Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

[PaulSacramento]

If the universe is a closed system, how did it expand ??

A closed system is not defined as something restricted from expansion; it’s defined as a system that has nothing outside it to act upon it.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:52 pm
Do you agree that something cause things that do not exist to come into being?
I don’t know; can you give an example of this happening outside of your theistic beliefs?

Life.
Life does NOT exist until something causes it to come into being, yes?

I don’t know if I can agree with that. Life is when part of a man and part of a woman come together and evolve into another man or woman. So though there was not a time when the parts were not alive, I guess there is a point when the parts become a person/being.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. When you said acting outside of themselves, I thought you meant something outside the material world. If you meant “X” acting upon “Y” with them both being material; that would make sense to me.

Is energy material ?

No. Energy is not matter, though it is a part of the material world.

If the universe is a closed system, what caused the expansion? why did it expand?
Please define "material world".

Isn't the (entire) universe an isolated system? Since the (entire) universe is literally everything that exists, there is nothing "outside" the universe.

Isolated, yes ( probably) but not closed.

So, here is the thing, we tend to use the term universe to mean everything BUT if the universe had a beginning, an expansion, from a quantum singularity, what was "around" that singularity ?
The universe is still expanding, but "into" what" or "where"? and where is the energy coming from to continue the CONSTANT and CONTINUOUS ( albeit quicker) rate of expansion ?
If the energy that exists has always existed and will always exist and is/was/will be always the same, why and HOW the expansion?

[Morny]

But as for designing a study, the huge problems would be, as we can't clearly know in what ways God has answered a prayer, or partially answered it, or WHEN (if at all, as NO answer can still be an answer, yet not what we might expect or want) - because, again, Scripture reveals God doesn't work like a slot machine! Some prayers are answered over a considerable length of time - or differently than we might specifically desire - remember, it's GOD'S response, in HIS way, timing, and will, etc. that dictates the manner in which a specific prayer is answered.

You've excellently described the idea.

Now put yourself in my shoes to ask you, "What evidence distinguishes God answering your prayers from no one answering your prayers?"

So the scientific method is almost impossible to apply to it.

Another good point. But remember that science can, and often does, bend over backwards to provide convincing evidence for the most miniscule of effects. For decades scientists searched in vain for gravity waves. Now we can not only detect on the other "side" of the universe gravity waves from collapsing pairs of neutron stars and black holes, but also accurately determine their mass and their velocity moving away from us!

So ... if you have _any_ testable evidence for the efficacy of prayer, science has a good chance to find it.

[Kenny]

So, here is the thing, we tend to use the term universe to mean everything BUT if the universe had a beginning, an expansion, from a quantum singularity, what was "around" that singularity ?

The Big Bang as the origin of the universe:
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.[127]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[Philip]

But as for designing a study, the huge problems would be, as we can't clearly know in what ways God has answered a prayer, or partially answered it, or WHEN (if at all, as NO answer can still be an answer, yet not what we might expect or want) - because, again, Scripture reveals God doesn't work like a slot machine! Some prayers are answered over a considerable length of time - or differently than we might specifically desire - remember, it's GOD'S response, in HIS way, timing, and will, etc. that dictates the manner in which a specific prayer is answered.

You've excellently described the idea.

Now put yourself in my shoes to ask you, "What evidence distinguishes God answering your prayers from no one answering your prayers?"

All I can tell you is that I personally know God has answered important prayers of mine. But something tells me that no matter what one shares with you on this, you'll not accept it, or will dismiss it. But the many known and fulfilled prophecies of Scripture - those can be traced for accuracy.

[Kenny]

If the universe is a closed system, how did it expand ??

A closed system is not defined as something restricted from expansion; it’s defined as a system that has nothing outside it to act upon it.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:52 pm
Do you agree that something cause things that do not exist to come into being?
I don’t know; can you give an example of this happening outside of your theistic beliefs?

Life.
Life does NOT exist until something causes it to come into being, yes?

I don’t know if I can agree with that. Life is when part of a man and part of a woman come together and evolve into another man or woman. So though there was not a time when the parts were not alive, I guess there is a point when the parts become a person/being.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. When you said acting outside of themselves, I thought you meant something outside the material world. If you meant “X” acting upon “Y” with them both being material; that would make sense to me.

Is energy material ?

No. Energy is not matter, though it is a part of the material world.

If the universe is a closed system, what caused the expansion? why did it expand?

Nobody knows

Please define "material world".

All that is known to exist.

[PaulSacramento]

So, here is the thing, we tend to use the term universe to mean everything BUT if the universe had a beginning, an expansion, from a quantum singularity, what was "around" that singularity ?

The Big Bang as the origin of the universe:
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.[127]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As has been stated here quite often, the majority see the Big Bang as the beginning of the expansion of the universe as we know it.
Now, the hypothesis that there was a quantum singularity from which the expansion started from, is just that, a hypothesis because there is no evidence, much less proof, that there was such a thing. But that is PROBABLY what happened.

[PaulSacramento]

If the universe is a closed system, how did it expand ??

A closed system is not defined as something restricted from expansion; it’s defined as a system that has nothing outside it to act upon it.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:52 pm
Do you agree that something cause things that do not exist to come into being?
I don’t know; can you give an example of this happening outside of your theistic beliefs?

Life.
Life does NOT exist until something causes it to come into being, yes?

I don’t know if I can agree with that. Life is when part of a man and part of a woman come together and evolve into another man or woman. So though there was not a time when the parts were not alive, I guess there is a point when the parts become a person/being.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. When you said acting outside of themselves, I thought you meant something outside the material world. If you meant “X” acting upon “Y” with them both being material; that would make sense to me.

Is energy material ?

No. Energy is not matter, though it is a part of the material world.

If the universe is a closed system, what caused the expansion? why did it expand?

Nobody knows

Please define "material world".

All that is known to exist.

You consciousness and intelligence are material ?
Please explain to me their material properties.

[Kenny]

So, here is the thing, we tend to use the term universe to mean everything BUT if the universe had a beginning, an expansion, from a quantum singularity, what was "around" that singularity ?

The Big Bang as the origin of the universe:
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.[127]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As has been stated here quite often, the majority see the Big Bang as the beginning of the expansion of the universe as we know it.
Now, the hypothesis that there was a quantum singularity from which the expansion started from, is just that, a hypothesis because there is no evidence, much less proof, that there was such a thing. But that is PROBABLY what happened.

Okay; so when you suggested the Universe had a beginning, you meant the Universe as we know it had a beginning. Is that correct?

[Kenny]

If the universe is a closed system, how did it expand ??

A closed system is not defined as something restricted from expansion; it’s defined as a system that has nothing outside it to act upon it.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:52 pm
Do you agree that something cause things that do not exist to come into being?
I don’t know; can you give an example of this happening outside of your theistic beliefs?

Life.
Life does NOT exist until something causes it to come into being, yes?

I don’t know if I can agree with that. Life is when part of a man and part of a woman come together and evolve into another man or woman. So though there was not a time when the parts were not alive, I guess there is a point when the parts become a person/being.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. When you said acting outside of themselves, I thought you meant something outside the material world. If you meant “X” acting upon “Y” with them both being material; that would make sense to me.

Is energy material ?

No. Energy is not matter, though it is a part of the material world.

If the universe is a closed system, what caused the expansion? why did it expand?

Nobody knows

Please define "material world".

All that is known to exist.

You consciousness and intelligence are material ?
Please explain to me their material properties.

No, my thoughts and ability to think are functions of my brain; a part of me that is material.

[Morny]

All I can tell you is that I personally know God has answered important prayers of mine.

I am happy for the comforting reassurance that must give you.

But something tells me that no matter what one shares with you on this, you'll not accept it, or will dismiss it.

Harsh and inaccurate.

I believe in evidence backed up by reasoned and independent research. With such evidence, I'll accept anything, regardless of how incredible or unpopular. If we are both listening to the personal revelations of a Scientologist about thetans, wouldn't we both have concerns that those revelations by themselves carry very little weight?

I understand the compelling nature of belief. I want to believe my gut feeling that I'm as good looking as Chris Hemsworth, but I have to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[PaulSacramento]

So, here is the thing, we tend to use the term universe to mean everything BUT if the universe had a beginning, an expansion, from a quantum singularity, what was "around" that singularity ?

The Big Bang as the origin of the universe:
One of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang model is the belief that it was the origin of the universe. However, the Big Bang model does not comment about how the universe came into being. Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe.[127]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As has been stated here quite often, the majority see the Big Bang as the beginning of the expansion of the universe as we know it.
Now, the hypothesis that there was a quantum singularity from which the expansion started from, is just that, a hypothesis because there is no evidence, much less proof, that there was such a thing. But that is PROBABLY what happened.

Okay; so when you suggested the Universe had a beginning, you meant the Universe as we know it had a beginning. Is that correct?

Of course.

[PaulSacramento]

If the universe is a closed system, how did it expand ??

A closed system is not defined as something restricted from expansion; it’s defined as a system that has nothing outside it to act upon it.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:52 pm
Do you agree that something cause things that do not exist to come into being?
I don’t know; can you give an example of this happening outside of your theistic beliefs?

Life.
Life does NOT exist until something causes it to come into being, yes?

I don’t know if I can agree with that. Life is when part of a man and part of a woman come together and evolve into another man or woman. So though there was not a time when the parts were not alive, I guess there is a point when the parts become a person/being.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. When you said acting outside of themselves, I thought you meant something outside the material world. If you meant “X” acting upon “Y” with them both being material; that would make sense to me.

Is energy material ?

No. Energy is not matter, though it is a part of the material world.

If the universe is a closed system, what caused the expansion? why did it expand?

Nobody knows

Please define "material world".

All that is known to exist.

You consciousness and intelligence are material ?
Please explain to me their material properties.

No, my thoughts and ability to think are functions of my brain; a part of me that is material.

That is not what I asked you.
Please explain tome the material properties of your consciousness and intelligence?

[Kenny]

A closed system is not defined as something restricted from expansion; it’s defined as a system that has nothing outside it to act upon it.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:52 pm
Do you agree that something cause things that do not exist to come into being?
I don’t know; can you give an example of this happening outside of your theistic beliefs?

I don’t know if I can agree with that. Life is when part of a man and part of a woman come together and evolve into another man or woman. So though there was not a time when the parts were not alive, I guess there is a point when the parts become a person/being.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. When you said acting outside of themselves, I thought you meant something outside the material world. If you meant “X” acting upon “Y” with them both being material; that would make sense to me.

No. Energy is not matter, though it is a part of the material world.

If the universe is a closed system, what caused the expansion? why did it expand?

Nobody knows

Please define "material world".

All that is known to exist.

You consciousness and intelligence are material ?
Please explain to me their material properties.

No, my thoughts and ability to think are functions of my brain; a part of me that is material.

That is not what I asked you.
Please explain tome the material properties of your consciousness and intelligence?

Okay I think I see where you’re getting at. Back when I said the material world consists of all that is known to exist, I wasn’t talking about thoughts, imagination, or functions of things that are real. To answer your question, what we call intelligence, and consciousness is not a part of the material world.

[Byblos]

... what we call intelligence, and consciousness is not a part of the material world.

[Byblos]

In fact, I would venture an educated guess that in most cases, the exact opposite is claimed, i.e. the law of parsimony (Occam's razor) where simpler solutions are more likely to be correct even for complex problems.

Not sure how relevant parsimony or Occam's Razor are here. The main issue is how well the evidence supports the explanation, not how simple the explanation is.

If that's the main issue then how exactly does that translate to the claim that 1) if a claim is extraordinary (whatever that means and however arbitrary the definition), it necessarily follows that 2) the evidence must also be extraordinary (whatever that means and however arbitrary the definition)?

Here's a hint, it doesn't and it doesn't.

On the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is ordinary:

Says who? Just because it suits you to proclaim it ordinary [...]?

No. Because the claim itself is simply a clever phrasing for an observation that people have understood for thousands of years.

Tell me that the sky is blue because air scatters red (an ordinary claim), and I have no immediate reason to doubt you. Tell me that a population of Bigfoot traipses around the Oregon wilderness (an extraordinary claim), and I have justifiable doubt. My reasoning in both cases seems obvious and ordinary.

Again says who? You? My experience has been the exact opposite, no matter how complex the problem is, more often than not the explanation is not complex at all, it is usually the simplest and most intuitive.

But for some reason, when it comes to the subject of theism in general and God in particular, all of a sudden parsimony be damned, it's extraordinary evidence you seek.

You may be misinterpreting my point. The mere claim of God's existence (or many aspects of theism) is not extraordinary, because the claim is untestable. So science and I don't care.

You don't live by your own rules, do you? Yet another extraordinary claim dismissed with the waive of a hand. It's not that God's existence is scientifically untestable, as if somehow that's a deficiency on the part of the argument. It's that science, by its very nature and its very claims, is the wrong tool to use for testing God's existence. It is the same as claiming gravity is untestable using the laws of biology. It is a meaningless, non sequitur claim.

To rephrase what I said previously, my problem is with claims of testable supernatural influence on the natural world.

And that claim is a small subset of the larger claim that science cannot test the immaterial, therefore the immaterial can be dismissed. Once again, science by its very definition cannot test the immaterial precisely because it cannot, as a tool. You want to test the immaterial then you have to take a step (or several) back into metaphysics. That's where rationality and the rules of logic make the immaterial not only testable but provable.

But then again, from reading your posts, you wouldn't be interested in any of that boring stuff.