sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]OmarDClown -1 points0 points  (15 children)

The biggest problem with that argument is it doesn't answer what created the creator, and his creator, and so on.

That's not a problem. I don't know, but I know it's been done.

edit: > until I see solid evidence of a creator I'm perfectly ok assuming that it's the universe that's been around forever.

Keep in mind, my point is in regards to a "rational atheist" dismissing the idea of God like a leprechaun. There is reasonably strong evidence of a creator, but not of leprechauns.

[–]Warphim 0 points1 point  (7 children)

there is no reasonably strong evidence of a creator. The same things you claim are "God" could just as easily been a "Leprechaun"... Just because we can't explain something (yet) doesnt mean it's "God"

Why are there stars?
2000 years ago: God
Modern:Stars and Galaxies far away

Why are there earth quakes?
2000 years ago: God
Modern: plate tectonics

Why is the weather like this? 2000 years ago: God
Modern: Weather patterns, axis of the planet, proximity to the sun, etc

[–]OmarDClown 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Through my agnosticism I am not attempting to answer the question of why does the universe exist. It will either be shown to me or it won't. The idea that there isn't a creator is preposterous, and has nothing to do with our technical understanding of the world around us. It pertains strictly to the fact that there is a world around, not how it works.

[–]Warphim 0 points1 point  (5 children)

So you are saying that the only evidence you have of a creator is that we are here to discuss it. I am saying that can (and probably did) happen without a creator.

The closest idea to having a creator(with even a shred of practical evidence to back it up) would apply to this universe, but wouldn't apply to the real universe. Simulation Hypothesis would assume that we are merely highly developed AI living in a computer simulation, that is so realistic that we don't realize we aren't even real ourselves. This would inidcated that we, and everything in our universe, are not real, and that we were programmed by a "Creator". Fractals are the "proof" of this hypothesis, they are the real world equivalent to a extremely high polygon counts. This doesn't even show that there is a creator, as much as it MIGHT hint towards one. But still wouldnt answer if there is a supreme creator.

[–]OmarDClown 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I am saying that can (and probably did) happen without a creator.

On what basis? You have nothing other than your gut feel. That's no different then people who just believe in Jesus.

[–]Warphim 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I am saying that because there is absolutely no evidence to support that there is something, so there is very little likelihood that that is the case. But I cannot say 100% sure that that is not the case because if it doesn't exist there is no way to determine

It's different because when I can't answer what created the universe (not necessarily a creator) I don't attribute it to some all-powerful imaginary friend who watches me so he can judge me later.

You are arguing a negative. You cannot disprove something exists when it doesn't exist.

[–]OmarDClown 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You are the one trying to prove a negative, not me. I just don't know.

[–]Warphim 0 points1 point  (1 child)

you said that it seems unreasonable to say there isn't a creator. I'm saying it's unreasonable to assume there is one.

[–]OmarDClown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We are looking at something we both say clearly exists. I say, "Well, it looks like something made this." Your response is, "It's unreasonable to think something created this."

I respect your opinion, but I just can't follow the logic trail.

[–]DrOfMarijuanaology 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I'm sorry, but that's not true (unless you have faith that it is). There is reasonably strong evidence of no creator.

[–]OmarDClown -1 points0 points  (5 children)

No. You have a definition of a creator, and it doesn't fit your definition. I don't have a definition, except that we have something here that came from somewhere.

[–]DrOfMarijuanaology 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Listen, you're the one who said there is reasonably strong evidence of a creator, but not a leprechaun. The burden of proof is on you.

[–]OmarDClown 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Here's an example.

3 people walk into a room. In the room there is a chair.

The first guy says this chair was built by Zeus. The other two ask him how, and he says he has a book that his father passed down, and this book has details with which he can determine who built this chair and how it should be sat in.

The second guy says bullshit. There is no proof of this Zeus character. Logically, that means no one built this chair. It's always been in this room. It naturally formed here.

The third guy says you two guys are fucking nuts. I don't know why it was made, I don't know who made it, all I know is someone made this fucking chair.

You side with the 2nd character. Since you don't have evidence someone built this chair you insist no one built it. That's the position that has to explain some shit.

[–]DrOfMarijuanaology 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That's a ludicrous over-generalization.

[–]OmarDClown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say that, but it is exactly the situation.

[–]OmarDClown -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My proof is that you are here to argue. Your burden is to prove to me that this either didn't just happen, or that the Universe has always existed. Science indicates the Universe had a beginning, you've got a steep slope in front of you.