My qualms with atheism.

[ADaisyChain]

what? no it's not. it only becomes logical to believe something exists when there's pertinent evidence pointing to it's existence.

Would it also no be only logical to assume that something exists when there's evidence pointing to its creation. Something was the original uncreated. Though I doubt its some god who knows when we're naughty or nice.

If you think back far enough, the VERY first 'thing' to exist, could not have been created, but simply existed. Godlike, though not the omnipotent knows when your naughty and nice god religions speak of, but still something that can defy all possible observations.

[Oneironaut]

Let me put it another way. "Only mom ever comes around. I must not have a dad!" But logic tells us, in order for us to exist we must have been created (by mommy AND daddy, so even if we can't see dad, he's around, we know he's around and it would be dumb to assume he's not)

No, not quite. It seems that way based on our limited experience, but if you go back you're eventually going to hit a dead end in the chain of creators. To put it another way, if by logic everybody that exists must have been "created" somehow, then something must have also created the creator. And something must have created that creator. And so forth. At some point the chain has to be broken, and the theory of evolution provides an elegant and scientific solution to that problem, at least as far as life is concerned.

Well, first of all, no one did ask you. ((lawl.)) And second, Yeah, you're right big time about it being immature to not take responsibility for you own actions, good or bad. No one here is saying its not. You aren't replying to the real argument that's been made though.

I wasn't replying to anything with that statement. I was just stating an opinion of mine.

I don't believe in a god (besides that the universe may be god seeing as its probably infinite and can clearly create conciousness, whether by chance or not, it's done it, and those are my only pre-requisites for god) but don't you think its rather godly in the first place for something to exist without creation? Which the orinal existant thing has done.

Yeah, I've often been perplexed by the question of why there is something instead of nothing. But proposing a "creation" by a pre-existing God doesn't really solve that problem. I have a couple hypotheses on why this might be. Granted, they're just wild guesses, but at least I admit it when I'm just guessing about the origin of the universe. It goes something like this:

At the quantum level of our universe, everything is composed not of real entities but of probabilities. When we really try to examine the nature of a subatomic particle, what we find is not a concrete item but merely the probability that there is a particle at a particular location with a particular motion. The averages of all these probabilities, when viewed by creatures as large as ourselves, results in what we know as Newtonian physics. One interpretation of quantum mechanics, known as the "many worlds" interpretation, hypothesizes that a new universe is created for every possible outcome of every probability. There are a huge, maybe infinite, number of other worlds out there besides our own, with their own outcomes of every probability in all of history. So maybe originally there was an equal probability of there being nothing as there being something, and we happen to live in a world in which the latter probability was selected.

Or perhaps we are experiencing nothingness. Maybe, if you add up all the mathematical equations in the universe, when you add up all the matter and anti-matter, everything reduces to zero. To put it in other words: one plus negative one equals nothing, and we're living in the "one" part of the universe.

I can't prove any of this, and I'm not going to pretend any of it is true when I honestly don't know, but it's something to think about.

Did coincidence create the existence of existence? What created physics, the universe, the orignial energy? We'll never know, I doubt it was some guy outside space and time making it all like a painter makes a painting, but it is really fucking weird, no? If we're going to use observational logic, we know that things don't just pop up outta nowhere.

Actually, we do see things popping up out of nowhere. In a vacuum, there are pairs of particles and antiparticles popping out of existence all the time, and then quickly annihilating each other. Sometimes, like near the edge of a black hole, the particles will be separated, with one particle being sucked into the black hole and the other particle being ejected away from it. That might help explain where our universe came from, but then we have to ask why these pairs of particles keep showing up. I honestly don't know, and I'm okay with that. We may never know. But the "God" idea has not answered any of these questions. In fact, it just brings up a whole plethora of new questions, even when people manage to come up with a somewhat coherent definition of the term.

I'm not making the argument that theres some invisible guy with an iron mallet carving all the mountains, everyone seems to forget that. I'm just saying, things don't just appear in our experience, so for the orinal physical thing that the universe as a whole spawns from to have just appeared, thats pretty miraculous in itself. The universe is more likely to be a godlike figure then something outside of it directing it all.

What do you mean by "godlike figure"? If you just mean something really amazing, I would agree with you. The universe is an incredible thing. Just the sheer size of it is mind-boggling, not to mention its infinite beauty.

I like to call it the "universe" or the "cosmos", because those words are less confusing than something like "God" which has thousands of different definitions for different people (plus lots of people say it can't be defined at all). But if you want to call it "God" and show reverence for all of existence, I have no problem with that worldview. Just as long as you're not claiming it has powers we don't observe in it.

[mrdevious]

Would it also not be only logical to assume that something exists when there's evidence pointing to its creation. Something was the original uncreated. Though I doubt its some god who knows when we're naughty or nice.

If you think back far enough, the VERY first 'thing' to exist, could not have been created, but simply existed. Godlike, though not the omnipotent knows when your naughty and nice god religions speak of, but still something that can defy all possible observations.

this phrase seems to be one I hear constantly in god debates: "everybody knows something can't come out of nothing". but in fact, most people think something can't come out of nothing, when in fact recent breakthrough's in quantum physics have shown that atoms, which are comprised of subatomic particles, are comprised of their own condensed energy. that energy in itself is shown to have consequencial influence on physical mass, but posesses no real substance in itself. hence, the line between that which exists and does not exist is actually a very fine one when you really begin to understand the nature of existence. or more precisely, that which "is" and "isn't" isn't necessarily such a distinctively separate entity. the very nature of space itself, the core of existence, what we fooled ourselves into believing is "nothing" as opposed to our "something", is the true nature of existence.

[ADaisyChain]

-laughs- You guys are great. My brain is working at a thousand miles per hour right now. I'll respond after I've thought more, but I'm really impressed. And yeah, by godlike figure I just mean something that is truly amazing and defies all current explanation.

[mrdevious]

And yeah, by godlike figure I just mean something that is truly amazing and defies all current explanation.

so you mean like..... jessica alba naked?