Now that the dust has settled, what's the verdict?

Retarded.

people that believe in God are fucking nut jobs. might as well believe in Santa Claus lmao.

>>8380366
Says increasingly nervous athiest for the 1000th time

There's arguments for both sides. The true fools are the ones who are sure everyone else is wrong

>>8380450
lmao I'm not an atheist. I just think anyone that believes in God is a nut.

>>8380333
perhaps useful for braindead analytic 12-year-old anglo faggots such as yourself
the rest of the world is well beyond

>>8380333
overtly positivist

>>8380456
What would make some not a nut? There are perfectly rational arguments for believing in god

>>8380489
like?

>>8380600
How did the big bang come from nothing

All arguments are correct, but it's not deep and merely a constatation of simple facts. Worthless philosophically and literarily.

Let's just call it "the encyclopedia of why religion sucks".

>>8380624
Are you serious? Underdetermination.

It is intellectually dishonest to attribute something to a deity simply because we lack the understanding at the time.

>>8380624
How is that "nothing" god?

>>8380624
the big bang is just a theory, i can be an atheist and not worry about how everything started because if we compare the age of the universe to the age of humanity, ours is literally depreciable, so we can't just figure stuff out that easily, settling down believing in a god is just the lazy and ignorant way to see the world.

God is the most okay deity :^)

>>8380648
>>8380649
>>8380650
His point was messy but regardless of what you believe in, logically everything has an origin

This means we must believe in eternal regression (which isn't logical personally) or that everything came from nothing

Since neither of these follow logic we are capable of understanding, the origins of our world must be due to something above it, possibly a diety

>>8380650
>>8380648
The point is whatever your belief about the origin of the universe is, is just as rational as believing in a god. You have no intellectual high ground here except the option to not provide a theory. Use empiricism, logic, data, praxeology, it doesn't matter, your argument for the origin of the universe is no way more rational than the hypothesis that there is a god

>>8380672
the hypothesis of there being a god is just a way to try and understand that which is unknowable given the lack of knowledge. and whether or not some "being" did create everything, it's completely nonsense to use that as an excuse for any manmade religion which is clearly half baked and made by bronze age conmen to control others.

>>8380333
>a biologist steps out of his jurisdiction and nobody takes him seriously outside of reddit.

nice trips.

>>8380456
>lmao

Hello, 19 year pseudo-intellectual who just discovered atheism.

>>8380894
I'm 26

>>8380845
You can believe in a god without organized religion

There is no clear answer to all the questions of the universe and that causes there to be many different hypothesis. People who have similar ideas tend to organize. Those who believe they are more rational than others on the conclusions they have come to on this question have no support for that idea. I personally think it's more rational to not kill myself in the name of Islam but I can only speculate as to wether believing in Allah or believing in Jesus or believing in nothing is the correct conclusion

>>8380896
Wew lad

That makes it worse

File: 1461617547366.jpg (33KB, 634x606px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 634x606px

>>8380671

>His point was messy but regardless of what you believe in, logically everything has an origin

I'm no expert but from what I can piece together all matter within the universe existed with a space the size of an atom. 13.5 billion years ago a reaction with said universe happened, causing the universe as we know it to exist. So before this, everything was contained within this one point for what I assume was a very long/ infinite amount of time.

>This means we must believe in eternal regression (which isn't logical personally) or that everything came from nothing

See reasoning above.

>Since neither of these follow logic we are capable of understanding, the origins of our world must be due to something above it, possibly a diety

Occam's razor, if you introduce a greater being, you have greater questions to answer.

Again, I'm no expert but I find it easier to reason a universe without a creator than a universe with one.

>>8380671
Physics are not intuitive.

Your brain evolved to deal with middle-sized objects at middle-speeds.

There are many things in physics that we know to be facts and would be deemed illogical, per instance the double-slit experiment.

>>8381111
The entire logic behind a creator is that the creation of our universe is inherently illogical because of how it goes back

Introducing this idea of a creator solves this problem because it's assumed the creator is not logical, therefore not following our laws of logic and allowing the creation of the universe

This is the only way I personally think the creation of our universe is possible, and regardless of other opinions the first poster was correct in saying there are reasons to believe in a god
It's really just Aristotle's theory of the original mover, except the original mover wouldn't be on the same plane of existence as we are

>>8381117
So are you arguing in favour of eternal regression or creation of everything from nothing?

If it's the latter consider this post>>8381119 with the argument of the original mover

>>8381119
>the only possibility is god

>what is a megaverse
>what are multiverses
>what is loop casualty
>what are black holes
>what is a simulation
>what is anti-matter popping in and out of existence in absolute vacuum

>>8381125
see >>8381126

>>8381126
all of those things are God you dingus

>>8381119

What is illogical about the theory put forward?

The universe existed within this atom-sized space, a reaction within this space happened cusing instability which then created the big bang.

What part is illogical?

>>8381135
That much matter contracted in a single point is inherently unstable.

>>8381135

>cusing
>causing

Fix'd

>>8381137

Yeah exactly, hence the big bang

>>8381135
The existence of it in the first place is illogical since you're assuming at the beginning of everything there was already something

As stated before, if you keep going back you'll logically have to reach a creation point when there was absolutely nothing (or illogically it keeps going back and back forever, which is just as possible in my opinion)

Either way, you'll have to reach a point with whichever theory something that defies traditional human logic (either everything comes from nothing, or there is no such thing as a start)

>>8381126
Again, if you keep going back it either has a start when nothing exists, or it keeps going back forever.
If there is a start, it is necessary for there to be something that defies logic by creating everything from nothing.
If there isn't a start then there is no origin and everything has always existed, which doesn't follow human logic

>>8381147
Human logic is irrelevant.

If you have two slits, and you throw an elementary particle, the particle goes through both slits, there's no logic

Human logic is just "what mid-sized objects at mid-speeds do"

>>8381152
When discussing things you can't prove (ie how did existence come into creation) human logic is the only tool

Trying to prove such things is like trying to give a concrete answer on what's beyond the visible universe, one can only deduct logically with what they have

>>8380366
I don't like the book, but that's not really what's in the book. You should honestly try reading sometime anon.

>>8381147

>The existence of it in the first place is illogical since you're assuming at the beginning of everything there was already something

You're understanding of space-time is lacking anon.

I'm going to point out again in not an expert on the matter but if you have all of the universe in this one point it's going to be super-heavy to the point that time doesn't flow like we perceive it now. Think black holes.

You look at it like a book, a beginning-story-ending. I look at it like it always existed and will always exist.

>As stated before, if you keep going back you'll logically have to reach a creation point when there was absolutely nothing (or illogically it keeps going back and back forever, which is just as possible in my opinion)

I'm going to assume you mean impossible, my question is why you can think god can exist outside of these parameters but not a universe contained within an atom for a infinite amount of time?

>Either way, you'll have to reach a point with whichever theory something that defies traditional human logic (either everything comes from nothing, or there is no such thing as a start)

Didn't you even point out the reason you believe in good is because he is illogical?

See >>8381119

Thank you for your well-mannered discussion it is a refreshing change on 4chan

>>8381176
No, mathematical models that accurately predict our observations are the tools.

It's not a matter of just extrapolating linearly.

Relativity is not intuitive. Singularities are not intuitive. Quantum physics are not intuitive. What "seems logical" means nothing.

The universality of the laws of physics, the homogeneity of the universe, the principle of casualty. We only know those are true post-Planck epoch. All our equations break before that.

Singularity therefore God is funny, because black holes are as much of a singularity as the Big Bang

Are black holes God?

File: giphy.gif (322KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 500x281px

>>8381196

From what I hear from "gay sex anonymous," your black hole is God!

Hey-O

>>8380624
>cosmological argument
Here should be a derogatory citation from Schopehnauer, but I'm too lazy to look for one.

Also you misunderstand the big bang theory. It doesn't imply it was the beginning of "everything", or that there was "nothing" beyond it. It's simply outside the scope of said theory.

horrible horrible book

>>8381189
I still don't understand what the conclusion is

Do you believe in a beginning, creation of everything, or infinite regression

>>8381550

>I still don't understand what the conclusion is
>Do you believe in a beginning, creation of everything, or infinite regression

This is a false trichotomy. I'm not saying any of those ideas aren't possible just there are more options and that the simplest solution is that the universe has always existed. Just that before the big bang it was an infinitely small size.

With all matter existing in this small speck, think of the gravitational force being expelled. Time and space react differently with this sort of force don't they?

I've said plenty of times I'm not an expert in this subject, and plenty of other subjects but this is the most reasonable explanation for the universe I have heard, by all means please continue believing in a creator if that helps you. I'm not here to convert you. I'm just saying your view of what qualifies as illogical/logical is a little narrow.

>>8380650
All empirical knowledge is "just a theory", is that supposed to be an argument for something?

>>8381192
>you have never been to a quantum class
it's actually not that counter intuitive or spooky mysticism that all those NOVA documentaries lead you to believe bruh bruh

>>8380333
He may be right but he's not a good writer.

Also reactionary theists please go.

>>8380450
>increasingly nervous
>there are more atheists than ever before in the history of humans

Nervous about what exactly? Is there new evidence that would prove the truthfulness of your assumptions about reality?

>>8380489
you've got it wrong. The reason for believing in god doesnt come from rationality but faith, Metaphysical questions such as "why are we here" and "What is our origin" is not in the realm of rationality or empiricism, it's only human error which puts it there.

>>8380650
>just a theory

the word "theory" doesn't mean what you think it means
get in the fucking sack

>>8380624
How does not knowing how it happened lead to "god did it"? Where did god come from? You just inserted a proxy and end up with the same problem again.

A similar hypothesis made of similarly thin air is that the universe was created as a computer simulation in some other-dimensional computer. Where did the computer come from? How could we test that it was a computer? It's pointless line of argument as it can't possibly be tested. And it's just as likely as your "god did it" assumption, both can't be tested and both have no evidence to indicate they are true.

Even if there was a deity that created the universe and we ignore the question where that deity came from, there is nothing that would indicate that this deity is the personal god of the Abrahamic religions or that it takes any influence on the events in the universe at all. It could have created the universe and then disappeared for all we know.

>>8381119
>The entire logic behind a creator is that the creation of our universe is inherently illogical because of how it goes back
We have no idea how far it goes back, what happened before the Big Bang, or that the universe is necessarily logical

There are also potentially billions of other arguments that allow the universe to have been created that do not involve a singular creator

That's not to say that believing in a creator is then necessarily wrong, it's just that there is not enough information for a cosmological argument

>>8381126
none of these are an answer to the ultimate problem, which, of course, is: why is there anything rather than nothing.

>>8380333
>Now that the dust is settled, tell me what to think
kys

I would actually also like an answer to OP's question, I had read a part of this book 6 years ago when I was in my atheist phase, but I don't actually remember much of it.

what's so bad about it?
is it just entirely philosophically inconsistent?

>>8381942
His arguments against believing in god (atheism) are mostly sound, at least if you accept his argument that the existence of a god who influences reality is a scientific question. He also points out the flaws in common creationist pseudo-scientific arguments.

His anti-theism arguments are not that great, he fails to prove that not having religion is better than having religion, from a practical standpoint.

The book is rather shallow philosophically, which is mostly due to the fact that it is aimed at a general audience rather than scholars. And his knowledge about theology is limited at best, though one could argue that doesn't really matter because he attacks the basic assumptions of theology rather than the conclusions or logical consistency of it.

If you want a book that disproves the existence of god, then this isn't it. If you want a rigorous scientific paper, then this isn't it either. If you want a philosophy text book about religion and atheism, then this isn't it either.

If you don't know anything about the topic and never really questioned the doctrines of religion or creationism then this book might be exactly what you are looking for.

>>8382094
thank you

it's shit.

it lacks in both literary and philosophical merit, and studying it from a scientific standpoint would be laughable

>>8381942
Here's the heart of the God Delusion:

"If God created the universe, then who created God?"

While he doesn't write "checkmate theists!" afterwards, he may as well have. And the notion of an eternal non-created God seems to elude his consciousness.

>>8382709
Probably because as a scientific / rational / logical human being, he's not willing to accept the grandiose notion of an eternal, non-created God without hard evidence and fact, of which there is none.

"If God created the universe, then who created God?" is a completely valid response to the claim "God created the universe" and there is no satisfactory answer, only speculative possibilities.

>>8380450
That's too easy a position to take.

>>8380638
I.e., the perfect thing to make a 15 year-old think critically about religion for the first time. There's its value.

>>8381192
Doesn't inferring theories from observations "seem logical" even if we can't exclude the possibility that we're brains in vats?

>>8381192
>Relativity is not intuitive.

Even if reality is counter-intuitive, it's intuitive to use tools which reliably produce comprehensible, empirical results. We know enough about reality to distinguish between what seems and is logical, precisely because of reliable and reasoned methods that produce these results.

>>8380333
I thought it was a decent read, but I preferred Christopher's edition. It probably helps that the latter was a writer.

>>8382729
>Probably because as a scientific / rational / logical human being, he's not willing to accept the grandiose notion of an eternal, non-created God without hard evidence and fact, of which there is none.

Even if we found it, I bet he'd just dismiss it. He's very dogmatic.

>>8383310
Dismissing worthless hypotheses which don't have any factual support whatsoever is the literal opposite of dogma.

>>8381119
Actually, a lot of Christian/apologist thinkers argue that God is constrained by logic. For example, Boethius argued that God is capable of the physically impossible, but not of the logically impossible. He also argued that this did not contradict the principle of omnipotence, but I didn't really understand where he was coming from there.

>>8382949
Logic is ideology

File: iyixQv9.jpg (838KB, 3845x1824px) Image search: [Google]

838KB, 3845x1824px

>>8380333
Pleb book

File: image.jpg (8KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x250px

>>8380333
If God doesn't exist then how did Mary get pregnant?

>>8383413
You got me

>>8382729
>"If God created the universe, then who created God?" is a completely valid response to the claim "God created the universe" and there is no satisfactory answer, only speculative possibilities.

But this is the problem with Dawkins and why he's shit. He leaves the question unanswered and unexamined, which is really rather unscientific and leads to dogma. He criticizes
Aquinas without actually having any understanding of what Aquinas was actually arguing. He completely missed Aquinas' examination of the principles of the Eternal Actual, which very logically and specifically state exactly why God must be the eternal actual and can not have Himself been created. Dawkins fails by not following the argument all the way through. He gets to the point of a prime mover but then stops short of examining the eternal principles of said creator and just spergs out and says "ITS DUH T-TURDLES ALL DUH WAY D-D-DOWN STUPID THEISTS!"

In short, Dawkins is philosophically and theologically illiterate and proudly and arrogantly displays this.

>>8383582
All of this is implying Aquinas said anything worthwhile ever and that any of his arguments are sound.

>>8384813

which of course they are. They're not without criticism, but if you think Dawkins gives a good or honest analysis and criticism of them, you should read some more philosophy.