A question to liberals and athiests

No, you are implying specifics and details and therefore the more specific you get, the more difficult it is to ascertain a probability

As for your second suggestion, that would fall under "natural" beginning, the first would fall under "creation"


"Creation" and "Natural beginning" are all I am discussing. I am not discussing silly scriptures or details.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Theists deal in absolutes, failing to see or understand the depth and breadth of alternatives or the difference between possibilities and probabilities. They see no lack of logic in a creator as they conveniently ignore what created the creator, assuming Nature as the fringe alternative to Creationism, or at the very least, giving it at 50/50 chance. Oh what fun they have, with mental masturbation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because the answer is unknown and simply counting the number of options you can think of and dividing by 100 isn't going to produce an accurate probability. You back it up by saying that there isn’t evidence for either one, as if a lack of evidence for both options means that they must be equally likely. Two possible options don't have to be equally probable.

Now I don’t know what the likelihood is either but there are problems with equating a creator and natural explanation. The natural explanation has been correct every time so far. To say that it is different this time sounds like wishful thinking.

The creator is such a poor answer because it requires a creator and then you have an infinite loop. Sure it is possible but everything we can see so far formed naturally so why, this time, would a creator be just as likely? If some things we found had been created for us and some had formed naturally I could agree with the 50/50 estimate but everything we have found has formed naturally (including humans), so why even suggest a creator at all? Because the evidence is lacking? Okay there is the god of the gaps argument again. You can take the identity away from the creator and say you are not talking about religion but you are still following a similar line of thinking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Difficult, but are you saying Cthulhu creating the Universe is impossible

I think you have to hand over at least a fraction of a percentage, however unlikely.

Which side to subtract it from is up to you.

How do you figure that? Who made the teapot? Who chipped it?

Being vague isn't helping your argument though. Creation answers nothing. Where did God come from? When did God spring into being? You can't say God is eternal, btw. As eternityregresses back infinitely, God cannot always have existed. If God has always existed, God waited an eternity before creating the Universe. As an eternity has not passed yet, God has not yet created the Universe. Unless you want to start messing with time and causality, of course.

Let's hear your explanation for that one, please!

 

But you fail to explain why natural beginning is any more likely than creation. Therefore, they are equally likely!

 

It doesn't work like that. That there are two mutually exclusive scenarios, the probability of each being unknown, does not make them equally likely.

For example, there is this yes or no question: Is there a race of tiny, burrowing, purple dragons living inside the Moon? The probability of the answer being "yes" is greater than zero, because anything is possible, but we can reasonably conclude that the probability is incredibly small without bothering to pin it down (because I just made them up).

We can also say that the odds of there being *some* kind of burrowing animal on the Moon is >= the odds of there being burrowing purple moon dragons. In the same way we can ponder, even assuming creation is real, who said the Judeo-Christian God had anything to do with it? He might be fictional, or He might have been one of the things created. So even if P(the universe was created) = P(the universe came into being naturally), that does not tell is much about the probability of the Bible story of Creation being true.

 

Why do y'all keep bringing up the silliest things and comparing them to the not so silly concept of an intelligent Creator?

I am not talking about scriptures!

I am talking about some form of intelligence or will existing outside of our universe.

I suppose the probability of natural beginning is about as likely as orange oompa loompas that float around the earth keeping the moon in orbit:shrug:

 

I would beat the shit out of the little fagot...

 

The children education is a parents responsibility .
It is hard to explain to a child many things .
When children confront religion and god , usually want to see concrete answers . You do not force children to uphold your thoughts but you should teach them what you think is right . having said that , if they do not follow you , it is obvious , they do not believe what you are feeding them .
If your children take another view on religion , all you ought to do is to explain to them your thoughts . They are humans too and not all humans think the same .

 

They are merely examples to demonstrate your position. They may be silly but the logic behind them is the same as yours.

 

Then therefore the same as nature. Neither a natural beginning nor creation even the tiniest shred of evidence.

 

I would not want to have children until we lived in a society that was architecturally sound and that could fully develop a "child" so that it could live within that world freely(unhindered).

 

The materials in the universe can be broken down into two categories - (1) cheese and (2) non-cheese. We don’t know what material is at the centre of Pluto. It could be silicate and ice or it could be frozen cheese. As we have no evidence either way they must be equally likely. 50/50

Now you can complain that the examples seem silly or you see how they illustrate the problems with your approach of putting percentages on the unknown.

 

Spot on, excellent example of Norsefires misconception, bravo!

 

We are not dealing with the materials of the universe; we are dealing with their origins. "Creation" implies a beginning based on the actions of some form of intelligence. "Natural beginning" implies a beginning as simply a process without intelligent intervention.

 

Why must there have been a beginning ??
Why is the "the universe always was" idea always so quickly discarded ?

 

It's not logical. Nothing can have "always been"; it can have existed for a hella long time, but everything has a beginning.

 

To say something came from nothing is illogical.

Says who ?

 

Analogies are used to draw a parallel so that a situation can be made clearer. It doesn't matter that the subject matter used is not exactly the same. The reasoning behind the two is.

 

So take that logic and apply it to a creator. A creator therefore, must have had a natural beginning, so the beginning of everything was natural.