The same reason why Catholic Church exists. Power, control, and wealthness. Is now my comparison clear?
I’m sorry to read about that, but I can unsubscribe if you don’t please to try to understand my point of view.
What is your point of view exactly?
First you identify as an atheist …
Then you have a “who” “creating” - Hahahaha
If you want to see my unbaptism record I can show you…it’s framed in my bedroom…
Who told you it was created. If created, where in the hell did you get the idea it was created from nothing? How did you rule out natural causes? And finally; how in the hell did you get to a ‘who.’
Given that we have no idea at all how the universe or why the universe began to expand, why would you make the assumption there was a ‘who’ behind anything?
Do you understand what nothing is? How in the hell would you create something from nothing. You do understand that no one, other than a theist, has ever made that claim. And when they make the claim they are engaged in an equivocation fallacy. They equate the philosophical (absolute nothing) with the scientific (Quantum Field’s nothing) which is not actually nothing. Empty space is full of shit. It is no longer thought of as ‘absolute nothing.’ The Universe is a thing. It has a boundary. It has mass. It is distinct from what is outside it. We have no idea at all what is beyond the universe. The cosmos is a mystery. Guess What? You do not get to assert the Cosmos is ‘nothing’ without evidence.
If you are going to assert "nothing’ exists, you must provide evidence for this ‘nothing’ you speak of.
Your comparison fails because all sane adults know Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, the boogeyman, and the tooth fairy are fictional characters. We maintain that illusion to please us or control children, fully understanding that one day the children will realize Santa is not real.
The church and religion maintain that all of their invented nonsense is very real. They expect you to believe their stories to your very end.
Power, control and wealth, definitely yes as far as religion.
That’s the point. If someone should have created the universe, someone else should ha ve created the creator.
So: why a creator is needed if even the creator needs to be created? Ever read Why I’m not a Christian by Bertrand Russell? I’m guilty to try to prove that the contrast between agnosticism and atheism is useless.
Who? What? It’s a rethorical question…
No it’s not. I’m actually giving you more “wiggle room” than I normally do, just because I’m hoping it’s a language thing.
BUT in any language a “who” is an entity/agent. I don’t use that language to describe the universe.
How can I describe an imaginary friend? Which personal pronoun should I use? My apologise if my english isn’t perfect.
“Who” implies an intelligent agent, a person or god or imaginary friend, something.
“What” leaves open the possibility the consequences of physics, for example.
NO. You are not being logical at all. The simple fact that there was a creator, does not lead to an infinite regression. If there was a creator, there is no logical reason that creator could not be eternal.
You have not set up the argument from causality properly. You merely made an assertion. Your assertion places the burden of proof on you. Demonstrate that an Un-created Eternal Creator could not have created the universe.
You do not understand what you are arguing. A creator does not need to be created. Please demonstrate this assertion and how you came to know this fact?
There is no contrast between agnosticism and atheism. WTF are you talking about. Agnosticism is about what you can Know. Atheism is about what you believe.
Agnostic theists (Ala Pascal’s Wager) Believe in God without knowing anything.
Agnostic Atheists do not believe in God or gods based on the fact that they don’t see any good reasons to believe in God. There is no good knowledge.
When you get right down to it… everyone is agnostic to some degree. As soon as a theist says “Well you just gotta have faith.” He or she is admitting agnosticism, NO KNOWLEDGE.
There is no contrast… what are you talking about?
“This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause”. (I’m just quoting the meaning of first cause as Bertrand Russell wrote on his book).
Thank you, in my mother tongue it’s not so relevant, but I’m poor in english. That’s what I texted on my first post.
YOU IDIOT! Go back and read what you wrote. You are now adding shit to your assertion. At no point did you say “EVERYTHING HAD A CAUSE.”
Are you that fucking stupid. I understand there may be a language barrier but you don’t get to shift gears in the middle of your BULLSHIT.
You are CHANGING YOUR ARGUMENT. You did not make a causality argument.
I don’t give a fuck what Russel says. Do you have any idea at all “WHY” he says that? Quoting Russell gets you absolutely no place when you don’t even understand the basics of the argument.
People who quote can’t think for themselves. Tell me "WHY’ Russell said that.
What are you … 14 now? Your associations are so loose as to be laughable?
That’s what I think. God, The creator, Deus Ex Machina,The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Teapot, or whatever you like to call it, is not necessary to explain the universe.
I understand that you quoted someone else.
But is that what you believe?
This is a fallacy called “special pleading”. One lays out a set of rules to prove something, makes sure that rule applies to everything … but a god.
Image a football match, where all the players usually play by one set of rules. But one player is allowed to play by their own rules. Does it make sense that they are allowed to hold other players, be offside, or use their hands? Would anyone consider this a fair match?
Of course not, because one player was allowed to be exempt from the rules.
For us, it is not the rules of football, but logic, science, rational thought.
But if someone asserts that the universe couldn’t be created by nothing, someone else can reply that it could has been the same for God, The Creator…and so it goes.
I don’t believe. I know, or not. God… is out of every physics law. That’s what I know and why the difference about agnosticism and atheism is not so important for me. If someone dubbed me as an idiot, I’m sorry for him
YOU FUCKTARD — LEARN TO BE HONEST OR FUCK OFF. What you “THINK” is not what you fucking said. Do you imagine us to be Mind Readers?
You need to stop and try something different. This thread is not about “Explaining the Universe.” It was about your “Shame” in calling yourself and atheist. From the looks of it, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA what an ATHEIST is. You don’t know what a FIRST CAUSE argument is. You don’t understand CAUSALITY. You certainly don’t know WHY Russell said what he did. At best you are a POSER.
What in the fuck are you doing here?