Why did Allah create Tsunamis and earthquakes?

[HeatDeath 430]

Imagining a 'creator' is the stuff of imagination only.

A lovely declaration, but also a textbook case of begging the question. In any argument, simply repeating your controversial statement is unlikely to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, and does nothing at all to bolster your credibility when your specific arguments are attacked. It not good practice for an atheist, it's not good practice for a theist, it's just not good practice for anyone.

You can't prove God doesn't exist by placing your fingers in your ears and shouting "La, La, La. God doesn't exist so anything you say about Him is obvious prima facie nonsense!"

It just doesn't work that way.

Your post contains an intriguing hook for continued discussion. You state that a Creator is not "necessary". Would you care to elaborate, perhaps even introduce some arguments for the intriguing but currently completely unsupported assertion?

[Peikko 1,575]

A lovely declaration, but also a textbook case of begging the question. In any argument, simply repeating your controversial statement is unlikely to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, and does nothing at all to bolster your credibility when your specific arguments are attacked. It not good practice for an atheist, it's not good practice for a theist, it's just not good practice for anyone.

You can't prove God doesn't exist by placing your fingers in your ears and shouting "La, La, La. God doesn't exist so anything you say about Him is obvious prima facie nonsense!"

It just doesn't work that way.

Your post contains an intriguing hook for continued discussion. You state that a Creator is not "necessary". Would you care to elaborate, perhaps even introduce some arguments for the intriguing but currently completely unsupported assertion?

The notion that the universe was not created nor does it require a creator is not in the least bit controversial. Notions of time as linear and the need for a creator are inventions of the human imagination. They are interesting in themselves but they don't explain anything in context of physics or the nature of the universe, they are simply irrelevances.

As to why that's true, I'd have to post a bunch of equations. As I said, physics is best understood in mathematical terms, not via language.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[HeatDeath 430]

The notion that the universe was not created nor does it require a creator is not in the least bit controversial.

That's a logical fallacy I've not seen before: Argument from the non-existence of your opponent's faction.

As for the equations, I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on that one. Post away. If they say what you are saying they say, it will be absolutely fascinating, and I'm quite confident I can keep up.

Edited March 30, 2011 by HeatDeath

[Peikko 1,575]

That's a logical fallacy I've not seen before: Argument from the non-existence of your opponent's faction.

It's not a fallacy. You are looking at things in terms of being human and human dimensions. Physics does not do that, which is why it is best expressed mathematically.

[HeatDeath 430]

It's not a fallacy. You are looking at things in terms of being human and human dimensions. Physics does not do that, which is why it is best expressed mathematically.

So express it mathematically, already.

[Peikko 1,575]

Try this from another angle. Being human is singularly unimportant in terms of the Universe. Obviously, because we are human and we think in the ways that we do, we are predisposed to look at our environment as if we are the single most important thing in the Universe and that an explanation that gives humans a central position in it is very comfortable and conforming perhaps even necessary. Reality however proves otherwise. Humans are the merest spec of specs, extremely short lived both in individual, species and existence terms and almost entirely irrelevant to the machinations of the universe.

So express it mathematically, already.

What would be the point? Pages and pages of formula that no one here would understand is a stupid exercise in futility, almost as futile as wondering who created us and why, but not quite

Edited March 30, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[HeatDeath 430]

Being human is singularly unimportant in terms of the Universe.

This continues to beg the question. If you read anything about the philosophy of consciousness, you will rapidly find out that human beings, in every waking second of our lives, exhibit a phenomenon that is utterly inexplicable in any purely materialistic description of the universe. Moreover, we appear to be the only collection of atoms in the universe that do this. While it is not proof in itself, it certainly suggests that there is something more to humanity than a fortuitous collection of low-energy chemical reactions.

What would be the point? Pages and pages of formula that no one here would understand is a stupid exercise in futility, almost as futile as wondering who created us and why, but not quite

You alleged in an earlier post that have access to, or at least know of a derivation of physical laws that A ) resolves the question of first cause, or B ) in some other way unambiguously proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the complete lack of philosophical necessity of a first cause. Such a work would be, in my educated opinion, a philosophical and theological breakthrough of the highest order. You do a massive disservice to everyone here to keep it to yourself. I have no doubts as to my ability to follow an argument or derivation of any reasonable level of complexity, and I would certainly assist you in explaining it in layman's terms for the others here.

Sadly, I fear a much more plausible explanation is that you have no such source, and are making a vain desperate handwaving redirection towards a perceived body of institutional scientific authority in an attempt to avoid having respond directly to my arguments, or indeed, to produce an actual argument of your own.

Edited March 30, 2011 by HeatDeath

[rika60607 215]

You can't prove existence of God either, so what's the point to argue...

You can't prove God doesn't exist by placing your fingers in your ears and shouting "La, La, La. God doesn't exist so anything you say about Him is obvious prima facie nonsense!"

[rika60607 215]

Just because you never learned anything of the Cat's philosophy or Horse's philosophy, it does not mean it does not exist. And please do not be surprised that they do not write in human. You do not speak Horse or Cat at all, either.

...If you read anything about the philosophy of consciousness, you will rapidly find out that human beings, in every waking second of our lives, exhibit a phenomenon that is utterly inexplicable in any purely materialistic description of the universe. Moreover, we appear to be the only collection of atoms in the universe that do this. While it is not proof in itself, it certainly suggests that there is something more to humanity than a fortuitous collection of low-energy chemical reactions.

[Peikko 1,575]

This continues to beg the question. If you read anything about the philosophy of consciousness, you will rapidly find out that human beings, in every waking second of our lives, exhibit a phenomenon that is utterly inexplicable in any purely materialistic description of the universe. Moreover, we appear to be the only collection of atoms in the universe that do this. While it is not proof in itself, it certainly suggests that there is something more to humanity than a fortuitous collection of low-energy chemical reactions.

You alleged in an earlier post that have access to, or at least know of a derivation of physical laws that A ) resolves the question of first cause, or B ) in some other way unambiguously proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the complete lack of philosophical necessity of a first cause. Such a work would be, in my educated opinion, a philosophical and theological breakthrough of the highest order. You do a massive disservice to everyone here to keep it to yourself. I have no doubts as to my ability to follow an argument or derivation of any reasonable level of complexity, and I would certainly assist you in explaining it in layman's terms for the others here.

Sadly, I fear a much more plausible explanation is that you have no such source, and are making a vain desperate handwaving redirection towards a perceived body of institutional scientific authority in an attempt to avoid having respond directly to my arguments, or indeed, to produce an actual argument of your own.

Conclude what you like. I would suggest; if you are interested in the subject at all, reading the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

I don't really think you understand what I am telling you though from this post, it's still all about how could humans possibly not be essential to the machinations of the universe? Mathematically, and in terms of any explanation of how the universe works humans are entirely and utterly insignificant. Once again, phylosophy is a man made construct. What we think about is interesting to ourselves and ourselves only, it is not relevant to how the universe works and the universe would not be significantly changed were we not to exist at all, and in purely time terms, we have hardly existed and will not exist for very long. Now, were we to try to eliminate say, hydrogen from the Universe, that would be a different matter entirely.

[HeatDeath 430]

A rationalist must continuously evaluate the credibility of their own beliefs - to say to themselves "If God exists, I want to believe that God exists. If God does not exist, I do not want to believe that God exists. I desire for my mental map to match the territory of reality."

I am therefore fascinated when someone argues strongly that God does not exist. I wonder if they may know something I do not, something that may cause me to change my belief, or at least my confidence level, that God exists. I am therefore highly motivated to probe atheistic arguments on rationalist grounds.

On other grounds, I believe that my God desires for me to tell other people about His unconditional love and mercy in the face of humanity's manifest moral imperfection. Probing atheistic arguments provides me with an opportunity to do so, and to attempt to convince those who do not believe in God that He does exist, He does love them, and He does forgive them, and that if they believe in him they will inherit eternal life.

So you see, it's not pointless to argue at all. It serves several goals both rational and theistic. It also happens to be fun.

Edited March 30, 2011 by HeatDeath

[Peikko 1,575]

A rationalist must continuously evaluate the credibility of their own beliefs - to say to themselves "If God exists, I want to believe that God exists. If God does not exist, I do not want to believe that God exists. I desire for my mental map to match the territory of reality."

I am therefore fascinated when someone argues strongly that God does not exist. I wonder if they may know something I do not, something that may cause me to change my belief, or at least my confidence level, that God exists. I am therefore highly motivated to probe atheistic arguments on rationalist grounds.

On other grounds, I believe that my God desires for me to tell other people about His unconditional love and mercy in the face of humanity's manifest moral imperfection. Probing atheistic arguments provides me with an opportunity to do so, and to attempt to convince those who do not believe in God that He does exist, He does love them, and He does forgive them, and that if they believe in him they will inherit eternal life.

So you see, it's not pointless to argue at all. It serves several goals both rational and theistic. It also happens to be fun.

I am not arguing that god does not exist that would be pointless, I am saying that god is irrelevant in an explanation of what the universe is and how it works, that there is no necessity to think in terms of 'before' the universe (because there is no before the universe) and as such the universe was not created but rather it has and is continuously evolving. Humans are an interesting but insignificant anomoly - and that's assuming that humans are the only sentient beings in the universe which is neither proven nor disproven.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Madame Cleo

[웃 910]

On other grounds, I believe that my God desires for me to tell other people about His unconditional love and mercy in the face of humanity's manifest moral imperfection. Probing atheistic arguments provides me with an opportunity to do so, and to attempt to convince those who do not believe in God that He does exist, He does love them, and He does forgive them, and that if they believe in him they will inherit eternal life.

Probe this:

Assume I faithfully believe in God and I trust He has an unconditional love for me. Say I am 19 years old. I take a bottle of water, a candle, and a holy bible into my 'prayer closet' and say I will not ever come out until God speaks to me audibly. About 3 days later I am found dead due to lack of water.

What happened to your theory? What can be concluded? Well, a couple things. Either God exists and doesn't give a sh!t about us or He doesn't exist. You can absolutely conclude that He does not have an "unconditional love for people", correct?

[HeatDeath 430]

Conclude what you like. I would suggest; if you are interested in the subject at all, reading the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

I don't really think you understand what I am telling you though from this post, it's still all about how could humans possibly not be essential to the machinations of the universe? Mathematically, and in terms of any explanation of how the universe works humans are entirely and utterly insignificant. Once again, phylosophy is a man made construct. What we think about is interesting to ourselves and ourselves only, it is not relevant to how the universe works and the universe would not be significantly changed were we not to exist at all, and in purely time terms, we have hardly existed and will not exist for very long. Now, were we to try to eliminate say, hydrogen from the Universe, that would be a different matter entirely.

Feynman was a great man, who accomplished many things in his life. A rigorous proof of the nonexistence of God is not recorded to be one of them, even by secular chroniclers who would trumpet such an achievement as one of his greatest, had it actually occurred.

The Feynman lectures are on my Amazon wish list. I deferred getting them with my Christmas money this year because I wanted Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming instead. If you could provide specific page references to any specific relevant theological or philosophical digressions he makes I should be most grateful.

Your entire argument continues to beg the question. If there is a God, the universe would still look the same, but it would have purpose. Humanity would be a small but vital part of the universe, rather than a small but insignificant part of the universe. In the absence of a technological device to detect purpose, it remains an open question.

The problem is that the points you make in your first paragraph are not supporting arguments for your thesis: the non-existence of God. Rather they are first order results from the assumption of your thesis. In order to make a credible argument you must either be reductionistic - show how your thesis derives from unambiguously true statements - or you must use argument by contradiction - assume the opposite of your thesis and show obvious, unambiguous absurdity. You have done neither.

In my former experience as an atheist, it was usually atheists who championed the use of logic and rationalism in religious debates. It feels odd that I have to explain this stuff to you.

[HeatDeath 430]

Probe this:

Assume I faithfully believe in God and I trust He has an unconditional love for me. Say I am 19 years old. I take a bottle of water, a candle, and a holy bible into my 'prayer closet' and say I will not ever come out until God speaks to me audibly. About 3 days later I am found dead due to lack of water.

What happened to your theory? What can be concluded? Well, a couple things. Either God exists and doesn't give a sh!t about us or He doesn't exist. You can absolutely conclude that He does not have an "unconditional love for people", correct?

It sounds to me like God said "I love you. Come home, my son."

You are slightly correct. God cares far less about this world than we do. It is damaged, it is twisted, He would be well justified to destroy the entire thing, and the only good thing that can said about it is that it continues to produces beings He loves who can sometimes be rescued to eternal life.

Given that, I don't think it is obvious at all that "unconditional love" always means keeping people alive in this world.