Atheists, please present your evidence

[warpspeedpetey]

The first cause argument is not very convincing to me. It is simply an apologetic christians use, not fact.

ive never heard that the argument isnt fact before, are you denying causailty?

i mean to ask what basis you are denying that it is fact?

 

[Just_Lurking]

1. If you believe that the universe did not have to exist, but (obviously) exists nonetheless, please present your scientific evidence to account for the non-necessary existence of the universe.

The concept of necessity belongs to metaphysics, not to actual physics or any other scientific discipline. The mathematical formalization of necessity, known as modal logic, has several variations with no consensus as to which is “right”, if that even means anything mathematically.

So I’m confused as why you think it is reasonable to insist that science answer a question of metaphysics.

 

[StrawberryJam]

ive never heard that the argument isnt fact before, are you denying causailty?

i mean to ask what basis you are denying that it is fact?

Sorry, I am going to clarify. I believe you use the term “first cause” to mean God if I am not mistaken?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your terminology.

 

[StrawberryJam]

By the very definition of the word.

But I’m not interested in getting sidetracked. I’m interested in either the logical argument that the universe must of necessity exist, or the scientific evidence as to why it does exist even though it need not.

False dilemma.

1. universe may not be of necessity
2. Why the universe exists, even though it “need not” is untestable. At this point in time. I am not sure if you are saying the universe needs a purpose or not. If you are saying it does, you are making a claim, and I see no reason to accept that claim.

 

[Mersenne]

By the very definition of the word.

But I’m not interested in getting sidetracked. I’m interested in either the logical argument that the universe must of necessity exist, or the scientific evidence as to why it does exist even though it need not.

It’s not sidetracking. You are claiming that atheists must take a position on whether or not the universe is necessary, and prove it, otherwise they are taking the nonexistence of god by faith. This is an incredible leap and I don’t understand what word or definition you are referring to that would prove that connection immediately. It would be like if I said “prove to me Turing’s strong hypothesis, or you don’t love your wife”

 

[VociMike]

It’s not sidetracking. You are claiming that atheists must take a position on whether or not the universe is necessary, and prove it, otherwise they are taking the nonexistence of god by faith. This is an incredible leap and I don’t understand what word or definition you are referring to that would prove that connection immediately. It would be like if I said “prove to me Turing’s strong hypothesis, or you don’t love your wife”

You’d rather argue with me than present your logical or scientific evidence. That in itself is telling, if you had the latter.

 

[VociMike]

False dilemma.

1. universe may not be of necessity
2. Why the universe exists, even though it “need not” is untestable. At this point in time. I am not sure if you are saying the universe needs a purpose or not. If you are saying it does, you are making a claim, and I see no reason to accept that claim.

I haven’t presented a dilemma, I’ve asked for either logical reasoning or scientific evidence. And here on the 2nd page of the thread I still haven’t seen any.

 

[VociMike]

The concept of necessity belongs to metaphysics, not to actual physics or any other scientific discipline. The mathematical formalization of necessity, known as modal logic, has several variations with no consensus as to which is “right”, if that even means anything mathematically.

So I’m confused as why you think it is reasonable to insist that science answer a question of metaphysics.

Please re-read my question, which is divided into two parts. I really don’t understand your objection. Are you saying that it is impossible to provide either logical reasoning or scientific evidence as to why the universe exists? That in itself would be a very interesting outcome of my questions.

 

[VociMike]

VociMike,

Can you present your definition of an atheist and of an agnostic please. It might make it easier to respond to your original post.

I’ll do better than that, I’ll let each poster provide their own definitions, if they think it matters to their response.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Please re-read my question, which is divided into two parts. I really don’t understand your objection. Are you saying that it is impossible to provide either logical reasoning or scientific evidence as to why the universe exists? That in itself would be a very interesting outcome of my questions.

1. I have repeatedly stated there does not have to be a neccesity for the universe to exist. But, there may be.
2. I am willing to adapt another position based on more facts that we do not have now

 

[Just_Lurking]

Please re-read my question, which is divided into two parts. I really don’t understand your objection. Are you saying that it is impossible to provide either logical reasoning or scientific evidence as to why the universe exists? That in itself would be a very interesting outcome of my questions.

That is what I’m saying. You are asking a metaphysical question. Metaphysics has nothing to do science, and only pretends to make use of logic.

You might as well ask for a scientific experiment to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[StrawberryJam]

That is what I’m saying. You are asking a metaphysical question. Metaphysics has nothing to do science, and only pretends to make use of logic.

You might as well ask for a scientific experiment to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Metaphysics is not devoid of science. It simply tests in a different way than a single subject examined does.

If I am mistaken, please correct me.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Metaphysics is not devoid of science. It simply tests in a different way than a single subject examined does.

If I am mistaken, please correct me.

I’m just giving my personal opinion here, but here is a concrete example. Kant thought he could figure out the structure of time and space by contemplating his navel and engaging in sophistry. Einstein thought he could figure out the structure of time and space by formulating a theory and then testing that theory via physical experimentation.Kant was metaphysics and Einstein was actual, scientific physics. And as it turned out, Kant was wrong and Einstein was right.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m just giving my personal opinion here, but here is a concrete example. Kant thought he could figure out the structure of time and space by contemplating his navel and engaging in sophistry. Einstein thought he could figure out the structure of time and space by formulating a theory and then testing that theory via physical experimentation.Kant was metaphysics and Einstein was actual, scientific physics. And as it turned out, Kant was wrong and Einstein was right.

Bishops sound more and more to me like followers of Kant than anything else.
Your point is taken.

Best to you Just Lurking,

SJam

 

[Mersenne]

You’d rather argue with me than present your logical or scientific evidence. That in itself is telling, if you had the latter.

You asked a question based on a series of claims. Before I answer the question you must explain the claims you are making. I asked you to provide your reasoning for your claims and you didn’t. That is vastly more telling. I will not play a game based on rules you make up and refuse to justify.

It is as if I said “explain to me how a battery works or you don’t love your wife”, you may know how a battery works, but most reasonable people would object to the logic and refuse to participate until the supposed connection between the two were explained.

 

[wanstronian]

I’ll do better than that, I’ll let each poster provide their own definitions, if they think it matters to their response.

Well that’s a bit of a cop-out. You’re asking atheists to present their evidence. Given that the definition of an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God, you’re asking someone to provide evidence of non-existence. If you look up the definition of evidence, you’ll see that this request makes no sense.

Hence my request for your definition of atheist, because the definition I present above has no need of evidence.

If your definition of an atheist is someone who can show God does not exist, I also would be interested in seeing the evidence.

 

[VociMike]

Well that’s a bit of a cop-out. You’re asking atheists to present their evidence. Given that the definition of an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God, you’re asking someone to provide evidence of non-existence. If you look up the definition of evidence, you’ll see that this request makes no sense.

Hence my request for your definition of atheist, because the definition I present above has no need of evidence.

If your definition of an atheist is someone who can show God does not exist, I also would be interested in seeing the evidence.

You misunderstand. To deny that God exists is to believe that something else accounts for the existence of the universe (which, unless you’re on the real fringe, we can take as a given). So I’m asking how anyone who doesn’t believe that God accounts for the existence of the universe, to offer either a logical argument of necessity, or else a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe. No cop-out there, just a reasonable request to account for the existence of the universe.

 

[VociMike]

You asked a question based on a series of claims. Before I answer the question you must explain the claims you are making. I asked you to provide your reasoning for your claims and you didn’t. That is vastly more telling. I will not play a game based on rules you make up and refuse to justify.

It is as if I said “explain to me how a battery works or you don’t love your wife”, you may know how a battery works, but most reasonable people would object to the logic and refuse to participate until the supposed connection between the two were explained.

I’ve asked my question, now I’m waiting for answers. For your benefit I will even ask my question again. If you don’t believe that God accounts for the existence of the universe, please offer either a logical argument of necessity for the existence of the universe, or a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe.

Why is this so difficult? Surely those who don’t believe that God accounts for the existence of the universe must have some reason to believe what they believe does account for the existence of the universe. Right?

 

[Just_Lurking]

To deny that God exists is to believe that something else accounts for the existence of the universe (which, unless you’re on the real fringe, we can take as a given).

What accounts for the existence of God, for those of us who believe in God?

So I’m asking how anyone who doesn’t believe that God accounts for the existence of the universe, to offer either a logical argument of necessity, or else a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe. No cop-out there, just a reasonable request to account for the existence of the universe.

Would a hundred pages of dense mathematics deriving the details of the big bang from the equations of physics satisfy you? Just trying to understand what you are asking.

 

[VociMike]

What accounts for the existence of God, for those of us who believe in God?

Those who believe in God acknowledge that in the end their belief, while supported by evidence, is rooted in faith. I doubt that atheists would make a similar acknowledgement regarding their beliefs. So if they have some reasons other than faith to believe what they believe about the existence of the universe, I’d like to hear what those reasons are.

Would a hundred pages of dense mathematics deriving the details of the big bang from the equations of physics satisfy you? Just trying to understand what you are asking.

No, because that doesn’t account for why the big bang occurred (was it of necessity, or a result of other factors?), or why the laws of physics exist.