VGPolyglot said:
sabvre42 said:
Its funny how aethiests twist science and even inferential statistics to "prove their point." For example, by stating that the burden of proof lies on proving god exists/ the null hypothesis is necessarily the lack of god.
The fallacy with these arguments is that it requires just as much FAITH to believe in the infinite universe than it does to believe in a creator. Furthermore, based on applying the laws of the universe as we know it... its actually more irrational to believe in NOTHING than something.
The most fundamental rule of physics state that energy CANNOT be created, and instead, only change forms. This implies that without a creator... the ONLY alternative is the infinite universe. HOWEVER, this causes two paradoxes: first, based on modern science -- the universe is NOT infinite due to the fact that expansion is accelerating; second, without a creator... an event... or some abstract concept of creation.... can our universe exist? The infinite universe violates the entire concept of reality that humans understand. EVERYTHING has a cause. SOMETHING must have created the universe (not necessarily a conscious being).
Conversely, a god/event/creator does NOT actually fall into this paradox, as they are outside of the rules that define this paradox. In DND the game master can determine that every single being in their universe is green. This DOES NOT mean that the Game master is green... its a fabrication of their thought.
So I leave this on you. Prove to me that a creator does not exist as the burden of proof lies on the person making the outlandish claim.
|
The burden of proof relies on people proving that something does exist, not that it doesn't. If God does exist, then people should be able to prove it. If people claim that the universe is really infinite (which by the way I do not believe that scientists are stating that the universe is truly infinite, they are merely considering that as a possibility: now they are trying to see if it is true or not), then they have to prove it as well. How about instead of believing in a creator, let's just accept that we do not know about the origins of the universe and not believe in something until it is proven.
|
See this is the ignorance of the aethist. Saying that god does not exist is not the same as saying, this will not boil if i apply heat. You are applying your own bias to science as you are expecting a paradox yet still claim it.
You CANNOT write a null hypothesis with an expected paradox ( unless you are an aethiest apparently).
