Why atheists must believe in God

[Philosophii]

oh. my god.
the big bang has problems with it.

NEWS AT 9.

this doesn't make it any less valid, and most of those problems brought up are being researched by the same scientists who brought them up. you see, the scientific community isn't the type to plug its ears and shout "LALALALA" as soon as a problem is brought up.

No. Their just the kind to spend years arguing over the same issue over and over again, which is what I've been trying to say and you've been trying to avoid. Put five scientists in a room, and each one of them is going to have their own idea of how the big bang started. That's the issue. They themselves don't even agree on a subject they've been trying to promote as fact.

scientists have varying views.
they use the scientific method to figure out which of these views are correct/incorrect/etc.
each step in the method is a step closer to understanding the universe.
this is somehow a problem.

[Nord Amour]

Therefore Buddhist's are atheists.

Not always. Disbelief in deities is not a requirement of Buddhism, so some Buddhists combine other religions or personal spirituality with Buddhism.

I'm no expert, and Buddhists or other more knowledgable people may correct me as they wish, but I think the existence of deities is mostly irrelevant in Buddhism.

[Mkuki]

"there are thousands of us!"
but you still can't provide an example.

fucking thousands, man!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... sense.html
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf107/sf107p03.htm
http://phys.org/news76314500.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17752
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Happy now? Read up.

You don't have anything more recent than 2006?

[NERVUN]

Psst, depends on the Buddhist sect.

Trust me, it's even MORE confusing than the various beliefs in Christianity.

Funny how Siddharta Gautama stated repeatedly that he is in no way shape or form a deity or god.

Yes, he did. That does not preclude them from believing in gods though.

Mohammad never claimed to be a god either.

[Shnercropolis]

No, truth is independent of the mind, if you disagree with science you are not really a scientist you are just masquerading as one.
All the real scientists know because they have paid attention to the evidence that the big bang theory is correct and that there is no evidence for there being anything before the big bang.

Then that means all pseudo-science is real too by that line of reasoning. Just because a few scientists say that it's science makes it science. Genius!

Science is the continuing exploration of the understanding of the universe. Who knows, in 200 years we might find a better model to explain thermodynamics, even though right now they seem set in stone. That doesn't mean we should say 'invisible snakes did it!', because thermodynamics does a fine job at what it does.

Cosmology is even more shifty like that because it is entirely speculative. We're trying to derive the history of the universe with only a small understanding of how it is right here and now. If you think you can do a better job, you're welcome to do it, but know that it will be very hard thing to do.

[Pyke and the Iron Isles]

Not always. Disbelief in deities is not a requirement of Buddhism, so some Buddhists combine other religions or personal spirituality with Buddhism.

I'm no expert, and Buddhists or other more knowledgable people may correct me as they wish, but I think the existence of deities is mostly irrelevant in Buddhism.

TO my knowledge I think you are correct. I think Jainism is similar to that extent as well.

[Czechanada]

Funny how Siddharta Gautama stated repeatedly that he is in no way shape or form a deity or god.

Yes, he did. That does not preclude them from believing in gods though.

Mohammad never claimed to be a god either.

Well, he did once claim to be divine in bed to one of his wives.

Of course, one can never trust the hadiths.

[Philosophii]

Funny how Siddharta Gautama stated repeatedly that he is in no way shape or form a deity or god.

Yes, he did. That does not preclude them from believing in gods though.

Mohammad never claimed to be a god either.

That's because Mohammad was a prophet of a god, m8.

[Thafoo]

Funny how Siddharta Gautama stated repeatedly that he is in no way shape or form a deity or god.

Yes, he did. That does not preclude them from believing in gods though.

Mohammad never claimed to be a god either.

...true

[TimberWolves]

The point of this argument is not to say that science is or isn't true.
Even as a Christian, I agree wholeheartedly with science.
But, because I'm not a scientist, and have exactly 0 chance of figuring out exactly what makes this universe tick, I intend to continue attributing such inexplicable things as quantum physics and the pre-universe existence to the works of God.
But that's my opinion, and I have no issue if someone does or doesn't agree, so long as they let me hold that belief in peace.

Here's what I want someone to disprove:
So, the universe started with the big bang, no?
I'm going to guess it did.
And we can follow a chain of "what caused that" all the way back to, well, infinity - that, or we just drop the entire idea of constant causality (which, IMO, makes science a lot more fun and yet frustrating), or we assume the universe is infinite.
So now we have an infinite universe.
That means that infinite groups of infinite organisms have existed before us, no matter HOW you look at it.
And odds are excessive that one of those groups attained sentience.
From that, I think it's safe to assume that we are being watched by infinitely-old infinitely-complex beings, that some people call God.
Also - someone else with a background in String Theory - read Genesis and tell me what it makes you think of.

[Vashta Nerada]

No. Their just the kind to spend years arguing over the same issue over and over again, which is what I've been trying to say and you've been trying to avoid. Put five scientists in a room, and each one of them is going to have their own idea of how the big bang started. That's the issue. They themselves don't even agree on a subject they've been trying to promote as fact.

scientists have varying views.
they use the scientific method to figure out which of these views are correct/incorrect/etc.
each step in the method is a step closer to understanding the universe.
this is somehow a problem.

So then the Big Bang isn't on solid foundations. A foundation cannot be solid if built on different types of soil. That is exactly the problem with the theory. Most scientists are arguing over a matter they cannot explain in a single voice. They don't even agree on the subject they've been studying for decades. If the Big Bang is such an indisputable fact, why is it that scientists haven't gotten any closer to a single conclusion? People won't accept a house half-built. Why would they accept a theory half-developed?

[Shnercropolis]

Alright, OP, answer me this.

If God exists, then why would he allow religion to be mocked in the film Life of Brian?

Because it was so damn funny. Have you ever heard a derisive joke about yourself, but thought it was so funny that you laughed along? It's like that.

[Phoenixfox]

That makes no sense, far less sense than the Big Bang theory. "He was just there" is a pathetic cop out answer.

And why not mock his "power"? I haven't seen him so shit with them, and my apparent mockery is not being silenced or disproven.

How is it any less of a cop out than "the matter that initiated the big bang was 'just there'?"

All the beauty that we see in the world and in the Universe. A supernova. The birth of a child. The diversity of life in a tropical forest. The water cycle. All these things are examples of his power. The wonder of his power surrounds us every day. Science strives to understand how God's creation works.

Answer me this

[NERVUN]

Yes, he did. That does not preclude them from believing in gods though.

Mohammad never claimed to be a god either.

That's because Mohammad was a prophet of a god, m8.

Oi vey. The point being that just because your religion's founder never claimed divinity doesn't mean you can't believe in god(s).

Well, he did the one claim to be divine in bed to one of his wives.

Of course, one can never trust the hadiths.

Ba-bum-tish.

[Vashta Nerada]

Then that means all pseudo-science is real too by that line of reasoning. Just because a few scientists say that it's science makes it science. Genius!

Science is the continuing exploration of the understanding of the universe. Who knows, in 200 years we might find a better model to explain thermodynamics, even though right now they seem set in stone. That doesn't mean we should say 'invisible snakes did it!', because thermodynamics does a fine job at what it does.

Cosmology is even more shifty like that because it is entirely speculative. We're trying to derive the history of the universe with only a small understanding of how it is right here and now. If you think you can do a better job, you're welcome to do it, but know that it will be very hard thing to do.

I never said I could do a better job. All I said was that scientists are arguing over some nonsense about a theory they themselves cannot come to a conclusion on. Yet, they pimp it out as if they had all the answers figured out, but won't tell anyone that they don't even know if the Big Bang came in the way about as their telling us. If you can come up with a better explanation that "it just showed up here", then your more than welcome to jump into the ring.

[Phisych University]

That makes no sense, far less sense than the Big Bang theory. "He was just there" is a pathetic cop out answer.

And why not mock his "power"? I haven't seen him so shit with them, and my apparent mockery is not being silenced or disproven.

How is it any less of a cop out than "the matter that initiated the big bang was 'just there'?"

All the beauty that we see in the world and in the Universe. A supernova. The birth of a child. The diversity of life in a tropical forest. The water cycle. All these things are examples of his power. The wonder of his power surrounds us every day. Science strives to understand how God's creation works.

*How the Universe works

Whether or not God created it is up for debate.

[Philosophii]

scientists have varying views.
they use the scientific method to figure out which of these views are correct/incorrect/etc.
each step in the method is a step closer to understanding the universe.
this is somehow a problem.

So then the Big Bang isn't on solid foundations. A foundation cannot be solid if built on different types of soil. That is exactly the problem with the theory. Most scientists are arguing over a matter they cannot explain in a single voice. They don't even agree on the subject they've been studying for decades. If the Big Bang is such an indisputable fact, why is it that scientists haven't gotten any closer to a single conclusion? People won't accept a house half-built. Why would they accept a theory half-developed?

because most people who understand the big bang also understand the fact that the development of a theory isn't that black and white. i recommend these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scal ... _structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_dia ... le_Diagram

[Xirtam]

Therefore Buddhist's are atheists.

Not always. Disbelief in deities is not a requirement of Buddhism, so some Buddhists combine other religions or personal spirituality with Buddhism.

Absolutely not true:

Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity, refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.

many traditional theist beliefs are considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana, the highest goal of Buddhist practice.

[Xirnium]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

I’m not sure if anybody has mentioned this to you, but science is a method of forming, testing and modifying hypotheses to describe observable phenomena. Its jurisdiction is the observable, physical universe. Metaphysical truths are outside its scope.

[Pyke and the Iron Isles]

How is it any less of a cop out than "the matter that initiated the big bang was 'just there'?"

All the beauty that we see in the world and in the Universe. A supernova. The birth of a child. The diversity of life in a tropical forest. The water cycle. All these things are examples of his power. The wonder of his power surrounds us every day. Science strives to understand how God's creation works.

Answer me this

You should probably look back and answer all the posts you decided to pass up as well then.

Because a scientific process that has been poured over for years by intelligent men has more credibility then just blindly believing what is written in a two thousand year old book that has been mistranslated hundreds if not thousands of times over the years.

And everything you just described is science. You are just giving some roundabout credit to god.

[MERIZoC]

Science is the continuing exploration of the understanding of the universe. Who knows, in 200 years we might find a better model to explain thermodynamics, even though right now they seem set in stone. That doesn't mean we should say 'invisible snakes did it!', because thermodynamics does a fine job at what it does.

Cosmology is even more shifty like that because it is entirely speculative. We're trying to derive the history of the universe with only a small understanding of how it is right here and now. If you think you can do a better job, you're welcome to do it, but know that it will be very hard thing to do.

I never said I could do a better job. All I said was that scientists are arguing over some nonsense about a theory they themselves cannot come to a conclusion on. Yet, they pimp it out as if they had all the answers figured out, but won't tell anyone that they don't even know if the Big Bang came in the way about as their telling us. If you can come up with a better explanation that "it just showed up here", then your more than welcome to jump into the ring.

You're right, the Big Bang isn't at all a satisfying argument for how the universe was created, but I don't feel that an all-powerful deity is, either. The thing is, we don't know, nor will we ever know exactly how the universe was created, nor what pre-dated it. My own personal beliefs, (without any evidence to back it up) is that there was a universe before this one, and that it ended with the Big Bang. However, unlike someone who believes in a god, I don't put all that much faith by this theory, and certainly don't shape my lifestyle around it.

[Vashta Nerada]

So then the Big Bang isn't on solid foundations. A foundation cannot be solid if built on different types of soil. That is exactly the problem with the theory. Most scientists are arguing over a matter they cannot explain in a single voice. They don't even agree on the subject they've been studying for decades. If the Big Bang is such an indisputable fact, why is it that scientists haven't gotten any closer to a single conclusion? People won't accept a house half-built. Why would they accept a theory half-developed?

because most people who understand the big bang also understand the fact that the development of a theory isn't that black and white. i recommend these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scal ... _structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_dia ... le_Diagram

You hand me these links as if I haven't read them already. I know that science isn't 2-D. I know there is more to a theory than just "I think". I know science has many millions of variables that make a night with a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle look inviting. What I refuse to believe is that the Big Bang came from nothingness. Scientists have been arguing over the belief for many many decades, and still have come to a single conclusion. It's gotten so bad that some have suggested that there was "something else" before the Big Bang, and many other scientists are starting to take them seriously. I won't except a theory that hasn't been finalized simply because one half of scientist think the universe exploded into existence, and the other half believe that another universe existed before this one, lend it its "excess matter". I want something I can study and agree upon. Not a million different views of the same theory no one really knows anything about.

[Philosophii]

because most people who understand the big bang also understand the fact that the development of a theory isn't that black and white. i recommend these pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scal ... _structure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_dia ... le_Diagram

You hand me these links as if I haven't read them already. I know that science isn't 2-D. I know there is more to a theory than just "I think". I know science has many millions of variables that make a night with a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle look inviting. What I refuse to believe is that the Big Bang came from nothingness. Scientists have been arguing over the belief for many many decades, and still have come to a single conclusion. It's gotten so bad that some have suggested that there was "something else" before the Big Bang, and many other scientists are starting to take them seriously. I won't except a theory that hasn't been finalized simply because one half of scientist think the universe exploded into existence, and the other half believe that another universe existed before this one, lend it its "excess matter". I want something I can study and agree upon. Not a million different views of the same theory no one really knows anything about.

so basically, you don't want the scientific method to find an actual conclusion. you just want to drop god onto everything that hasn't been explained yet.

[Xirtam]

Science is the continuing exploration of the understanding of the universe. Who knows, in 200 years we might find a better model to explain thermodynamics, even though right now they seem set in stone. That doesn't mean we should say 'invisible snakes did it!', because thermodynamics does a fine job at what it does.

Cosmology is even more shifty like that because it is entirely speculative. We're trying to derive the history of the universe with only a small understanding of how it is right here and now. If you think you can do a better job, you're welcome to do it, but know that it will be very hard thing to do.

I never said I could do a better job. All I said was that scientists are arguing over some nonsense about a theory they themselves cannot come to a conclusion on. Yet, they pimp it out as if they had all the answers figured out, but won't tell anyone that they don't even know if the Big Bang came in the way about as their telling us. If you can come up with a better explanation that "it just showed up here", then your more than welcome to jump into the ring.

Too fucking bad there isn't such a thing as a better explanation.
If everything that exists had to be created and that was the supreme law of the universe, then nothing would exist, therefore since things do exist, things have to be able to exist without being created.

[Roski]

Why is the big bang still not a full concluded thing?

Well, If I become a bloody scientist, I'm going to UNIT HQ to meet The Doctor, take the T.A.R.D.I.S. back to the big bang, and record it on video.

But since I can't do that, I will assume that that is fact, until I am given better reason to believe some other theory.