RadiantDanceMachine said:
This is a wonderful example of dishonesty. Thank you, this is exactly what I wanted. The burden of proof lies with any claim maker. If the atheist is of the positive variety, i.e. embraces the claim "No gods exist" then indeed they do have a burden. However, if the atheist is of the negative variety, i.e. does not make any claims merely does not embrace the claim "God(s) exist" (more commonly known as agnostic...wrongly) then there is no burden. It requires no faith to believe that the Universe is infinite. You've even admitted to the facts which lead to that adbuctive inference...those being the expansion of the Universe (indeed, at a rate faster than the speed of light), as well as the fact that the Universe is already much larger than what we can observe. Furthermore, what does the expansion of the Universe have anything to do with atheism? You seem to have related completely unrelated things here. What is a belief in "nothing"? That isn't even a coherent sentence to me and certainly has nothing to do with atheism (again). Indeed, conservation of energy is preserved...and violated by the notion that a magical wizard manifested it into existence out of nothing. This is contrary to everything we know about physics and philosophy for that matter. Creatio ex nihilo is thought to be logically impossible in addition to being physically (nomologically) impossible. I trust you're aware that physicists do not believe that the Universe is a creatio ex nihilo event, but I can expound if necessary. Causality is a principle that applies temporally, however since time is thought not to have always been one cannot really comment about a contingency on causality when referencing the Universe itself. This is a abstraction problem on your behalf. No burden here, as I am not a positive atheist. Indeed it's a position which one could say is nearly as ridiculous as the theistic claim.
|
There is no such thing as an aegnostic aethist. You are simply an aegnostic with aethist tendancies. The term "aegnostic aethiest" is an oxymoron.
I have no qualm against aegnostics. You can believe in the flying spaghetti monster for all I care. My problem is with the person that claims to be an aethiest and therefore belives themselves intellectual superior (cause... reasons). The whole reason for this tread being created is narcissm. "I believe I am smarter than anyone who could believe in some *myth*". The fact is -- you need to understand that its not as binary as you think it to be.
The largest problem I have with the mainstream "aethiest" is that they assume god is either a sentient being - or nothing. God is a concept that the judiac religions personified.
Its kinda ironic how you reference casaulity only applying to our universe in our frame of reference -- but yet the concept of god is flawed for the same reason? Awefully hippocritical isn't it?