Atheists: Why do some of you assume your non-answers is a sufficient answers?
Topic: A research proposal can be viewed as
July 20, 2019 / By Ruby Question:
The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim so it is fair enough to reject the theists claim on its own merit. But when I ask many of you what you think the origin of the universe or any other philosophical question some of you just resort to saying The Big Bang did or time is infinite or whatever.
You can't just say a first cause is impossible and an infinite regress of causes is impossible. You have to take a position when you reject a position that only has two logical choices. I'm not saying the first cause is God; I happen to think there was sort of a first cause within nature. But if it is annoying to me I'm sure damn well theists are annoyed as well and won't take your view seriously.
I'm not saying that you have to refute the theistic idea to not believe in God. All I'm simply saying is that when you reject a premise a theist uses to argue for God and the syllogism is valid; you must have another view. You can have a non-view philosophically, but that doesn't do much for the discussion. People are quite free to have non views. Don't be mistaken with what I'm saying.
A Modest Proposal: Research philosophy a little bit and you might understand :) This is not a scientific question of how things came about; this is about logically possibilities based on our understanding of time and space and matter and energy exc.
No, this is a philosophical question. Why? Because we have no idea how God, the FSM, or nature "created" the universe. All we have is logic and reason based on scientific principles. Meaning that we can come up with logical possibilities without knowing whether they can actually be true or not. That is what I mean by philosophical cosmology. Saying science will have an answer is not a response to the peculiar question of what are the logical possibilities of how the universe could have come about. Science will give us the probabilities of the answers, but we can still talk about what is possible.
Best Answers: Atheists: Why do some of you assume your non-answers is a sufficient answers?
Mort | 9 days ago
I'll say to you what I say to everyone else:
Unless you bring me some proof of what you're saying, I'm not going to waste my time answering you.
1) the origin of the universe isn't a philosophical question, it's an astrophysical one.
2) the reason we don't answer it is because: science isn't there yet... Learn to crawl before you learn to run.
3) if you ask an atheist a philosophical question, you won't necessary get a yes (God said x-y-z) or no (God said a-b-c), you might get a "maybe" or a well thought "I-don't-know".
4)The only first cause we reject is "God diddit", why? Because there is no physical proof or trace of God. Therefor, you can't base a scientifically-based argument claiming so. If you want to answer "Then, if it's not God, who did it?", the only honest answer is "We don't know"... because, well, this is what happens when you don't have ready-to-deliver answers... we don't know yet... When we do and have the proof required, we'll answer it.
...Basically, you're repeating some of Aristotle's dialogs, in which he was confronted by critics (along with his teachers, Plato and Socrates) who wanted him to renounce his work, because they were anti-doctrinal.
These critics tried to force him to admit to the supernatural nature of the physical world. In their views, the gods ruled everything down to the simplest element. Therefor, everything required a supernatural influence to be. Aristotle developed a "theory of universals", which is the primitive form of the "Scientific Method".
Meaning your method of reasoning is about 17 centuries late.
You CANNOT philosophy on something that is clearly a scientific question. It is a basic rational mistake. You can philosophy on why people act the way they do or why sunrises are beautiful... but you cannot philosophy on "why does the sun rises everyday?"... because that question is astronomical: the sun rises because the Earth revolves around it and rotates on its own axis.
It may not be fascinating, but it's a fact...
I can argue with you that the universe was vomited by a giant stellar tortoise that had swallowed the goddess-eating black snake that used to be its second head... It's also based on religion, with millions of followers (it's an Asian tale)... Or that Ethereal beings decided to create a prison-dimension and used their psychic powers to create a material world where they can reprogram the minds of the prisoners (because physical is weaker than Ethereal) so they can be welcomed back in the Heaven-dimension as pure energy (also a religious explanation, but with less followers)...
... Such theories are not only a waste of time, they also pollute the mind by creating a dogma which, over time, might become so strong that opponents to such an explanation might be burned to the pyre as heretics... (it happened before, remember?... You know, when people argued that the Earth was round or revolved around the sun.)
THIS is the main reason that you'll never hear a satisfying (to you) answer from Atheists... Atheists are generally schoolers who study history, science and logic. They are deeply concerned of not repeating the mistakes of the Past.
👍 266 | 👎 9
Did you like the answer? Atheists: Why do some of you assume your non-answers is a sufficient answers?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: A research proposal can be viewed as
Originally Answered: Is this list of answers sufficient to answer 97% of all YA! questions?
- Regardless of what the problem *might* be with your computer based on the details you have provided, it is *definitely* time to bring your computer to a local computer repair shop and let them diagnose and repair the issue.
- Without the make and model of your computer, we cannot assist you.
- Without the make and model of your laptop and the make and model your television, we cannot tell you what cables you need to watch downloaded movies on your TV.
- No, I am not going to tell you if the parts you have put in your shopping cart at Newegg are compatible, because if you need someone to tell you if the parts are compatible, you should not be building a computer from scratch. Each manufacturer has a product page for each item you are buying, and you can find out yourself what it is compatible with just by reading that information.
- Is that computer good enough for WHAT? You need to say what you want to use it for if you want to know what it is good enough for.
- No, I will not rate your computer system, because if it is good enough to do what you need it to do, you do not need my opinion on how good it is. Also, exactly what is the "Best Answer" for a question asking for opinions?
That should cover the Computer categories.
end of line
You wrote a very disjointed post if you propose a merely philosophical question. Has there ever been an answer by an atheist that was more of a "non-answer" than how the religious justify believing in a god?
No atheist says "because a book told me to believe" and that is the "intellectual" response by creationists. It's usually just "you'll never understand." Wooooo, devastating logic there!
Not just atheists, but rather NO ONE knows how the universe started. We weren't there, but brilliant people are digging hard to find out what we can.
BTW, the Big Bang theory was devised by Jesuit priest/scientists with the Vatican. No one has proven it wrong, so until someone does, we accept it. Some biased men with agendas of hatred wrote and recopied the bible over 1900+ years. Why don't you apply the same critical thinking that we do? Scared of the truth?
If you could prove a god exists, I'd believe. Millions of years of human evolution and the entire, obvious world around you shows your bible is BS. Stop being afraid to question that old fiction book.
👍 110 | 👎 7
I sort of understand what you're saying and I think I agree especially with "You have to take a position when you reject a position that only has two logical choices".
I have to think on that one.
This is a little off subject but the claim Christians make is that there is either a Creator or not and that it is worth seeking Him even if we're not sure He even exists. Belief is the prerequisite for seeking God with the hope of finding Him.
Belief doesn't require proof. Belief springs from hope. Belief is rational as long as God hasn't been disproven.
👍 102 | 👎 5
The Big Bang has evidence behind it, not God. Besides, we can actually advance in science to better our understanding of what came even before the Big Bang. It's a "non-answer" to you because (and this may come as a shock to you) we AREN'T LEARNED PROFESSIONALS ON THE SUBJECT. Yeah, like any (or most at least) of us are really going to fully comprehend the nuclear and physical evidence behind it, but I can assure you it's there. Research a bit, maybe you'll understand better.
Actually, your question didn't ask about possibilities. I told you why atheists and their answers seem like "non-answers". I wasn't trying to drive home any point about the Big Bang other than that it has proof. It actually is an answer that has taken matter and energy and "philosophy", as you call it, into account. Study philosophy more and you'll understand your response to me is irrelevant to what you asked originally.
Obviously you haven't researched the Big Bang at all. It hasn't become the leading idea on how our universe formed from nothing (or scientific principles, your choice). We have gathered actual evidence to prove it's true: leftover radiation throughout the universe from (you guessed it) a huge explosion; the universe expanding from one central point; etc. Science and philosophy take different roads once you get evidence. I'm sure you meant for this to be a philosophical question, but the answer is scientific. I do understand philosophy; apparently more than you do.
👍 94 | 👎 3
I will never say I know exactly how the universe was formed, but to just resort to some ultimate god annoys me. Some Christians say that god has always been here, but rejecting the idea of time being infinite; that to me is just silly.
My personal thoughts of how things started:
Matter(the elements) has always existed. Then there was an influx at some point in time that started a similar form of the big bang.
👍 86 | 👎 1
the big bang does not explain the origin of the universe. it is merely a model to explain the universe from a specific point in time. i don't get why this is such a hard concept to grasp. think of it like this. if you were too look up a recipe for your favorite dessert in a cook book, you'd probably find the ingredients to make it. something like eggs, flour, sugar, vanilla, chocolate, etc. does it really concern you where any of those ingredients came from? no, because you only assuming an arbitrary starting point in order to make your dessert. it could be that the eggs came from a brown chicken or a white chicken. the milk could have come from a cow or a goat. it doesn't really matter. now if you asked me where the ingredients for the cake i ate for lunch came from, i'd probably say from the store. if you asked me where they came from before that, the only answer i could give is that simply do not know.
👍 78 | 👎 -1
you recognize, a fowl interior the hand is worth 2 interior the bush. you ought to continuously count huge form your chickes till now they hatch. that's like Richard Dawkins says. you recognize, back then I used to positioned on an onion on my belt. Which became the form on the time. 5-cent products used to have photos of bumblebees on them. "Make 4 gold rings for the table and fix them to the 4 corners, the place the 4 legs are." - Exodus 25:26. i'm hoping that solutions your question.
👍 70 | 👎 -3
I couldn't care less if my views annoy others. I do not know the first cause, but I have as much reason to assume godS as I have to assume purple leprechauns who create universes by vomiting them out. What I do have evidence for are natural processes blindly interacting.
So until someone comes with convincing evidence for unexplained magic man in the sky who seems to have no measurable effect on the universe these days, I'll stick with "I don't know but I suspect a natural process LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE".
👍 62 | 👎 -5
Originally Answered: Atheists: have you been to the "answers in genisis" website?
I recomend it as well for those who wish to know the Truth.
While the word "dinosaur" is a relatively new word, there seems to be evidence in many places around the world that men and these creatures have co-existed. In the Bible, when God is responding to Job, in Job 40 and 41, we see two creatures described, the 'behemoth' and the 'leviathan.' Both are described as extremely large animals and seem reminiscent of descriptions of a dinosaur and a giant sea creature. Although Bible notes in many modern translations suggest these animals might be a hippo, a crocodile, an elephant, or other known animals, the Biblical descriptions defy those identifications.
The Bible and Pterosaurs: Archaeological and Linguistic Studies of Jurassic Animals that Lived Recently
The Chinese histories and legends abound with dinosaurs, but they are not called "dinosaurs." They are called "dragons." The dragon is one of the twelve animals of the Chinese zodiac. What is interesting is that all the other eleven are commonly known animals and there is no hint of 'mythology' involved with their identities. It seems as if the dragon was just as commonly known at one time. The pictures are often fantastical, but so are their stylized pictures of horses and other animals. I checked the web for accessible information on this. I was able to find a few things that were not having to do with video games, sculptures, movies, items for sale, and such. The following links may be of interest. There are more. If you have access to books, you might want to check the epic of Beowulf, in which he battles a monster. If you have access to a good book on the history of art, you may be able to see some dragons and sea monsters painted on ancient Roman pottery. The legends abound all over the world. They do not seem to be connected to each other, but each telling of its own place. We have the story of St. George and the Dragon; there is the reference regarding Alexander the Great and his army disturbing some giant monster in a cave on their way to India. The American Indian thunderbird may very well be one of the ancient flying reptiles. An excellent essay by Lourella Rouster is "The Footprints of Dragons," at http://rae.org/dragons.html
A couple of pages which chronicle, a bit, the possible existence of monsters in Europe are dragon myths from Austria http://www.strangescience.net/stdino2.htm page includes two paintings of dragons from the seventeenth century that are quite interesting!
Doug Sharp, whose webpage "Revolution Against Evolution" has Rouster's essay, also carries the following: http://rae.org/tuba.html
The Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaur -- Scaphognathus crassirostris: A "Living Fossil" Until the 17th Century. All in all then, there is reason to doubt the evolutionist timeline that says dinosaurs -- or the dragons -- died out before man ever arrived. There is simply too much evidence in stone, art, writing, and legend which contradicts that idea.