ones that haven’t done anything since the beginning of the universe and small random gods living on another planet.
I truly understand the belief that the existence of evil contradicts the idea of an all-knowing and/or good creator, but I firmly believe that it doesn’t. The definitions of “good” and “evil” are so difficult to nail down that I don’t think the existence or perception of these concepts can disprove the existence of something that caused the big bang or something that guided evolution to the conception of humanity. Evil itself is a concept of morality and morality itself is extremely nebulous.
I agree our physical laws don’t leave room for the supernatural but that’s because we can’t reproduce the supernatural under the experimentational parameters which produced the definitions/theories of our physical laws.
The explanation for the big bang doesn’t explain how the rules of logic by which we theorized its origin came into existence.
I don’t understand your final point about violations of logic. I don’t think any explanation for the origin of our universe and the logic that exists within it can be explained using the rules of logic that are contained within our universe.
I understand that what I believe is not what everyone will or should believe, but I’m fairly certain what you listed is not evidence in the concrete sense.
Argument from mysticism is your first paragraph. Pretty common. Why don’t you deal with the evil instead of telling people they don’t have the ability to understand that their kid dying of cancer is a good thing?
Your second paragraph is an argument from ignorance.
Your third paragraph is not really relevant. I never claimed to know where the Big three in logic came from.
Fourth paragraph:
Ex. God is unlimited. Can God die? No. There is something it can’t do. Therefore God is limited.
Ex. A = A, God is fully human fully spirit and fully human. Therefore God is a violation of the law of identity
Why don’t you deal with the evil instead of telling people they don’t have the ability to understand that their kid dying of cancer is a good thing?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I never said that any god or creator that exists must be “good.” I also never said that kids dying of cancer is a good thing. I’m just saying we don’t have concrete definitions of “good” or “evil” so it doesn’t really make much sense to try and understand the origin of the universe and/or the cause of the big bang by comparing it to morality.
I also am not trying to convince you that a god exists. I’m trying to establish that it takes faith to believe this universe was not created by something.
argument from ignorance
Ignorance of what? The laws of physics are defined as such because of our limited ability as humans to run experiments on their consistency. Humans obviously lack the ability to cause supernatural events so how could we possibly run experiments on their consistency? Once we run experiments that prove something inconsistent in the laws of physics, their definitions will be adjusted to appropriately account for them. However, an event caused by a supernatural being’s will would obviously not be representative of or fit into the definition of a law, it would be an exception to the law that we as humans could not replicate, so how could we possibly define a natural/physical law based on an exception?
we have an explanation for how we got here from the Big Bang onward that shows no evidence of intelligence operating behind it
My point in responding to this was mainly to say that one of our physical laws state that matter an energy can neither be created nor destroyed so where did it come from initially? If it was always there, fine but we don’t really have evidence of that.
God is unlimited. Can God die? No. There is something it can’t do. Therefore God is limited.
My point about the rules of logic applies here. Something that created this universe and the rules of logic that this universe follows would not need to abide by the rules of logic that it created in a contained setting like this universe.
God is a violation of the law of identity
See my previous point about the rules of logic. But also, I have not been trying to make an argument about specific characteristics or specific actions of a creator of this universe. If you want to argue against the Christian definition of God and the Trinity, go for it, but I won’t argue back. I can’t make any argument that the Christian God is the creator of the universe that isn’t wholly based on faith.
It comes from the fact that there is no empirical evidence that a creator doesn’t exist (because evidence of a lack of existence is illogical) and from the fact that there is no explanation for the beginning of the universe that is logically sound (at least not yet). An infinite timeline doesn’t make more sense than an external being setting the timeline in motion
First off evidence of non-existence is not illogical. It is just hard to get access too. Here is evidence of the non-existence of a largest prime: well I tested the first billion numbers and I kept on finding primes. Now this is empirical and not very good but it is still evidence. I can do the same with say the Loch Ness monster. Setup sonar in the lake and find nothing. Again this isn’t killer evidence but it is evidence. Additionally any god you advance that has contradictions in its properties is illogical and all I need to do is point those out. For example the Christian god is a clear violation of the law of identity.
Secondly not being able to disprove something doesn’t mean we accept it. It means we mark it as possible and do something else. I can’t disprove that there is a teacup orbiting between Mars and Saturn that doesn’t mean that there is one or that I should believe that there is one.
Gods of the gaps. Not having an explanation doesn’t mean we get to advance a supernatural one. In every case in history we have done this we find out we were wrong eventually.
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. And you are just moving the problem around. You reject an eternal universe and fix it by adding an eternal being.
Nothing new here.
You’re missing my point even though you’re so close to getting it. Because we lack sufficient evidence for both the purpose of proving there is a creator/creative force/god AND for the purpose of proving there is no god, it takes faith to believe in either. I suppose you could claim to believe in neither. I suppose agnosticism doesn’t really take faith.
I get “your” points fine. It was argued over a thousand years before you or I were born.
We have no evidence of X that doesn’t mean we have to have faith to believe in not-X. Not-X is the default, X is what must be demonstrated.
We have no evidence of unicorns, we have no evidence that there isn’t unicorns. So I am not convinced that there are unicorns. I have to do nothing. If you want unicorns you get me the photos.
Also you are mixing up agnostic (a statement about knowledge) with atheist (a statement about belief). An agnostic atheist is someone who admits they can’t be completely certain but believes there is no god. It is not the halfway mark between atheist and theist. I am an agnostic atheist. I concede that there could be some alien somewhere that is powerful enough that the word god applies to them, I really don’t think there is one but I can’t disprove it.
And anyway this is being nice. In reality we do have evidence against your skydaddy it is hardly neutral.
Please, tell me what evidence there is because most people seem to enjoy withholding it
Sure. We have the existence of evil, we have a solid set of physical laws that leave no room for the supernatural, we have an explanation for how we got here from the Big Bang onward that shows no evidence of intelligence operating behind it, and we have the violations of logic that most gods that are worshipped today violate.
The only types of gods we can still pretend exist are diest ones that haven’t done anything since the beginning of the universe and small random gods living on another planet.
I truly understand the belief that the existence of evil contradicts the idea of an all-knowing and/or good creator, but I firmly believe that it doesn’t. The definitions of “good” and “evil” are so difficult to nail down that I don’t think the existence or perception of these concepts can disprove the existence of something that caused the big bang or something that guided evolution to the conception of humanity. Evil itself is a concept of morality and morality itself is extremely nebulous.
I agree our physical laws don’t leave room for the supernatural but that’s because we can’t reproduce the supernatural under the experimentational parameters which produced the definitions/theories of our physical laws.
The explanation for the big bang doesn’t explain how the rules of logic by which we theorized its origin came into existence.
I don’t understand your final point about violations of logic. I don’t think any explanation for the origin of our universe and the logic that exists within it can be explained using the rules of logic that are contained within our universe.
I understand that what I believe is not what everyone will or should believe, but I’m fairly certain what you listed is not evidence in the concrete sense.
Argument from mysticism is your first paragraph. Pretty common. Why don’t you deal with the evil instead of telling people they don’t have the ability to understand that their kid dying of cancer is a good thing?
Your second paragraph is an argument from ignorance.
Your third paragraph is not really relevant. I never claimed to know where the Big three in logic came from.
Fourth paragraph:
Ex. God is unlimited. Can God die? No. There is something it can’t do. Therefore God is limited.
Ex. A = A, God is fully human fully spirit and fully human. Therefore God is a violation of the law of identity
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I never said that any god or creator that exists must be “good.” I also never said that kids dying of cancer is a good thing. I’m just saying we don’t have concrete definitions of “good” or “evil” so it doesn’t really make much sense to try and understand the origin of the universe and/or the cause of the big bang by comparing it to morality. I also am not trying to convince you that a god exists. I’m trying to establish that it takes faith to believe this universe was not created by something.
Ignorance of what? The laws of physics are defined as such because of our limited ability as humans to run experiments on their consistency. Humans obviously lack the ability to cause supernatural events so how could we possibly run experiments on their consistency? Once we run experiments that prove something inconsistent in the laws of physics, their definitions will be adjusted to appropriately account for them. However, an event caused by a supernatural being’s will would obviously not be representative of or fit into the definition of a law, it would be an exception to the law that we as humans could not replicate, so how could we possibly define a natural/physical law based on an exception?
My point in responding to this was mainly to say that one of our physical laws state that matter an energy can neither be created nor destroyed so where did it come from initially? If it was always there, fine but we don’t really have evidence of that.
My point about the rules of logic applies here. Something that created this universe and the rules of logic that this universe follows would not need to abide by the rules of logic that it created in a contained setting like this universe.
See my previous point about the rules of logic. But also, I have not been trying to make an argument about specific characteristics or specific actions of a creator of this universe. If you want to argue against the Christian definition of God and the Trinity, go for it, but I won’t argue back. I can’t make any argument that the Christian God is the creator of the universe that isn’t wholly based on faith.