By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - If Hitchen's challenge is correct, then why are there ethical lapses?

BenVTrigger said:

This post is not even remotly true.  And can be easily swept away with a simple thought experiment.

Imagine you decide to make a drawing.  You draw a big picture with a couple people in it, a house, some birds etc.  You just created your own "world" and Creatures inside of it.  Now if the figures in the drawing were capable of thought and speech and they looked around the drawing and saw all this creation but did not observe you within the drawing they might say to themselves "Look at this amazing drawing! It must have drawn itself since we cant see an artist!"

You exist OUTSIDE of your creation, not within it.  In fact this is true of everything.  If you paint a picture, if you build a sculpture, or design a video game.  In every case you yourself exist wholly seperate from the creation.  The entire point atheism makes about god cant be real because you cant observe him defies both logic and science.  Whatever created the Universe would never exist inside it.


I will play your game. But just so you know, we aren't talking about atheism in general. Atheism is not about saying the universe created itself. You're talking about subset of atheism.

Anyway, this is easy. Sure, you can call it absurd that something can create itself. Fine, I wouldn't argue with it. BUT religion claims the same thing - God created itself too! At this point the two are on equal ground. You can't say either is more absurd because both make the claim that an entity can create itself.

The thing that makes religion worse is the fact that it assumes an extra entity. The other one does not.

Here, let me map it out for you.

Theory A:
- The Universe exists
- Something can create itself

Theory B:
- The Universe exists
- God exists
- Something can create itself

Both A & B make some bold assumptions. But which is the bigger assumption*? Hmm.....

*Hint: It's the one that makes more assumptions

But here is the best theory of all:

Theory C:
- The Universe exists
- The cause of this is currently unknown



Around the Network
Jay520 said:
BenVTrigger said:

This post is not even remotly true.  And can be easily swept away with a simple thought experiment.

Imagine you decide to make a drawing.  You draw a big picture with a couple people in it, a house, some birds etc.  You just created your own "world" and Creatures inside of it.  Now if the figures in the drawing were capable of thought and speech and they looked around the drawing and saw all this creation but did not observe you within the drawing they might say to themselves "Look at this amazing drawing! It must have drawn itself since we cant see an artist!"

You exist OUTSIDE of your creation, not within it.  In fact this is true of everything.  If you paint a picture, if you build a sculpture, or design a video game.  In every case you yourself exist wholly seperate from the creation.  The entire point atheism makes about god cant be real because you cant observe him defies both logic and science.  Whatever created the Universe would never exist inside it.


I will play your game. But just so you know, we aren't talking about atheism in general. Atheism is not about saying the universe created itself. You're talking about subset of atheism.

Anyway, this is easy. Sure, you can call it absurd that something can create itself. Fine, I wouldn't argue with it. BUT religion claims the same thing - God created itself too! At this point the two are on equal ground. You can't say either is more absurd because both make the claim that an entity can create itself.

The thing that makes religion worse is the fact that it assumes an extra entity. The other one does not.

Here, let me map out the assumptions for you.

Theory A:
- The Universe exists
- Something can create itself

Theory B:
- The Universe exists
- God exists
- Something can create itself

Both A & B make some bold assumptions. But which is the bigger assumption*? Hmm.....

*Hint: It's the one that makes more assumptions


No not really.  The Universe obeys by its own laws.  Just like the figures in the drawing do.  No where in the known Universe do we see examples of creation out of wholly nothing.  It has laws.  Just like the figures in the drawing couldnt suddenly become 3 dimensional beings or jump out of the paper.  One law we observe in the universe is matter is pretty much a constant and cant just self create itself.

A God however would exist outside of the Universe and wouldnt have to obey by its laws.  Just like you yourself can be 3 dimensional and capable of things your 2 dimensional drawings could never imagine as being real.  The belief the Universe created itself also hinges on the belief that from chaos naturally things gain order, another non observable trait that defies known science and logic.



BenVTrigger said:

You exist OUTSIDE of your creation, not within it.  In fact this is true of everything.  If you paint a picture, if you build a sculpture, or design a video game.  In every case you yourself exist wholly seperate from the creation.  The entire point atheism makes about god cant be real because you cant observe him defies both logic and science.  Whatever created the Universe would never exist inside it.

What if I build a house?



...

BenVTrigger said:


No not really.  The Universe obeys by its own laws.  Just like the figures in thw drawing do.  No where in the known Universe do we see examples of creation out of wholly nothing.  It has laws.  Just like the figures in the drawing coildnt suddenly become 3 dimensional beings or jump out of the paper.  One law we observe in the universe is matter is pretty much a constant and cant just self create itself.

A God however would exist outside of the Universe and wouldnt have to obey by its laws.  Just like you yourself can be 3 dimensional and capable of things your 2 dimensional drawings could never imagine as being real.  The belief the Universe created itself also hinges on the belief that from chaos naturally things gain order, another non observable trait that defies known science and logic.


observable universe =/= Universe

We have no idea what goes on outside the observable universe and thus have no idea of its laws. So no, we don't know what laws it obeys by. 

So you have nothing against the universe that can't be applied to religion. Religion has all the problems of the universe creating itself +1.

Also, I hope you have found out what atheism encompasses since we aren't talking about atheism. Have you conceded that atheism is not a religion?



Torillian said:
BenVTrigger said:

You exist OUTSIDE of your creation, not within it.  In fact this is true of everything.  If you paint a picture, if you build a sculpture, or design a video game.  In every case you yourself exist wholly seperate from the creation.  The entire point atheism makes about god cant be real because you cant observe him defies both logic and science.  Whatever created the Universe would never exist inside it.

What if I build a house?


Then you CAN go inside it.  You dont have to though and the concept of your existance doesnt hinge on if someone can see you.  Whoever lives in the house will assume theres a builder by seeing your creation.  They dont have to directly observe you in order for it to be true



Around the Network
BenVTrigger said:
Torillian said:
BenVTrigger said:

You exist OUTSIDE of your creation, not within it.  In fact this is true of everything.  If you paint a picture, if you build a sculpture, or design a video game.  In every case you yourself exist wholly seperate from the creation.  The entire point atheism makes about god cant be real because you cant observe him defies both logic and science.  Whatever created the Universe would never exist inside it.

What if I build a house?


Then you CAN go inside it.  You dont have to though and the concept of your existance doesnt hinge on if someone can see you.  Whoever lives in the house will assume theres a builder by seeing your creation.  They dont have to directly observe you in order for it to be true


But all that means is we can't disprove something that exists outside the laws of what we know.  Which is true since you take away every tool we've ever come up with for measuring or observing things around us.  That doesn't prove there is such a thing, just that we can't make you stop believing in it.  If I said that the land of My Little Pony was in another dimension you couldn't really disprove that either.

Also, the true view from a science perspective (which is the bulk of what atheism is based on) is that we just don't know how the universe came to be, but we're working on it.  it's true that science has not yet reached a satisfactory understanding of what that beginning was like, but it doesn't mean we should just assume some god did it.  That defeats the whole purpose.



...

Jay520 said:
BenVTrigger said:


No not really.  The Universe obeys by its own laws.  Just like the figures in thw drawing do.  No where in the known Universe do we see examples of creation out of wholly nothing.  It has laws.  Just like the figures in the drawing coildnt suddenly become 3 dimensional beings or jump out of the paper.  One law we observe in the universe is matter is pretty much a constant and cant just self create itself.

A God however would exist outside of the Universe and wouldnt have to obey by its laws.  Just like you yourself can be 3 dimensional and capable of things your 2 dimensire onal drawings could never imagine as being real.  The belief the Universe created itself also hinges on the belief that from chaos naturally things gain order, another non observable trait that defies known science and logic.


observable universe =/= Universe

We have no idea what goes on outside the observable universe and thus have no idea of its laws. So no, we don't know what laws it obeys by. 

So you have nothing against the universe that can't be applied to religion. Religion has all the problems of the universe creating itself +1.

Also, I hope you have found out what atheism encompasses since we aren't talking about atheism.

Most Atheism believes the Universe is self replicant.  Something I just cant behind when weve never observed it. we HAVE observed someone creating something however and logically speaking it just seems like a more sound choice.  Again Ill use another thought experiment to illustrate my point.

Imagine you take 2000 bricks, a couple pounds of cement, and a bunch of TNT.  You put them all into a pile and blow up the TNT.  You repeat this process every time for 1 million years.  The pieces after the explosion never come together to build a house. In fact there is always pure chaos withpieces strewn everywhere without order.  The big bang (something most people who believe in Universe self creation believe) is this on an unimaginably bigger scale.  We never even get a house after a small explosion and Im expected to believe something as infinitly complex as the Universe is possible after the same senario?

If you walk up and see a house which is more logical.  That the house built itself or that a carpenter built it.



Torillian said:
BenVTrigger said:
Torillian said:
BenVTrigger said:

You exist OUTSIDE of your creation, not within it.  In fact this is true of everything.  If you paint a picture, if you build a sculpture, or design a video game.  In every case you yourself exist wholly seperate from the creation.  The entire point atheism makes about god cant be real because you cant observe him defies both logic and science.  Whatever created the Universe would never exist inside it.

What if I build a house?


Then you CAN go inside it.  You dont have to though and the concept of your existance doesnt hinge on if someone can see you.  Whoever lives in the house will assume theres a builder by seeing your creation.  They dont have to directly observe you in order for it to be true


But all that means is we can't disprove something that exists outside the laws of what we know.  Which is true since you take away every tool we've ever come up with for measuring or observing things around us.  That doesn't prove there is such a thing, just that we can't make you stop believing in it.  If I said that the land of My Little Pony was in another dimension you couldn't really disprove that either.

Also, the true view from a science perspective (which is the bulk of what atheism is based on) is that we just don't know how the universe came to be, but we're working on it.  it's true that science has not yet reached a satisfactory understanding of what that beginning was like, but it doesn't mean we should just assume some god did it.  That defeats the whole purpose.

Its not assumption its logic.  See my previous post.  The notion that science and a belief in god cant co exist is absurd and one of the biggest problems in modern day "scientific circles"



BenVTrigger said:

Most Atheism believes the Universe is self replicant.  Something I just cant behind when weve never observed it. we HAVE observed someone creating something however and logically speaking it just seems like a more sound choice.  Again Ill use another thought experiment to illustrate my point.

We haven't, actually. We have observed people taking materials and rearranging them into a house, but we have never witnessed someone creating a house from nothing.



badgenome said:
BenVTrigger said:

Most Atheism believes the Universe is self replicant.  Something I just cant behind when weve never observed it. we HAVE observed someone creating something however and logically speaking it just seems like a more sound choice.  Again Ill use another thought experiment to illustrate my point.

We haven't, actually. We have observed people taking materials and rearranging them into a house, but we have never witnessed someone creating a house from nothing.


But weve witnessed intelligant design.  Something that seems apparent in all things.

Answer the question.  If you came up to the Mona Lisa or Statue of David which is more logical.  To believe that they created themselves or that a sculpture / painter made them.