logic1:

The existence of any God.
I made the comments that led to this particular discussion because you profess to be an atheist i.e. someone who does not believe in the existence of any God.

You see one does not need to become omniscient to come to the conclusion that there is no need to believe in your God.

logic1:

Atheism is disbelief in the existence of God or deities
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Agnosticism is the view that God's existence is unprovable: the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Again, read the definitions you provided carefully. The first is about non-belief in the existence of God or deities, the other is the belief that one cannot know whether or not God exists. Again, two different fields.

logic1:

For anyone to credibly defend atheism he or she must possess absolute knowledge about the creation of the universe as a start.

Again, one does not need this. If e.g the God can be demonstrated to be logically contradictory.

logic1:

The scientific cause for the universe is the big bang.

The idea of the big bang was hypothesized because everyone implicitly believes that everything has a beginning.

No. It was arrived at based on evidence from cosmology. Prior to this, it was thought that the universe was in a steady state.

logic1:

If the universe has an age then it has a beginning. If it has a beginning it was caused by something.

If the thing that caused the universe is physical then it too has a cause and we can go on and on.

Conclusion: At the very beginning of the process there has to be an uncaused cause in the equation which is most definitely non-physical

Why must there be an uncaused cause simply because you want to introduce your creator or you do not like an infinite regress?
Why do you think it must be non-physical?

But exclusive of this, the presumption is that the books called the Evangelists, and ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that they are impositions. The disordered state of the history in those four books, the silence of one book upon matters related in the other, and the disagreement that is to be found among them, implies that they are the production of some unconnected individuals, many years after the things they pretend to relate, each of whom made his own legend; and not the writings of men living intimately together, as the men called the apostles are supposed to have done — in fine, that they have been manufactured, as the books of the Old Testament have been, by other persons than those whose names they bear.

From my previous post on thee way memory works, it is quite plausible that the apostles could have lived together and still produced markedly different accounts. At any rate they were not scribes detailing every last detail of Jesus' life therefore one or two of them could be silent on something the others reported.
One need not go too far to understand this if one looks at the case of say the various biographical accounts of Abraham Lincoln or J.F. Kenedy written by various people close to them.

thehomer:

Does the fact that we can conceive of such an occurrence mean that it actually occurs?

The main point I'm trying to illustrate is that the fact that one can conceive of a phenomenon or an object does not mean it actually occurred or existed.

Yes you are right. The fact that we can conceive of the occurence of something may not actually mean that that thing occurs.

However, what we are talking about here is not the occurrence of a phenomena but the absence of a physical phenomena.
If we have observed the presence of a particular physical phenomena and we have isolated it as a phenomena then it can be absent.

If the absence was not possible, then we wouldn't have conceived of its presence in the first place.

Indeed, all physical phenomena occupy space and have an age.
If something has an age it means there was a time when it did not exist.

thehomer:

Time as we use it currently use it commenced with the expansion of the universe. This is how I understand and apply time in my posts about cosmology.

There you've said it. To apply your answer to my question, it would be phrased thus. There is no time prior to space-time because space-time is the point of reference when we speak of time.

A big NO. Time as we know it did not commence with the expansion of the universe.
Spacetime is not time!
Time is not a spatial quantity. It is of a unique dimension.
Space-time is not the point of reference when we speak of time. Time is an absolute dimension like length unlike the example of north you mentioned earlier.

logic1:

Yes you are right. The fact that we can conceive of the occurence of something may not actually mean that that thing occurs.

However, what we are talking about here is not the occurrence of a phenomena but the absence of a physical phenomena.
If we have observed the presence of a particular physical phenomena and we have isolated it as a phenomena then it can be absent.

If the absence was not possible, then we wouldn't have conceived of its presence in the first place.

Indeed, all physical phenomena occupy space and have an age.
If something has an age it means there was a time when it did not exist.

But the universe is different in the sense that time as we know it and measure it is within the universe and not outside it. And we are yet to obtain information beyond this universe.

logic1:

A big NO. Time as we know it did not commence with the expansion of the universe.

Oh? Did time commence?

logic1:

Spacetime is not time!
Time is not a spatial quantity. It is of a unique dimension.
Space-time is not the point of reference when we speak of time. Time is an absolute dimension like length unlike the example of north you mentioned earlier.

At the scale of the universe, one does not simply speak of time or length due to the large distances involved and gravity. Plus the absence of an absolute reference value due to the fact that the bodies in the universe are constantly in motion.

thehomer:

Why must there be an uncaused cause simply because you want to introduce your creator or you do not like an infinite regress?
Why do you think it must be non-physical?

You have to bend over backwards and break scientific laws to even argue that any physical body can spontaneously come into existence in a vacuum.
It is not scientifically tenable that there was always physical matter because physical matter cannot just exist without having been caused/created by another process - something outside of itself

This is precisely the reason why scientists don't argue with the concept of the uncaused cause.

thehomer:

But the universe is different in the sense that time as we know it and measure it is within the universe and not outside it. And we are yet to obtain information beyond this universe.

The fact that we can measure time within a frame of reference is precisely what should tell one that time itself is an absolute dimension that does not reference something else.

The dimensions of the universe are known so there is something like "outside our universe".
Richard Dawkins even posited the idea of multiverses and there have been multiple scientific propositions based on multiple universes.

The universe is finite and it is made up of physical matter. The physical matter in the universe must have been caused by something. Science points to a big bang but since the big bang is a physical phenomena it must have been caused by something else.

thehomer:

Oh? Did time commence?

At the scale of the universe, one does not simply speak of time or length due to the large distances involved and gravity. Plus the absence of an absolute reference value due to the fact that the bodies in the universe are constantly in motion.

Time is of a dimension such that we cannot speak of a commencement of time.
A period can commence but time did not commence.
Time is simply a measure of the interval between 2 events.

At the scale of the universe we can speak of time. Indeed the interval (time) between the big bang and now is about 14 billion years. (This is time not space time)

You see one does not need to become omniscient to come to the conclusion that there is no need to believe in your God.

However, you need to be omniscient to come to the conclusion theat there is NO GOD and that was what I was trying to point out.

Given the above and the fact that you do not have absolute knowledge then you cannot logically be an atheist.

I usually don't comment here but i find this quite preposterous:

Given the above and the fact that you do not have absolute knowledge then you cannot logically be an atheist.

How so? Using the definition you provided earlier, atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of God, not the belief in the FACT that God does not exist.

Saying you need "absolute knowledge" to "logically be an atheist" is like saying you need absolute knowledge to "logically believe" a man has had sex with his wife, or to believe virtually anything else for that matter. . . Preposterous.

ritchboy:

I usually don't comment here but i find this quite preposterous:

How so? Using the definition you provided earlier, atheism is the DISBELIEF in the existence of God, not the belief in the FACT that God does not exist.

Saying you need "absolute knowledge" to "logically be an atheist" is like saying you need absolute knowledge to "logically believe" a man has had sex with his wife, or to believe virtually anything else for that matter. . . Preposterous.

I guess the DISBELIEF works fine as long as you don't try to defend atheism rationally. If it is to be defended rationally then the DISBELIEF must be backed up by some kind of BELIEF.

To be able to elevate atheism into a worldview then DISBELIEF is not enough . One has to believe in something to have a coherent worldview. That's the kind of atheism we are dealing with here.

I'm sorry to say, but your brand of atheism which includes only disbelief is not a worldview and we are discussing worldviews here.

Thanks for the comment anyway.

Why should a creator be an uncaused? Example, the creator of this universe could also be a caused cause. Who says that can't be the case?

Saying you need "absolute knowledge" to "logically be an atheist" is like saying you need absolute knowledge to "logically believe" a man has had sex with his wife, or to believe virtually anything else for that matter. . . Preposterous.

Look at your analogy well sir, what does a man having sex with his wife have to do with having a coherent worldview?

logic1:

I guess the DISBELIEF works fine as long as you don't try to defend atheism rationally. If it is to be defended rationally then the DISBELIEF must be backed up by some kind of BELIEF.

To be able to elevate atheism into a worldview then DISBELIEF is not enough . One has to believe in something to have a coherent worldview. That's the kind of atheism we are dealing with here.
but your brand of atheism which includes only disbelief is not a worldview and we are discussing worldviews here.

Thanks for the comment anyway.

Of course it is a worldview and a coherent one too, even if very flawed. The denial of any existence other than the perceivable physical world is a worldview, most definitely. They believe only in what their 5 senses show them and nothing more. That is a BELIEF for you, right there.

Jenwitemi:

Why should a creator be an uncaused? Example, the creator of this universe could also be a caused cause. Who says that can't be the case?

Yes a creator could be caused, but then that means that creator would have a creator right. That could very well be the case.
However the arguments for an uncaused cause creating the universe as opposed to a caused cause seem to be greater considering all the various worldviews in existence.

Of course it is a worldview. The denial of any existence other than the perceivable physical world is a worldview, most definitely. They believe only in what their 5 senses show them and nothing more. That is a BELIEF for you, right there.

Your 5 senses tell you (through science) that physical phenomena have to be created and that they do not materialize out of nothing. If you believe in what your 5 senses tell you then you most definitely have the huge question of what or who caused the universe to come into existence which brings us right back to the God question or at least the creator question.

Okay. It is a case of majority wins the vote, right? I am not sure i can go with that. Anyway, this is something we will never know for sure, so what's the point of pursuing this line of discussion.

logic1:

Yes a creator could be caused, but then that means that creator would have a creator right. That could very well be the case.
However the arguments for an uncaused cause creating the universe as opposed to a caused cause seem to be greater considering all the various worldviews in existence.

Jenwitemi:

Okay. It is a case of majority wins the vote, right? I am not sure i can go with that. Anyway, this is something we will never know for sure, so what's the point of pursuing this line of discussion.

That's just a preliminary argument.
A way to verify the various worldviews is to draw out their logical conclusions and see which one most corresponds to present reality.

The atheists say that the cause is accidental, random. That is another big belief right there that needs a lot of faith. Chance and randomness are, therefore, their God(s) in which they believe. How about that. Everyone believes in something and that includes atheists.

logic1:

Your 5 senses tell you (through science) that physical phenomena have to be created and that they do not materialize out of nothing. If you believe in what your 5 senses tell you then you most definitely have the[b] huge question of what or who caused the universe to come into existence which brings us right back to the God question or at least the creator question.[/b]

Jenwitemi:

The atheists say that the cause is accidental, random. That is another big belief right there that needs a lot of faith. Chance and randomness are, therefore, their God(s) in which they believe. How about that. Everyone believes in something and that includes atheists.

Even if the cause is accidental or random it still needs raw materials because physical phenomena cannot just spontaneously materialize out of nothing. What created the raw materials?

logic1:

Even if the cause is accidental or random it still needs raw materials

What raw materials does the christian, judaic and the islamic God(s) have? Why does the creator have to have some "raw materials" to be believed to be a God?

logic1:

because physical phenomena cannot just spontaneously materialize out of nothing.

Well they certainly must have done exactly that at some point, or else we wouldn't all be here in the first place.

logic1:

What created the raw materials?

  Atheists say it is the trinity of Mr. Big Bang, Mr. Chance and Mr. Randomness. Christians say it is the trinity of Mr. Jehovah, his holy spirit and his son. The jews say it is only Mr. Yahweh. The arabs think it is Mr. Allah. Since all these worshiped deities are also caused, who or what caused them into being? All these are just questions we wil never be able to answer in this reality. IMO.

Jenwitemi:

What raw materials does the christian, judaic and the islamic God(s) have? Why does the creator have to have some "raw materials" to be believed to be a God?
Well they certainly must have done exactly that at some point, or else we wouldn't all be here in the first place.
Atheists say it is the trinity of Mr. Big Bang, Mr. Chance and Mr. Randomness. Christians say it is the trinity of Mr. Jehovah, his holy spirit and his son. The jews say it is only Mr. Yahweh. The arabs think it is Mr. Allah. Since all these worshiped deities are also caused, who or what caused them into being? All these are just questions we wil never be able to answer in this reality. IMO.

Theists believe that the creator is not physical but of another dimension and therefore not bound by the physical law that dictates that all physical matter is created by something other than itself.

The only probable thing is that a non-physical phenomena caused or created the physical phenomena through some process which we cannot understand now.

I am THE AWARENESS. The immortal me that is neither born nor ever dies.

What do you mean by the above statement?

I presume that "born" and "die" as you use them are not literal.

If you are really immortal then you are not physical or at least you have a non-physical side of you and thus you really are not an atheist (the kind that only believes what his 5 senses tell him or her)

I guess the DISBELIEF works fine as long as you don't try to defend atheism rationally. If it is to be defended rationally then the DISBELIEF must be backed up by some kind of BELIEF.

To be able to elevate atheism into a worldview then DISBELIEF is not enough . One has to believe in something to have a coherent worldview. That's the kind of atheism we are dealing with here.

The disbelief in the existence of God(s) is a BELIEF in the non-existence of God(s). . . mere wordplay

I'm sorry to say, but your brand of atheism which includes only disbelief is not a worldview and we are discussing worldviews here.

"My brand of atheism"?

Look at your analogy well sir, what does a man having sex with his wife have to do with having a coherent worldview?

You said one requires "ABSOLUTE knowledge" to logically be an atheist(belief in non-existence of God). If a man is married to a woman, then it is logical to believe they've had sex based on the absolute FINITE knowledge of their marriage.

The point is, one doesn't need absolute knowledge to logically believe anything, you only need finite knowledge.

On the other hand, when there is a lack of tangible knowledge/evidence, then the logical conclusion is not to believe, be it in God, Santa Claus or Bigfoot

Since there is no evidence(hypothesis of the "unmoved mover" doesn't count as evidence) to suggest God exists, then surely it IS LOGICAL to believe he doesn't(atheism).

How one comes to the conclusion atheism is illogical beats me.

logic1:

What do you mean by the above statement?

I presume that "born" and "die" as you use them are not literal.

If you are really immortal then you are not physical or at least you have a non-physical side of you and thus you really are not an atheist (the kind that only believes what his 5 senses tell him or her)

You are referring to my signature, i presume. Yes, the real me is immortal having a transient physical experience. and that goes for everybody else. We are all immortals having a temporary physical experience.

No, i am not physical, but my body is. I inhabit my body to be able to experience this physical reality. We humans are all spiritual beings and not physical. When our bodies expire(what we call 'die'), we go back to being who we really are. We never die because we were never born. Our physical bodies are born and ultimately die, but not us. We simply shed the bodies and move on to the next bodies for the next experiences in the next realities. And that cycle is endless.

That is what my signature is saying. I am the one observing what i am experiencing. I am the one who is behind my eyes. I am the one who sees all that i see. I am the AWARENESS. Just that. Pure awareness.

logic1:

Theists believe that the creator is not physical but of another dimension and therefore not bound by the physical law that dictates that all physical matter is created by something other than itself. 

There is one important thing that you are missing here and need to know. Just because an entity is living in another dimension does not mean that it is not physical like us. It is just another physical being living in another dimension which is just as physical as our own. Maybe with different physical laws, yes, but still physical, anyway. Physical bodies will be needed to live in any dimension. They may be different in properties and characteristics, but still physical bodies nonetheless. It is only through our thinking that we believe entities living in another dimension have to be ethereal, but i don't believe they are. In their own world, definitely not.

logic1:

The only probable thing is that a non-physical phenomena caused or created the physical phenomena through some process which we cannot understand now. 

That is something we will never know.

logic1:

You have to bend over backwards and break scientific laws to even argue that any physical body can spontaneously come into existence in a vacuum.
It is not scientifically tenable that there was always physical matter because physical matter cannot just exist without having been caused/created by another process - something outside of itself

This is not my argument. My proposal is that objects such as the universe physically exist in some form.

logic1:

This is precisely the reason why scientists don't argue with the concept of the uncaused cause.

Causality is more in the realm of philosophy than science.

logic1:

The fact that we can measure time within a frame of reference is precisely what should tell one that time itself is an absolute dimension that does not reference something else.

Huh? What do you mean?

logic1:

The dimensions of the universe are known so there is something like "outside our universe".

Sorry but we do not have enough information to know that such a concept is viable.

logic1:

Richard Dawkins even posited the idea of multiverses and there have been multiple scientific propositions based on multiple universes.

Yes and there are other propositions that universes give rise to other universes we simply do not know which one is correct.

logic1:

The universe is finite and it is made up of physical matter. The physical matter in the universe must have been caused by something. Science points to a big bang but since the big bang is a physical phenomena it must have been caused by something else.

Again with this assumption of yours referring to a causal factor without your evidence for this alternate time-line.