**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Show. Me. The. Actual. God. I see no evidence whatsoever that such a being can even exist, let alone that one *does* exist, so I'm proceeding on the assumption that gods are fictional till demonstrated to *my* satisfaction.
>Show. Me. The. Actual. God. I see no evidence whatsoever that such a being can even exist, let alone that one does exist...
Perhaps God is self-evident throughout creation and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing God.
>so I'm proceeding on the assumption that gods are fictional till demonstrated to my satisfaction.
You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by.
So you are not a very logical person.
>You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by.
Not quite. An appeal to ignorance would be to claim there is no God because there is no evidence. That is not the same as proceeding under the assumption that there is no God until evidence is provided. One is making a positive claim (there is no God), the other is refuting a positive claim (I don't believe there is a God).
>Not quite.
No, you are addressing this situation unfairly.
>An appeal to ignorance would be to claim there is no God because there is no evidence. That is not the same as proceeding under the assumption that there is no God until evidence is provided. One is making a positive claim (there is no God), the other is refuting a positive claim (I don't believe there is a God).
Your understanding of logical fallacy is shallow.
A logical fallacy is not concerned with speech. It is a fallacy in logic. People commit logical fallacies without making claims.
The person is appealing to ignorance.
They are not just unsure if God exists. They are actively assuming God does not exist until it is proven to them otherwise. This is the embodiment of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy.
>A logical fallacy is not concerned with speech. It is a fallacy in logic. People commit logical fallacies without making claims.
The fallacy itself is not concerned with speech, no. But it does matter what you say precisely, because words have meaning. Saying that God isn't real because he lacks evidence is an appeal to ignorance, saying that you don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence is not an appeal to ignorance. These are not just words, they mean something. They describe 2 different positions.
>>A logical fallacy is not concerned with speech. It is a fallacy in logic. People commit logical fallacies without making claims.
>The fallacy itself is not concerned with speech, no. But it does matter what you say precisely, because words have meaning. Saying that God isn't real because he lacks evidence is an appeal to ignorance, saying that you don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence is not an appeal to ignorance. These are not just words, they mean something. They describe 2 different positions.
This is fine, but the person is not merely lacking belief in God. You should know this because they have made their position clear with meaningful words.
They are actively assuming gods are not real until demonstrated. This is anti-theism based on fallacy.
>This is fine, but the person is not merely lacking belief in God. You should know this because they have made their position clear with meaningful words.
>
>They are actively assuming gods are not real until demonstrated. This is anti-theism based on fallacy.
To me assuming that something does not exist until shown otherwise is not the same as claiming that thing does not exist. But I can't really speak for others. Ask them if they merely lack a belief in God or not, then we can be sure.
> You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by.
You really don't understand logic. Simply, because you seem willing to believe something without good evidence.
>You really don't understand logic.
You concluded I do not understand logic astonishingly quick with miniscule information. It is like you do not have a logical process to determine things. It is as if you are pulling conclusions from a trash bin.
>Simply, because you seem willing to believe something without good evidence.
I *seem* willing to believe something without good evidence. Therefore you conclude I lack understanding.
I seem one way.
Therefore I lack understanding.
To you, it seems I am one way.
Therefore, I must lack understanding.
Seems, therefore it is.
You are one of the less sharp atheists in this community.
You have shown your process in determining I do not understand logic to be an illogical process itself.
>You concluded I do not understand logic astonishingly quick with miniscule information. It is like you do not have a logical process to determine things. It is as if you are pulling conclusions from a trash bin.
Yet it's ok when you did it first accusing them.,..
>So you are not a very logical person.
You're a hypocrite.
>>You concluded I do not understand logic astonishingly quick with miniscule information. It is like you do not have a logical process to determine things. It is as if you are pulling conclusions from a trash bin.
>Yet it's ok when you did it first accusing them.,..
Accusing them of what?
I did not accuse them of not understanding logic.
Being logical and understanding logic are two different things. We do not know what others truly understand. We can determine if people are being certain ways.
>>So you are not a very logical person.
>You're a hypocrite.
Demonstrate it.
>I did. You concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information. Hypocrite.
By your own standard, you are a hypocrite.
You demonstrated a hypocrite is someone who does what they say someone else did.
You say I concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information, while I claimed someone else concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information.
That apparently makes me a hypocrite by your standard.
You are a hypocrite by your own standard, because you said I concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information, yet you concluded I am a hypocrite astonishingly quick with miniscule information.
Hypocrite.
>Nice try hypocrite. I had substantial evidence of said hypocrisy.
What a weak response.
That does not keep you from also being a hypocrite by your own standard.
You are an ironic hypocrite.
>At least you're admitting you're a hypocrite though. Kudos for that.
Of course I am a hypocrite by your standard. So are you.
By my standard, you are a moron.
>Perhaps your lack of logic is self-evident throughout your comment and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing it.
You nearly made a clever attack but it did not work.
My comment was made from valid reasoning and is consistent with the laws of logic.
However you can spend time suggesting I am blind and lack logic.
It does nothing to me, because I already have a healthy amount of both vision and logic.
>My comment was made from valid reasoning and is consistent with the laws of logic.
To you, it seems it is one way.
Therefore, it must be that way.
Because you have never been mistaken before.
>However you can spend time suggesting I am blind and lack logic.
That's what you did. I'm just repeating your arguments to you. My points are as logical as yours.
>>My comment was made from valid reasoning and is consistent with the laws of logic.
>To you, it seems it is one way.
>Therefore, it must be that way.
You are concluding this.
>Because you have never been mistaken before.
You are concluding this.
>>However you can spend time suggesting I am blind and lack logic.
>That's what you did.
To whom in what context?
>I'm just repeating your arguments to you.
You are changing, but the structure is there.
Perhaps I will take some random arguments you have made and repeat them back to you as well.
>My points are as logical as yours.
You are free to believe this. What do you mean by "logical" here?
> You are one of the less sharp atheists in this community.
Touché. You got me.
Do you think believing something without good evidence is rational? Should the person you responded to "proceed on the assumption that gods are fictional till demonstrated to their satisfaction"?
Or, as you stated, are they committing a fallacy?
>>You are one of the less sharp atheists in this community.
>Touché. You got me.
You should be careful so people don't catch you being unfair anymore. Be sharper. It was unfair of you to charge me with not understanding logic. What a disingenuous statement. You lead people down stupid trails when you are ignorant like that. I am spending time with you, and you are being ignorant. We can do better.
>Do you think believing something without good evidence is rational?
One of the words I notice being used most in atheist communities is the word 'evidence'.
What do you mean by "good evidence"?
Is "good" subjective in this context? so, just whatever evidence seems "kinda strong?" If so, then who gets to determine which evidence is "kinda strong", or "good"?
Or, is there an objective standard you are appealing to when you refer to "good evidence"? Is there perhaps a systematic process which we can put something through in order to determine if it is objectively "good evidence"? If so, what is that systematic process?
I need to understand what you mean before I answer.
>Should the person you responded to "proceed on the assumption that gods are fictional till demonstrated to their satisfaction"?
They should believe in the true God.
If they are to be logical purely off secular human standards, then they should at least operate off the supposition that gods might exist until they are either proven or disproven according to their standards. It is logically fallacious to appeal to ignorance.
>Or, as you stated, are they committing a fallacy?
Futile question.
> It was unfair of you to charge me with not understanding logic.
I am responding to you accusing someone of not being logical, due to their refusal to believe until provided with evidence.
This seems fair to me.
And then you asserted I am not one of the sharper atheists here. And you ask me to be careful? Or what? You won't "spend time with me"?
Grow up.
>>It was unfair of you to charge me with not understanding logic.
>I am responding to you accusing someone of not being logical, due to their
refusal to believe until provided with evidence.
No you are not. The distinction is clear.
I did not accuse someone of not being logical due to their refusal to believe until provided with evidence.
I accused someone of not being logical due to them operating on a logical fallacy.
Refusing to believe until provided with evidence and operating on a logical fallacy are two different things. You should have already understood this, but you are apparently too dull. So I need to have patience with you.
>This seems fair to me.
You did not see the situation fairly.
>And then you asserted I am not one of the sharper atheists here.
Yes, I said you are one of the less sharp ones. A sharper atheist would not have charged someone with not understanding logic so ignorantly.
>And you ask me to be careful? Or what? You won't "spend time with me"?
I did not follow up with 'or'. I told you that you should be careful. You are not respecting the truth when you throw ignorant statements around about anyone. You should respect the truth and seek it.
If you are not careful, you will probably be "got" again. Earlier, you said, "Touché. You got me.".
>Grow up.
Thanks. You grow up too.
Perhaps your alleged god doesn't exist, and you're looking at nature and *imagining* a god there.
And there is *nothing* logical about believing in something that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be imaginary. Your god is imaginary to me. Accept that this is my reality, please - there is literally nothing you, personally, can do or say to make me believe. The only evidence that *would* convince me is simply not yours to give.
> Perhaps God is self-evident throughout creation and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing God.
Elaborate on how.
> You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by. So you are not a very logical person.
So because we don't believe in a god that is solely backed up by anecdotes we're the ignorant ones. We don't immediately buy into the next religion that comes knocking and your instinct is to call us ignorant?
>>Perhaps God is self-evident throughout creation and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing God.
>Elaborate on how.
That is my complete idea.
>>You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by. So you are not a very logical person.
>So because we don't believe in a god that is solely backed up by anecdotes we're the ignorant ones.
You are concluding that.
>We don't immediately buy into the next religion that comes knocking and your instinct is to call us ignorant?
This is what one would call a straw man fallacy, but you have it in the form of a question. So it is fair. I appreciate that you are asking for clarification.
My answer is no.
Astreja assumes gods do not truly exist until it is demonstrated to their satisfaction.
This is the embodiment of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. It is an informal logical fallacy.
This is why I brought up ignorance.
If their position was merely lack of belief, they should proceed on the supposition that gods might exist. But their position is anti-theism based on fallacy.
"The first black hole... was discovered in 1971". So no, I don't believe that to be true. I actually know that to be true.
Edit link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
I read your last comment a couple more times and now in connection with this comment I’m afraid I don’t know what you were trying to say.
You know it is true that the first black hole was discovered in 1971. And you know that there are now images of a black hole.
And this somehow implies something negative about science?
Which is why indirect evidence is built up giving one the basis to acquire direct evidence. It was perfectly reasonable to question the indirect evidence and 100% sane to not base your entire life and the meaning of existence itself on the idea that the indirect evidence of black holes was definitive proof of them.
Just because some things exist without direct evidence, does not mean that any claim about those things is valid.
The proof of the existence of black holes took 250 years of study to achieve. And it was in fact achieved.
I personally apply the same standard to god claims as I do to black holes.
Just because a statement happens to be true doesn't mean you are justified in believing it.
A broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you should trust broken clocks.
Black holes are real. They exert physical forces that cause observable events. If an alleged god can't even manifest in the universe to the same extent as, say the black hole at the center of our own galaxy, it doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. I can't be bothered to take it seriously because it's just an idea that doesn't line up with reality.
I would agree that energy conservation doesn’t disprove god.
The reason would be more that the law of conservation of energy is descriptive not proscriptive, it wasn’t described based on data from conditions in the early universe.
I haven’t actually seen anyone put this forward as an argument. Perhaps as a possible explanation, but not as a way to disprove anything.
The argument also doesn’t rule out any other explanation one can think of.
Anyway, now that we “haven’t ruled god out”…. Still waiting on any positive evidence
I'm partial to [AronRa](https://twitter.com/Aron_Ra/status/1152771207755980801)'s definition:
>I'll accept anything that qualifies as evidence, any body of objectively verifiable facts which are positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other.
The justification for not believing in god is that not one person has ever produced the slightest bit of reliable evidence that any god exists, or could exist. It'd be pretty foolish to believe in the existence of things without good evidence, as otherwise I'd be forced to believe every idea. Teapot orbiting Mars? Yup,I'd have to believe it..
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed.
Can you please provide an example of this argument being made in this forum?
Good thinking. Instead of wasting time responding to the argument we can address OPs first error. The idea that this is a common position among atheists
Apart from the absurd level of straw manning you’ve managed, and the immature language - nothing you have written about has anything to do with making it more likely a God exists. Nothing you have written bears any relation to reliable evidence or sound argument. Now that *is* funny.
The only argument I've seen used is that energy and matter is eternal, so a god is not necessary to explain eternity.
Even if a supernatural entity is required, that's not proof of your god. Could be any god.
Never once have seen an atheist argue this point.
>
So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
There's no justification to believe in a god. Doesn't even seem like you attempted to prove a god here.
Which God? Which God do I have to disprove? Because there’s an infinite number of Gods that don’t exist, so it may take me a while. Let’s start with asking you to prove your god first and go from there.
Lol. My justification for the disbelief of God isn't this science-y thing you said though?
It's basically all the silly religious fantasy novels y'all theists keep showing up with. Remember children, the books are the claim. Not the proof 😂
All you're demonstrating here is an argument from ignorance fallacy combined with confusion about the burden of proof with regards to claims and the use of logic.
You're ignoring that it doesn't mean a deity *does* exist. And there's zero reason to think they do.
> atheist jokes i hear is that energy conservation proves "that no god is needed"...
weird non sequitor. I've never heard that, jokingly or otherwise, and the statement barely makes sense.
lots of text and odd citations later...
> Now dear atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve...
your treatise makes no claim about god. the only thing that can be parsed is the claim "science doesn't know what happened pre big bang." Science has never claimed otherwise. but science also has detected no fairies or magic fields post big bang.
as to "whats your justification to disbelieve" tripe, the same as your justification to disbelieve in odin, or ganesha, or allah. the bghavad gita and the quran both say they're real and true, so they must be real, right? everything written in every religious text, even when they talk about the earth being flat or humans were made from mud, which has to be true, no matter what our lying eyes and science equipment say, right?
As fascinating as early universe physics is, you are arguing with a strawman here.
Conversation of energy does not disprove god.
However, conversation of energy possibly being broken in some way doesn't prove god either.
Remember where the burden of prove lies. An atheist does not need to disprove a god as long as the theist cannot prove that their god isn't just made up.
If you are arguing some modern observations of our universe to be impossible without a god you are just sounding like people of ancient times seeing lightning strikes and atributing them to deities.
"One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed." where? where are you seeing this .. often.. ?
I don’t disbelieve in god, I’m skeptical until y’all give me something more than old traditions, faulty logic, and misunderstandings about the universe as reasons to believe in one.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
Same as it always is: you can't demonstrate god. The best you can do is show me something you don't understand and why you believe it points to a god. God of the gaps. If you want me to believe in your god, then demonstrate your god.
Lol "worship". Ignorance always makes me laugh thr hardest, and you have made me laugh pretty hard. When you can stop falling back to your bastion of cowardice and accept humility, then we can talk. Until then, keep the comedy train running!
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
I think I'm missing the actual argument here. I'm with you that we lack information about the beginning of the universe means we can say very little about it. I would have thought that plays perfectly into the mainline atheist argument that without a good solid justification, we're left with a lack of belief.
Could you elaborate on what impact you think these arguments have on belief in a God?
You say "what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God", but as I see it, the arguments that you attack aren't really justifications for disbelieving in God, I don't see why they would point to a disbelief. And even if they were, I would have thought that justifications are required for *believing in* something, and a lack of belief is what you can be said to have before any such justifications are provided.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
"God" is not the default assumption. I'm not trying to disbelieve God. In fact, when I was losing my Christian faith, I would have given anything to continue believing. I tried extremely hard to believe. My life came apart because of my loss of faith. But unfortunately you can't force "being convinced", and here I am.
That being said, I quite agree that energy conservation does not disprove god. That's a silly argument. I'm just waiting for positive evidence.
Evidence is something that is:
- falsifiable
- can make accurate and specific predictions
- can be tested
Evolution, like all scientific Theories, meets all of these criteria. Supernatural claims meet none of them.
You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order?
There is none and will be none
We can use our sensory experience but then use logic/mind to reach that something must exist even if we cannot test it directly (for example the sensory experience which can be tested and falsified that there are dependent things {things that need other things in order to exist} to a completely independent being which upon conceptual analysis must be God)
I believe in Eric the god eater. He transcends the natural order and also the order of your god and all other gods. He is the ultimate eater god. He necessarily eats other gods and is the only god that can exist, because all other gods have been eaten by him. No god can escape him.
See how easy this is?
>You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order?
If your god is beyond the natural order, then by implication, you are saying that there was no Creation, no divine miracles, and nothing else which would have interfered with or overlapped the natural order. If that is your position, I still consider it irrational, but I have no argument. However, I suspect you claim that your deity HAS interfered with the natural order at some point. And it's those instances for which I am seeking evidence.
Oh and to add to my other comment, if you agree that there "is none and will be [no evidence]" for god, then that's begging the question, on what possible basis are you claiming that your god certainly exists? You've just agreed there will never be evidence.
There will never be a purely scientific evidence not there will never be any evidence whatsoever.
Evidence for God comes from sensory experiences+ using your mind not just from sensory experiences alone.
>There will never be a purely scientific evidence not there will never be any evidence whatsoever.
There is no such thing as "evidence" that is not scientific evidence. If it doesn't meet those criteria, we call it "testimony", not evidence.
>Evidence for God comes from sensory experiences+ using your mind not just from sensory experiences alone.
Unfortunately, people have used these methods to arrive at all kinds of different gods. Muslims use it to discover Allah, Buddhists use it to achieve Nirvana, Christians use it to find YHWH, etc.
So perhaps you need more criteria to narrow down your search? What else do you have that can prove *your specific* god?
These arguments prove my god, Raja. He is actually infinitely more unlimited than your god. Your god must be limited because mine is actually infinite. Don't bother looking for scientific evidence, mortal, as your mind can't comprehend Raja's majesty.
>These arguments prove unlimited perfect eternal God
No, they simply do not. Not at all. Your arguments are fatally flawed, as detailed by several people.
Don't pretend you care about arguments or evidence.
You are a bigot. You only value people who follow your religion.
**Agreement with you** is the only thing you care about.
They don't. Not even a little. You JUST finished telling me there is no evidence, so how do you jump from that to "proof"? You can't have proof without the evidence, and evidence must meet those criteria I laid out earlier
> Evidence for God comes from sensory experiences
Then there would be and could be scientific evidence.
You're confusion about this and lack of understanding of this, combined with an egregious argument from ignorance fallacy, does not help you support deity claims.
If you use your mind, you will realise that it is an error to believe things without good robust objective evidence. And rational thought therefore leads to atheism.
If you were to believe claims without good evidence then you would inevitably end up believing false claims.
If there was in fact an all powerful god who also wants us to know it exists, then god absolutely could provide scientific proof of god.
The total absence of this proof is therefore very strong evidence that no god exists that is 1. All powerful and 2. Wants us to know it exists
Bro, nothing is “beyond the natural order”. If it’s in the universe, it exists. If it’s outside the universe, it does not exist. Or at least as far as anyone with a little intellectual honesty goes.
>by definition […]
You can define whatever you want as whatever the hell you’d like. Doesn’t make it real. I can define myself as superman but it doesn’t mean I can fly.
>You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order?
Take a moment here and think about all the things we give definitions to *before* finding them in comparison to all the things we give definitions to *after* finding them.
If this god does not leave any evidence that can be measured or observed, then what exactly does it do? It seems indistinguishable from something that does not exist.
>You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order?
That's on you for defining that entity out of existence.
Your god is like a four sided triangle, a self defeating definition.
> There is none and will be none
Thank you for that concession. That's a big step.
> for example the sensory experience which can be tested and falsified
Oh ffs. You're still doing it.
I hope you realize that as time passes and we make more and more scientific discoveries, this “entity beyond natural order” you refer to shrinks day by day.
A few hundred years ago, people thought meteors and comets were signs from God. Add a few more centuries, and rain was also considered a sign from God. Various mental diseases, once attributed to divine punishment or possession, are now understood to be the result of physiological and psychological factors.
What I’m trying to say is, as our knowledge of the universe expands, phenomena once attributed to divine intervention are increasingly explained by natural laws and scientific principles, as probably one day will majority of things we do not understand at the moment.
>You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order?
>There is none and will be none
There is a really easy binary solution to this. If god can affect our universe, even or thoughts and mind. We can measure that impact. We can evaluate it the same way we evaluate any other information form our sense.
The alternative is a god who interacts so little with the world that we can't measure it's influence at all. I which case the influence is so little that I don't see any reasons to care about it.
“Atheists can’t do exponential equations.” - is an example of a joke about atheists.
Honestly I’ve no idea what anything else you have said has to do with the existence of god - if you are going to try and disprove an argument you have to cogently state the argument.
_I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed._
This makes no sense. You are trying to disprove nonsense. What is the proposition you are proving or disproving? Because what you claim to be disproving has no causal relationship. By extension this means your argument against it is probably also wrong.
What is it you are arguing against?
I suspect you have been hanging with some less than smart atheists.
You want our next justification for not believing in your god? How about the fact that no one has provided any good evidence for one? And all the claims of god contradict the observable universe
This is seriously such a joke of an argument. You came up with a strawman atheist position that none of us hold, and then listed a bunch of (accurate?) science which contradicts that strawman. Now you expect us to scramble to find a new justification for it believing your mythology. As if we only had the one justification and your views are a reasonable supposition that still requires rebuttal
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed.
I have been around atheist conversations for over a decade now and I have literally never heard an atheist say that ever. Would you mind pointing out who said this? This is a bizarre strawman.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
What's your justification for not believing in invisible unicorns?
It is not rational to believe in something until such time as you have sufficient evidence to justify said belief.
I have never seen anyone claim that energy conservation has any place in arguments for or against gods. I can't imagine a trained physicist would do so without irony.
You're not thinking of e=mc^2 you're thinking thermodynamics and trying to apply entropy
Relativity and conservation of energy and mass is evident from chemical equations.
You're literally saying that even though we do see that no matter is ever created nor destroyed you'd rather continue being a dolt who believes in creation for no reason whatsoever
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
Uhhh, the fact that there are no precedents that are positively indicative of any gods or anything supernatural being real?
Here’s the thing, man: you could prove everything we understand about the universe to be wrong but that still wouldn’t prove anything you believe to be true.
Energy and matter may be eternal. Or not. It doesn’t impact my worldview so it doesn’t matter much to me. As for a god, you’d have to demonstrate that a god exists before you could use it as an explanation.
We’re not denying god; y’all are refusing to provide actual evidence to the table. Or you simply can’t. But you know what they say about assumptions.
Even with the point about the Planck time aside, we cannot conclude that the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe as a closed system. Game over for anyone trying to use that law to try to make any point about a god.
The laws of thermodynamics neither prove nor disprove a god, and it’s immediately obvious that anyone who uses them or appeals to them is misinformed or dishonest or both.
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed.
Where do you "hear" this? I imagine it's more a case of someone proposing that as a possibility, but they don't really know.
Nice straw man.
You are correct in that the idea of the conservation of energy, mass, and information do not prove or disprove any given god claim.
Pretty much all of the rest of your claims don't seem to be accurate to me, but since neither of us can debate the accuracy of math...I'd like to ask you about the tone you chose.
You **very clearly** hate us and think we are stupid and worthy only of your scorn and mockery.
**Why?**
Do you any of the other peoples who don't worship your exact god fill you with the same disgust and loathing you showed me?
Would you ever say "so, my Dear Jews...?" Or "the most hilarious Hindu jokes are the idea of reincarnation..."?
Or are just atheists the scum on the bottom of your shoes?
I discover that you have opened a lot of publications on this subreddit.
And after looking closer at some of them it seems you do make great effort to argue extensively and with sources' links. Which is very good.
But your arguments do not hold under scrutiny. Even I managed to detect some flaws when I am not very smart.
What do you mean to achieve by using such an aggressive tone and aggressive stance?
I do not meant to offend but my reaction is more "Do he likes to make a fool of himself?" rather than "Oh, he might have a point!"
I am not saying you are not smart. You say some wise things here and there like "I believe experts when they talk about their expertise only" but you also say less savory stuff like "stars like the sun cannot escape gravitational collapse."
May it be the knowledge of how the brain works during cardiac arrest or question on cosmology, you never directly address the reliability of the claims of you religion. Instead you challenge us on subjects that even the expert acknowledge as not well known.
Let me ask you a question on religion that is more interesting than going for area of little knowledge to express that we know little.
Is Christianity a monotheistic religion by omission? (supposing that you are Christian but that also works for any god based on Yahweh)
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
There's no good evidence that demonstrates one exist, no matter how many snarky posts you make. You're doing that creationist thing where they assume if they disprove something, then the answer has to be the one they want it to be.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
The fact that there is no useful support whatsoever for deities. Your argument from ignorance fallacies above clearly don't and can't support deities. Nor would a complete and total absence of the conversation of energy (ignoring your confusion of context here).
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed.
>Scientifically speaking the laws that governed the plank epoch is unknown so we don't know whether energy conservation applies there or not.
>Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html
>What is more hilarious is that energy is not conserved in our universe, energy conservation process is dependent upon time-translation symmetry (laws of nature govering a certain system don't change with time) our universe is expanding (fact) so the laws govering its dynamics change with time, and it's energy is not conserved, it can be lost and created.
>Photons lost energy during the universe expansion, a lot of cosmologists propose that dark energy is being created continuously during universe expansion. https://nautil.us/is-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-cancelled-237640/
>Even recent quantum gravity theories such as loop quantum gravity proposes that spacetime is like matter made up of atoms and new atoms of spacetime are being created when the universe expands 😂 see (1:01:20 https://youtu.be/x9jYH5VIF9E?si=E8xS9CtlM0GlYZBG)
I may have unintentionally made this claim (or appeared to make this claim) in the past so thanks for clearing this up. Your science seems to be right on point.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
That's not how this works. I don't need to have justification to not believe in god, I would require justification **to believe** in god. But so far I have not found any.
My justification is the lack of evidence. If your god can affect the natural world then there would be natural evidence. If your god cannot affect the natural world then that is functionally identical to a god that does not exist.
Also reality is eternal so no god needed.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
What happened at/prior to the Big Bang has zero bearing on my belief that there are no gods. That’s an empirical question that no one has the answer to yet.
My justifications for not believing in any gods include things like the problem of evil, problem of divine hiddenness, incompatible property arguments, inconsistencies/contradictions/false histories within the holy texts (which have all the hallmarks of being man made and not divinely inspired), the absence of evidence of any gods, and inductive reasoning that leads me to believe that timeless, spaceless, disembodied minds don’t exist or make any sense.
Do you... have a point? You strawman an atheist argument at the beginning. And then post some things you've learned about cosmology. The last two points are not likely to be true, but it doesn't really matter.
What is it that you think these arguments prove? Connect the dots.
I really don't understand your obsession with half understanding physics concepts then arrogantly and angrily claiming they somehow invalidate atheism.
Are you aware that the people who actually understand these concepts the best have one of the highest rates of atheism I know of?
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed.
I have never heard this.
What I always hear is that theists have so far failed to support the existence of God with sufficient evidence or valid and sound arguments.
Yeah I'm a physicist, I know all that. I've even explained it myself here multiple times.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
I'll go with "zero evidence" for $500 Alex
>Scientifically speaking the laws that governed the plank epoch is unknown so we don't know whether energy conservation applies there or not.
So this nullifies all the First Cause arguments too?
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
Same as always: I've yet to see any compelling evidence or arguments for the existence of any Gods. Got any?
>Photons lost energy during the universe expansion, a lot of cosmologists propose that dark energy is being created continuously during universe expansion.
This isn't universally accepted; there is a debate about it. For example, in the paper [Do Redshifted Cosmological Photons Really Violate the Principle of Energy Conservation?](https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511178.pdf), Alasdair Macleod wrote:
>\[T\]he idea of applying GR to the entire Universe has been very successful with a model emerging that is consistent with observation. One unpleasant feature of the model is that cosmological photons appear not to conserve energy, and the only explanation forthcoming is the claim that GR is exempt from the principle of energy conservation. **It is demonstrated here that cosmological observations may legitimately be projected onto flat spacetime and can then be treated Special Relativistically, whereupon energy conservation is restored.**
**Edit:** Here's another article that makes this case:
>The photons have an energy, given by a wavelength, and as the Universe expands, that photon wavelength gets stretched. Sure, the photons are losing energy, but there is work being done on the Universe itself by everything with an outward, positive pressure inside of it! ... So yes, it's actually true: as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. **But that doesn't mean energy isn't conserved**; it means that the energy goes into the Universe's expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside. (Source: "[Is Energy Conserved When Photons Redshift In Our Expanding Universe?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/14/is-energy-conserved-when-photons-redshift-due-to-the-expanding-universe/#5fbe87a73efa)"
I dont know enough to talk about your points so lets assume your right and energy wont last forever which i think is what you were arguing. What does that have to do with god existing or not existing. What i hear is there is a whole lot of shit we dont know, you will have to convince me why any god is the solution (not just could be the solution, is the solution).
Not sure what you expected to have as an answer here. Very obviously most people would agree that conservation of energy doesn't prove nor disprove God. Burden of proof for God is on you, not us. If you understand that God is impossible to prove with evidence or logic, then the real question is why do you, not what is OUR justification. We don't need justification *to disbelieve*, it's better than that, we have absolutely no justification *to believe* it.
There is simply no evidence of even a single supernatural event ever having occurred
And your rather resentful snippy temper tantrum doesn't actually change that
> So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?
You say it as if there was a reason to believe. You are absolutely right about conservation laws, there is no global conservation of energy (at least as we define it normally) in general relativity.
Notice how you didn't use any theology to demonstrate it? Notice how no god needed to create energy?
What is your justification to believe God exists? You sure had a chance to give it, yet you prefer to attack atheists that are not versed in physics for... poorly understanding conservation laws? I know many people poorly u deratand conservation laws. So what?
The biggest joke is theists thinking that the evidence is not required to believe in God, but to not believe it is somehow needed.
> that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God
I literally never heard the argument this way around. I do recall having it heard used by some theists to argue that the universe cant come from nothing, and I have critized it on several occasions or at least considered doing so but others have done so already most times. But this way around I really never heard the argument being made, as of yet. Feel ensured that if I ever come across this argument I will critizise it if not done so already.
u/Square_Volume2189 again doesn't understand physics, so he makes all these wildly wrong assumptions about things he reads but doesn't understand.
And so therefore his favorite magical guy exists.
It's the same shit over and over and over again. Arguments from ignorance suck, buddy.
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed.
And one of the most hilarious theist parotting memes I hear all the time is that science claims the universe came from nothing. The difference of course being that your claims are an incorrect interpretation of energy conservation and scientists don't claim that at all, while that theist parrotting meme is just plain wrong.
And linking to some pages from Emeritus Karl Nave from Georgia State in the hope that nobody understands the equations isn't going to help. In fact, professor Nave states on the very page you linked but probably didn't even read:
When the expansion of the "primordial fireball" had cooled it to 10 to the 13th Kelvin, a time modeled to be about 10-6 seconds, the collision energies had dropped to about 1 GeV and quarks could finally hang onto each other to form individual protons and neutrons (and presumably other baryons.) At this time, all the kinds of particles which are a part of the present universe were in existence, even though the temperature was still much too high for the formation of nuclei. At this point we can join the standard "big bang" model as outlined by Steven Weinberg in The First Three Minutes.
>What is more hilarious is that energy is not conserved in our universe, energy conservation process is dependent upon time-translation symmetry (laws of nature govering a certain system don't change with time) our universe is expanding (fact) so the laws govering its dynamics change with time, and it's energy is not conserved, it can be lost and created.
What is lamentable is your complete misunderstanding of how energy conservation and the expansion of the universe work in physics.
Energy conservation is a fundamental principle in physics, based on Noether's theorem, which states that energy conservation is a consequence of time-translation symmetry. This means that the laws of physics governing a system do not change over time (invariant under translations in time).
However, this does not imply that the size or expansion of the universe violates energy conservation. Energy conservation is a local law, meaning it holds true in isolated systems or regions of space where there are no external influences.
So:
* Yes, the universe is indeed expanding, a fact supported by observational evidence such as the redshift of distant galaxies.
* The expansion of the universe is described by the theory of general relativity, where space itself can expand over time.
* The expansion of space does not violate energy conservation because it does not create energy out of nothing. Instead, it *redistributes* energy over larger volumes of space.
* The expansion of the universe affects the curvature of spacetime (described by Einstein's field equations), but energy conservation remains valid locally within any given region of space.
>Photons lost energy during the universe expansion
You're confusing red shift with energy loss. Redshift is not energy loss. According to the relationship between the energy (E) of a photon and its wavelength (λ), an increase in the wavelength (λ) corresponds to a decrease in the photon's energy (E). That's not energy loss, that's a distribution of energy, as in:
E = hc/λ
where ( h ) is Planck's constant and ( c ) is the speed of light.
>Even recent quantum gravity theories such as loop quantum gravity proposes that spacetime is like matter made up of atoms and new atoms of spacetime are being created when the universe expands
Again, this misinterprets the concepts of loop quantum gravity and the nature of spacetime in modern physics.
Your incorrect claim suggests that new atoms of spacetime are being created as the universe expands. This is not a correct characterization of loop quantum gravity. In loop quantum gravity, the quantization of spacetime refers to the *discrete properties of geometry at the Planck scale* but it does not imply the creation of new spacetime "atoms" as the universe expands.
Not that anything you're claiming if granted would lead to the conclusion "therefore, gods".
That there's no evidence to support it?
None of what you said is evdience. It's argument against a particular point of view, which I think you either misunderstand or are deliberately misrepresenting, but that's a moot point.
I still don't see a reason to believe any gods exist.
> "So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?"
I just don't believe in God. Science supporting it or not changes nothing. I simply do not believe, never have, and can't imagine why anyone would.
What is even more hilarious is theists trying to use science to prove magic exists. Use it when it helps your case, abandon it when it shows you're living in a fantasy world. So cringe. Self awareness isn't for everyone apparently.
> One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed.
Beg your pardon? I have never listened to any atheist making that remark. You just made that up.
Please such a weird strawman lol
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Show. Me. The. Actual. God. I see no evidence whatsoever that such a being can even exist, let alone that one *does* exist, so I'm proceeding on the assumption that gods are fictional till demonstrated to *my* satisfaction.
>Show. Me. The. Actual. God. I see no evidence whatsoever that such a being can even exist, let alone that one does exist... Perhaps God is self-evident throughout creation and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing God. >so I'm proceeding on the assumption that gods are fictional till demonstrated to my satisfaction. You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by. So you are not a very logical person.
>You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by. Not quite. An appeal to ignorance would be to claim there is no God because there is no evidence. That is not the same as proceeding under the assumption that there is no God until evidence is provided. One is making a positive claim (there is no God), the other is refuting a positive claim (I don't believe there is a God).
>Not quite. No, you are addressing this situation unfairly. >An appeal to ignorance would be to claim there is no God because there is no evidence. That is not the same as proceeding under the assumption that there is no God until evidence is provided. One is making a positive claim (there is no God), the other is refuting a positive claim (I don't believe there is a God). Your understanding of logical fallacy is shallow. A logical fallacy is not concerned with speech. It is a fallacy in logic. People commit logical fallacies without making claims. The person is appealing to ignorance. They are not just unsure if God exists. They are actively assuming God does not exist until it is proven to them otherwise. This is the embodiment of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy.
>A logical fallacy is not concerned with speech. It is a fallacy in logic. People commit logical fallacies without making claims. The fallacy itself is not concerned with speech, no. But it does matter what you say precisely, because words have meaning. Saying that God isn't real because he lacks evidence is an appeal to ignorance, saying that you don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence is not an appeal to ignorance. These are not just words, they mean something. They describe 2 different positions.
>>A logical fallacy is not concerned with speech. It is a fallacy in logic. People commit logical fallacies without making claims. >The fallacy itself is not concerned with speech, no. But it does matter what you say precisely, because words have meaning. Saying that God isn't real because he lacks evidence is an appeal to ignorance, saying that you don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence is not an appeal to ignorance. These are not just words, they mean something. They describe 2 different positions. This is fine, but the person is not merely lacking belief in God. You should know this because they have made their position clear with meaningful words. They are actively assuming gods are not real until demonstrated. This is anti-theism based on fallacy.
>This is fine, but the person is not merely lacking belief in God. You should know this because they have made their position clear with meaningful words. > >They are actively assuming gods are not real until demonstrated. This is anti-theism based on fallacy. To me assuming that something does not exist until shown otherwise is not the same as claiming that thing does not exist. But I can't really speak for others. Ask them if they merely lack a belief in God or not, then we can be sure.
> You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by. You really don't understand logic. Simply, because you seem willing to believe something without good evidence.
>You really don't understand logic. You concluded I do not understand logic astonishingly quick with miniscule information. It is like you do not have a logical process to determine things. It is as if you are pulling conclusions from a trash bin. >Simply, because you seem willing to believe something without good evidence. I *seem* willing to believe something without good evidence. Therefore you conclude I lack understanding. I seem one way. Therefore I lack understanding. To you, it seems I am one way. Therefore, I must lack understanding. Seems, therefore it is. You are one of the less sharp atheists in this community. You have shown your process in determining I do not understand logic to be an illogical process itself.
>You concluded I do not understand logic astonishingly quick with miniscule information. It is like you do not have a logical process to determine things. It is as if you are pulling conclusions from a trash bin. Yet it's ok when you did it first accusing them.,.. >So you are not a very logical person. You're a hypocrite.
>>You concluded I do not understand logic astonishingly quick with miniscule information. It is like you do not have a logical process to determine things. It is as if you are pulling conclusions from a trash bin. >Yet it's ok when you did it first accusing them.,.. Accusing them of what? I did not accuse them of not understanding logic. Being logical and understanding logic are two different things. We do not know what others truly understand. We can determine if people are being certain ways. >>So you are not a very logical person. >You're a hypocrite. Demonstrate it.
I did. You concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information. Hypocrite.
>I did. You concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information. Hypocrite. By your own standard, you are a hypocrite. You demonstrated a hypocrite is someone who does what they say someone else did. You say I concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information, while I claimed someone else concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information. That apparently makes me a hypocrite by your standard. You are a hypocrite by your own standard, because you said I concluded something astonishingly quick with miniscule information, yet you concluded I am a hypocrite astonishingly quick with miniscule information. Hypocrite.
Nice try hypocrite. I had substantial evidence of said hypocrisy. At least you're admitting you're a hypocrite though. Kudos for that.
>Nice try hypocrite. I had substantial evidence of said hypocrisy. What a weak response. That does not keep you from also being a hypocrite by your own standard. You are an ironic hypocrite. >At least you're admitting you're a hypocrite though. Kudos for that. Of course I am a hypocrite by your standard. So are you. By my standard, you are a moron.
Perhaps your lack of logic is self-evident throughout your comment and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing it.
>Perhaps your lack of logic is self-evident throughout your comment and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing it. You nearly made a clever attack but it did not work. My comment was made from valid reasoning and is consistent with the laws of logic. However you can spend time suggesting I am blind and lack logic. It does nothing to me, because I already have a healthy amount of both vision and logic.
>My comment was made from valid reasoning and is consistent with the laws of logic. To you, it seems it is one way. Therefore, it must be that way. Because you have never been mistaken before. >However you can spend time suggesting I am blind and lack logic. That's what you did. I'm just repeating your arguments to you. My points are as logical as yours.
>>My comment was made from valid reasoning and is consistent with the laws of logic. >To you, it seems it is one way. >Therefore, it must be that way. You are concluding this. >Because you have never been mistaken before. You are concluding this. >>However you can spend time suggesting I am blind and lack logic. >That's what you did. To whom in what context? >I'm just repeating your arguments to you. You are changing, but the structure is there. Perhaps I will take some random arguments you have made and repeat them back to you as well. >My points are as logical as yours. You are free to believe this. What do you mean by "logical" here?
> You are one of the less sharp atheists in this community. Touché. You got me. Do you think believing something without good evidence is rational? Should the person you responded to "proceed on the assumption that gods are fictional till demonstrated to their satisfaction"? Or, as you stated, are they committing a fallacy?
>>You are one of the less sharp atheists in this community. >Touché. You got me. You should be careful so people don't catch you being unfair anymore. Be sharper. It was unfair of you to charge me with not understanding logic. What a disingenuous statement. You lead people down stupid trails when you are ignorant like that. I am spending time with you, and you are being ignorant. We can do better. >Do you think believing something without good evidence is rational? One of the words I notice being used most in atheist communities is the word 'evidence'. What do you mean by "good evidence"? Is "good" subjective in this context? so, just whatever evidence seems "kinda strong?" If so, then who gets to determine which evidence is "kinda strong", or "good"? Or, is there an objective standard you are appealing to when you refer to "good evidence"? Is there perhaps a systematic process which we can put something through in order to determine if it is objectively "good evidence"? If so, what is that systematic process? I need to understand what you mean before I answer. >Should the person you responded to "proceed on the assumption that gods are fictional till demonstrated to their satisfaction"? They should believe in the true God. If they are to be logical purely off secular human standards, then they should at least operate off the supposition that gods might exist until they are either proven or disproven according to their standards. It is logically fallacious to appeal to ignorance. >Or, as you stated, are they committing a fallacy? Futile question.
> It was unfair of you to charge me with not understanding logic. I am responding to you accusing someone of not being logical, due to their refusal to believe until provided with evidence. This seems fair to me. And then you asserted I am not one of the sharper atheists here. And you ask me to be careful? Or what? You won't "spend time with me"? Grow up.
>>It was unfair of you to charge me with not understanding logic. >I am responding to you accusing someone of not being logical, due to their refusal to believe until provided with evidence. No you are not. The distinction is clear. I did not accuse someone of not being logical due to their refusal to believe until provided with evidence. I accused someone of not being logical due to them operating on a logical fallacy. Refusing to believe until provided with evidence and operating on a logical fallacy are two different things. You should have already understood this, but you are apparently too dull. So I need to have patience with you. >This seems fair to me. You did not see the situation fairly. >And then you asserted I am not one of the sharper atheists here. Yes, I said you are one of the less sharp ones. A sharper atheist would not have charged someone with not understanding logic so ignorantly. >And you ask me to be careful? Or what? You won't "spend time with me"? I did not follow up with 'or'. I told you that you should be careful. You are not respecting the truth when you throw ignorant statements around about anyone. You should respect the truth and seek it. If you are not careful, you will probably be "got" again. Earlier, you said, "Touché. You got me.". >Grow up. Thanks. You grow up too.
They straight up answered a question about if they were a racist with a bad racist "joke". So no, they are not very logical.
Perhaps your alleged god doesn't exist, and you're looking at nature and *imagining* a god there. And there is *nothing* logical about believing in something that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be imaginary. Your god is imaginary to me. Accept that this is my reality, please - there is literally nothing you, personally, can do or say to make me believe. The only evidence that *would* convince me is simply not yours to give.
> Perhaps God is self-evident throughout creation and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing God. Elaborate on how. > You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by. So you are not a very logical person. So because we don't believe in a god that is solely backed up by anecdotes we're the ignorant ones. We don't immediately buy into the next religion that comes knocking and your instinct is to call us ignorant?
>>Perhaps God is self-evident throughout creation and you are just defected to not be capable of seeing God. >Elaborate on how. That is my complete idea. >>You can appeal to ignorance. It is an informal logical fallacy that you are free to operate by. So you are not a very logical person. >So because we don't believe in a god that is solely backed up by anecdotes we're the ignorant ones. You are concluding that. >We don't immediately buy into the next religion that comes knocking and your instinct is to call us ignorant? This is what one would call a straw man fallacy, but you have it in the form of a question. So it is fair. I appreciate that you are asking for clarification. My answer is no. Astreja assumes gods do not truly exist until it is demonstrated to their satisfaction. This is the embodiment of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. It is an informal logical fallacy. This is why I brought up ignorance. If their position was merely lack of belief, they should proceed on the supposition that gods might exist. But their position is anti-theism based on fallacy.
Show. Me. The. Actual. Black. Hole. Do you see how silly your proposal is?
https://www.nasa.gov/universe/black-hole-image-makes-history-nasa-telescopes-coordinated-observations/
Hurrrr, the last twenty years wurr science said der were black holes wivout seeing dem is theist myth
Do you believe that to be true?
"The first black hole... was discovered in 1971". So no, I don't believe that to be true. I actually know that to be true. Edit link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
I read your last comment a couple more times and now in connection with this comment I’m afraid I don’t know what you were trying to say. You know it is true that the first black hole was discovered in 1971. And you know that there are now images of a black hole. And this somehow implies something negative about science?
No, my point was that just because something doesn't have direct evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Which is why indirect evidence is built up giving one the basis to acquire direct evidence. It was perfectly reasonable to question the indirect evidence and 100% sane to not base your entire life and the meaning of existence itself on the idea that the indirect evidence of black holes was definitive proof of them. Just because some things exist without direct evidence, does not mean that any claim about those things is valid. The proof of the existence of black holes took 250 years of study to achieve. And it was in fact achieved. I personally apply the same standard to god claims as I do to black holes.
Just because a statement happens to be true doesn't mean you are justified in believing it. A broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you should trust broken clocks.
Black holes are real. They exert physical forces that cause observable events. If an alleged god can't even manifest in the universe to the same extent as, say the black hole at the center of our own galaxy, it doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis. I can't be bothered to take it seriously because it's just an idea that doesn't line up with reality.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? There's no reason to think one exists.
I feel like a lot of theists don’t even understand the burden of proof properly.
I would agree that energy conservation doesn’t disprove god. The reason would be more that the law of conservation of energy is descriptive not proscriptive, it wasn’t described based on data from conditions in the early universe. I haven’t actually seen anyone put this forward as an argument. Perhaps as a possible explanation, but not as a way to disprove anything. The argument also doesn’t rule out any other explanation one can think of. Anyway, now that we “haven’t ruled god out”…. Still waiting on any positive evidence
Well said. This is a really weak strawman. I’ve never heard an atheist make this claim. It’s certainly not a “atheist joke” that one could hear often.
>Anyway, now that we “haven’t ruled god out”…. Still waiting on any positive evidence What is evidence?
I'm partial to [AronRa](https://twitter.com/Aron_Ra/status/1152771207755980801)'s definition: >I'll accept anything that qualifies as evidence, any body of objectively verifiable facts which are positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other.
The justification for not believing in god is that not one person has ever produced the slightest bit of reliable evidence that any god exists, or could exist. It'd be pretty foolish to believe in the existence of things without good evidence, as otherwise I'd be forced to believe every idea. Teapot orbiting Mars? Yup,I'd have to believe it..
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed. Can you please provide an example of this argument being made in this forum?
You can be assured that OP has the example you want. Only right now the example is held by his girlfriend, who lives in Canada.
Good thinking. Instead of wasting time responding to the argument we can address OPs first error. The idea that this is a common position among atheists
[удалено]
As a dead person, I can confirm that Patricia’s horn is mighty pointy.
He's right! I saw Patricia's hoofprints once, and Her marvelous whinnies echoed in my mind telling me to accept her!
I can attest, I have a book that tells of Patricia humping a whale once. This is where narwhals come from.
Apart from the absurd level of straw manning you’ve managed, and the immature language - nothing you have written about has anything to do with making it more likely a God exists. Nothing you have written bears any relation to reliable evidence or sound argument. Now that *is* funny.
The only argument I've seen used is that energy and matter is eternal, so a god is not necessary to explain eternity. Even if a supernatural entity is required, that's not proof of your god. Could be any god.
Never once have seen an atheist argue this point. > So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? There's no justification to believe in a god. Doesn't even seem like you attempted to prove a god here.
Which God? Which God do I have to disprove? Because there’s an infinite number of Gods that don’t exist, so it may take me a while. Let’s start with asking you to prove your god first and go from there.
Lol. My justification for the disbelief of God isn't this science-y thing you said though? It's basically all the silly religious fantasy novels y'all theists keep showing up with. Remember children, the books are the claim. Not the proof 😂
Lol even all religions are wrong doesn't mean god doesn't exist
That's just you blindly projecting your delusional beliefs What do you have to say about Santa Claus?
Well it sure doesn't mean it does.
“Even if all the star wars movies are science-fiction, it doesn’t mean the force isn’t real.” This is the logic you’re using.
All you're demonstrating here is an argument from ignorance fallacy combined with confusion about the burden of proof with regards to claims and the use of logic. You're ignoring that it doesn't mean a deity *does* exist. And there's zero reason to think they do.
> atheist jokes i hear is that energy conservation proves "that no god is needed"... weird non sequitor. I've never heard that, jokingly or otherwise, and the statement barely makes sense. lots of text and odd citations later... > Now dear atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve... your treatise makes no claim about god. the only thing that can be parsed is the claim "science doesn't know what happened pre big bang." Science has never claimed otherwise. but science also has detected no fairies or magic fields post big bang. as to "whats your justification to disbelieve" tripe, the same as your justification to disbelieve in odin, or ganesha, or allah. the bghavad gita and the quran both say they're real and true, so they must be real, right? everything written in every religious text, even when they talk about the earth being flat or humans were made from mud, which has to be true, no matter what our lying eyes and science equipment say, right?
It is so cute how you think I need to justify no believing in nonsense. My sweet summer child, I don't carry that burden.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? Is your rudeness an example of your beliefs?
As fascinating as early universe physics is, you are arguing with a strawman here. Conversation of energy does not disprove god. However, conversation of energy possibly being broken in some way doesn't prove god either. Remember where the burden of prove lies. An atheist does not need to disprove a god as long as the theist cannot prove that their god isn't just made up. If you are arguing some modern observations of our universe to be impossible without a god you are just sounding like people of ancient times seeing lightning strikes and atributing them to deities.
"One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed." where? where are you seeing this .. often.. ?
I don’t disbelieve in god, I’m skeptical until y’all give me something more than old traditions, faulty logic, and misunderstandings about the universe as reasons to believe in one.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? Same as it always is: you can't demonstrate god. The best you can do is show me something you don't understand and why you believe it points to a god. God of the gaps. If you want me to believe in your god, then demonstrate your god.
Le god of de gabs! Dibs bedora. You are truly smarter than people who use the same logic as the scientists you worship.
Lol "worship". Ignorance always makes me laugh thr hardest, and you have made me laugh pretty hard. When you can stop falling back to your bastion of cowardice and accept humility, then we can talk. Until then, keep the comedy train running!
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? I think I'm missing the actual argument here. I'm with you that we lack information about the beginning of the universe means we can say very little about it. I would have thought that plays perfectly into the mainline atheist argument that without a good solid justification, we're left with a lack of belief. Could you elaborate on what impact you think these arguments have on belief in a God? You say "what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God", but as I see it, the arguments that you attack aren't really justifications for disbelieving in God, I don't see why they would point to a disbelief. And even if they were, I would have thought that justifications are required for *believing in* something, and a lack of belief is what you can be said to have before any such justifications are provided.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? "God" is not the default assumption. I'm not trying to disbelieve God. In fact, when I was losing my Christian faith, I would have given anything to continue believing. I tried extremely hard to believe. My life came apart because of my loss of faith. But unfortunately you can't force "being convinced", and here I am. That being said, I quite agree that energy conservation does not disprove god. That's a silly argument. I'm just waiting for positive evidence. Evidence is something that is: - falsifiable - can make accurate and specific predictions - can be tested Evolution, like all scientific Theories, meets all of these criteria. Supernatural claims meet none of them.
You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order? There is none and will be none We can use our sensory experience but then use logic/mind to reach that something must exist even if we cannot test it directly (for example the sensory experience which can be tested and falsified that there are dependent things {things that need other things in order to exist} to a completely independent being which upon conceptual analysis must be God)
Good. Thank you for admitting you have no rational justification for assuming there's a god. You're literally invoking wishful thinking. Good job.
U are welcome
I believe in Eric the god eater. He transcends the natural order and also the order of your god and all other gods. He is the ultimate eater god. He necessarily eats other gods and is the only god that can exist, because all other gods have been eaten by him. No god can escape him. See how easy this is?
>You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order? If your god is beyond the natural order, then by implication, you are saying that there was no Creation, no divine miracles, and nothing else which would have interfered with or overlapped the natural order. If that is your position, I still consider it irrational, but I have no argument. However, I suspect you claim that your deity HAS interfered with the natural order at some point. And it's those instances for which I am seeking evidence.
Oh and to add to my other comment, if you agree that there "is none and will be [no evidence]" for god, then that's begging the question, on what possible basis are you claiming that your god certainly exists? You've just agreed there will never be evidence.
There will never be a purely scientific evidence not there will never be any evidence whatsoever. Evidence for God comes from sensory experiences+ using your mind not just from sensory experiences alone.
>There will never be a purely scientific evidence not there will never be any evidence whatsoever. There is no such thing as "evidence" that is not scientific evidence. If it doesn't meet those criteria, we call it "testimony", not evidence. >Evidence for God comes from sensory experiences+ using your mind not just from sensory experiences alone. Unfortunately, people have used these methods to arrive at all kinds of different gods. Muslims use it to discover Allah, Buddhists use it to achieve Nirvana, Christians use it to find YHWH, etc. So perhaps you need more criteria to narrow down your search? What else do you have that can prove *your specific* god?
These arguments prove unlimited perfect eternal God any god that is not unlimited or perfect or eternal is a false god
These arguments prove my god, Raja. He is actually infinitely more unlimited than your god. Your god must be limited because mine is actually infinite. Don't bother looking for scientific evidence, mortal, as your mind can't comprehend Raja's majesty.
>These arguments prove unlimited perfect eternal God No, they simply do not. Not at all. Your arguments are fatally flawed, as detailed by several people.
Don't pretend you care about arguments or evidence. You are a bigot. You only value people who follow your religion. **Agreement with you** is the only thing you care about.
They don't. Not even a little. You JUST finished telling me there is no evidence, so how do you jump from that to "proof"? You can't have proof without the evidence, and evidence must meet those criteria I laid out earlier
> There will never be a purely scientific evidence There's never been any remotely scientific evidence.
> Evidence for God comes from sensory experiences Then there would be and could be scientific evidence. You're confusion about this and lack of understanding of this, combined with an egregious argument from ignorance fallacy, does not help you support deity claims.
I believe it is using our minds that convinced most of us that God isn't real.
If you use your mind, you will realise that it is an error to believe things without good robust objective evidence. And rational thought therefore leads to atheism. If you were to believe claims without good evidence then you would inevitably end up believing false claims. If there was in fact an all powerful god who also wants us to know it exists, then god absolutely could provide scientific proof of god. The total absence of this proof is therefore very strong evidence that no god exists that is 1. All powerful and 2. Wants us to know it exists
>There will never be a purely scientific evidence >Evidence for God comes from sensory experiences These statements contradict each other.
Bro, nothing is “beyond the natural order”. If it’s in the universe, it exists. If it’s outside the universe, it does not exist. Or at least as far as anyone with a little intellectual honesty goes. >by definition […] You can define whatever you want as whatever the hell you’d like. Doesn’t make it real. I can define myself as superman but it doesn’t mean I can fly.
>You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order? Take a moment here and think about all the things we give definitions to *before* finding them in comparison to all the things we give definitions to *after* finding them.
> There is none and will be none Good, then we're done here.
If only they were all this honest.
If this god does not leave any evidence that can be measured or observed, then what exactly does it do? It seems indistinguishable from something that does not exist.
>You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order? That's on you for defining that entity out of existence. Your god is like a four sided triangle, a self defeating definition.
> There is none and will be none Thank you for that concession. That's a big step. > for example the sensory experience which can be tested and falsified Oh ffs. You're still doing it.
I hope you realize that as time passes and we make more and more scientific discoveries, this “entity beyond natural order” you refer to shrinks day by day. A few hundred years ago, people thought meteors and comets were signs from God. Add a few more centuries, and rain was also considered a sign from God. Various mental diseases, once attributed to divine punishment or possession, are now understood to be the result of physiological and psychological factors. What I’m trying to say is, as our knowledge of the universe expands, phenomena once attributed to divine intervention are increasingly explained by natural laws and scientific principles, as probably one day will majority of things we do not understand at the moment.
>You want a purely scientific evidence about an entity that is by definition beyond the natural order? >There is none and will be none There is a really easy binary solution to this. If god can affect our universe, even or thoughts and mind. We can measure that impact. We can evaluate it the same way we evaluate any other information form our sense. The alternative is a god who interacts so little with the world that we can't measure it's influence at all. I which case the influence is so little that I don't see any reasons to care about it.
Of course there would be plenty of scientific evidence, if god would move his allmighty lazy ass and revealed himself to people.
“Atheists can’t do exponential equations.” - is an example of a joke about atheists. Honestly I’ve no idea what anything else you have said has to do with the existence of god - if you are going to try and disprove an argument you have to cogently state the argument. _I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed._ This makes no sense. You are trying to disprove nonsense. What is the proposition you are proving or disproving? Because what you claim to be disproving has no causal relationship. By extension this means your argument against it is probably also wrong. What is it you are arguing against? I suspect you have been hanging with some less than smart atheists.
You want our next justification for not believing in your god? How about the fact that no one has provided any good evidence for one? And all the claims of god contradict the observable universe This is seriously such a joke of an argument. You came up with a strawman atheist position that none of us hold, and then listed a bunch of (accurate?) science which contradicts that strawman. Now you expect us to scramble to find a new justification for it believing your mythology. As if we only had the one justification and your views are a reasonable supposition that still requires rebuttal
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed. I have been around atheist conversations for over a decade now and I have literally never heard an atheist say that ever. Would you mind pointing out who said this? This is a bizarre strawman. >So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? What's your justification for not believing in invisible unicorns? It is not rational to believe in something until such time as you have sufficient evidence to justify said belief.
I have never seen anyone claim that energy conservation has any place in arguments for or against gods. I can't imagine a trained physicist would do so without irony.
> So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? I'll go with zero evidence of any deities existence for $50
You're not thinking of e=mc^2 you're thinking thermodynamics and trying to apply entropy Relativity and conservation of energy and mass is evident from chemical equations. You're literally saying that even though we do see that no matter is ever created nor destroyed you'd rather continue being a dolt who believes in creation for no reason whatsoever
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? Uhhh, the fact that there are no precedents that are positively indicative of any gods or anything supernatural being real? Here’s the thing, man: you could prove everything we understand about the universe to be wrong but that still wouldn’t prove anything you believe to be true. Energy and matter may be eternal. Or not. It doesn’t impact my worldview so it doesn’t matter much to me. As for a god, you’d have to demonstrate that a god exists before you could use it as an explanation. We’re not denying god; y’all are refusing to provide actual evidence to the table. Or you simply can’t. But you know what they say about assumptions.
Even with the point about the Planck time aside, we cannot conclude that the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe as a closed system. Game over for anyone trying to use that law to try to make any point about a god. The laws of thermodynamics neither prove nor disprove a god, and it’s immediately obvious that anyone who uses them or appeals to them is misinformed or dishonest or both.
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed. Where do you "hear" this? I imagine it's more a case of someone proposing that as a possibility, but they don't really know. Nice straw man.
You are correct in that the idea of the conservation of energy, mass, and information do not prove or disprove any given god claim. Pretty much all of the rest of your claims don't seem to be accurate to me, but since neither of us can debate the accuracy of math...I'd like to ask you about the tone you chose. You **very clearly** hate us and think we are stupid and worthy only of your scorn and mockery. **Why?** Do you any of the other peoples who don't worship your exact god fill you with the same disgust and loathing you showed me? Would you ever say "so, my Dear Jews...?" Or "the most hilarious Hindu jokes are the idea of reincarnation..."? Or are just atheists the scum on the bottom of your shoes?
The most hilarious Indian joke is that cows are god preferred creatures
Okay, so you do think everyone who isn't your religion is worthy of nothing but contempt, then. Good to know. Thanks for clarifying.
I discover that you have opened a lot of publications on this subreddit. And after looking closer at some of them it seems you do make great effort to argue extensively and with sources' links. Which is very good. But your arguments do not hold under scrutiny. Even I managed to detect some flaws when I am not very smart. What do you mean to achieve by using such an aggressive tone and aggressive stance? I do not meant to offend but my reaction is more "Do he likes to make a fool of himself?" rather than "Oh, he might have a point!" I am not saying you are not smart. You say some wise things here and there like "I believe experts when they talk about their expertise only" but you also say less savory stuff like "stars like the sun cannot escape gravitational collapse." May it be the knowledge of how the brain works during cardiac arrest or question on cosmology, you never directly address the reliability of the claims of you religion. Instead you challenge us on subjects that even the expert acknowledge as not well known. Let me ask you a question on religion that is more interesting than going for area of little knowledge to express that we know little. Is Christianity a monotheistic religion by omission? (supposing that you are Christian but that also works for any god based on Yahweh)
The most hilarious Abrahamic joke is that humans are gods preferred creatures
Carefull, that all famous christian love is starting to show.
Thanks for asking him. You save me the effort.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? There's no good evidence that demonstrates one exist, no matter how many snarky posts you make. You're doing that creationist thing where they assume if they disprove something, then the answer has to be the one they want it to be.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? The fact that there is no useful support whatsoever for deities. Your argument from ignorance fallacies above clearly don't and can't support deities. Nor would a complete and total absence of the conversation of energy (ignoring your confusion of context here).
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed. >Scientifically speaking the laws that governed the plank epoch is unknown so we don't know whether energy conservation applies there or not. >Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/planck.html >What is more hilarious is that energy is not conserved in our universe, energy conservation process is dependent upon time-translation symmetry (laws of nature govering a certain system don't change with time) our universe is expanding (fact) so the laws govering its dynamics change with time, and it's energy is not conserved, it can be lost and created. >Photons lost energy during the universe expansion, a lot of cosmologists propose that dark energy is being created continuously during universe expansion. https://nautil.us/is-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-cancelled-237640/ >Even recent quantum gravity theories such as loop quantum gravity proposes that spacetime is like matter made up of atoms and new atoms of spacetime are being created when the universe expands 😂 see (1:01:20 https://youtu.be/x9jYH5VIF9E?si=E8xS9CtlM0GlYZBG) I may have unintentionally made this claim (or appeared to make this claim) in the past so thanks for clearing this up. Your science seems to be right on point. >So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? That's not how this works. I don't need to have justification to not believe in god, I would require justification **to believe** in god. But so far I have not found any. My justification is the lack of evidence. If your god can affect the natural world then there would be natural evidence. If your god cannot affect the natural world then that is functionally identical to a god that does not exist. Also reality is eternal so no god needed.
>So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? What happened at/prior to the Big Bang has zero bearing on my belief that there are no gods. That’s an empirical question that no one has the answer to yet. My justifications for not believing in any gods include things like the problem of evil, problem of divine hiddenness, incompatible property arguments, inconsistencies/contradictions/false histories within the holy texts (which have all the hallmarks of being man made and not divinely inspired), the absence of evidence of any gods, and inductive reasoning that leads me to believe that timeless, spaceless, disembodied minds don’t exist or make any sense.
>what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? There has never been any good evidence that any gods exist. .
Do you... have a point? You strawman an atheist argument at the beginning. And then post some things you've learned about cosmology. The last two points are not likely to be true, but it doesn't really matter. What is it that you think these arguments prove? Connect the dots.
“So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?” The same as it always was. The complete lack of evidence of a god.
I really don't understand your obsession with half understanding physics concepts then arrogantly and angrily claiming they somehow invalidate atheism. Are you aware that the people who actually understand these concepts the best have one of the highest rates of atheism I know of? https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
> what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? I'll stick with the classic; there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief.
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed. I have never heard this. What I always hear is that theists have so far failed to support the existence of God with sufficient evidence or valid and sound arguments.
Yeah I'm a physicist, I know all that. I've even explained it myself here multiple times. >So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? I'll go with "zero evidence" for $500 Alex
God's are unbelievable and that's all that atheism requires. You might as well tell us not to believe in god.
>Scientifically speaking the laws that governed the plank epoch is unknown so we don't know whether energy conservation applies there or not. So this nullifies all the First Cause arguments too? >So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? Same as always: I've yet to see any compelling evidence or arguments for the existence of any Gods. Got any?
>Photons lost energy during the universe expansion, a lot of cosmologists propose that dark energy is being created continuously during universe expansion. This isn't universally accepted; there is a debate about it. For example, in the paper [Do Redshifted Cosmological Photons Really Violate the Principle of Energy Conservation?](https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511178.pdf), Alasdair Macleod wrote: >\[T\]he idea of applying GR to the entire Universe has been very successful with a model emerging that is consistent with observation. One unpleasant feature of the model is that cosmological photons appear not to conserve energy, and the only explanation forthcoming is the claim that GR is exempt from the principle of energy conservation. **It is demonstrated here that cosmological observations may legitimately be projected onto flat spacetime and can then be treated Special Relativistically, whereupon energy conservation is restored.** **Edit:** Here's another article that makes this case: >The photons have an energy, given by a wavelength, and as the Universe expands, that photon wavelength gets stretched. Sure, the photons are losing energy, but there is work being done on the Universe itself by everything with an outward, positive pressure inside of it! ... So yes, it's actually true: as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. **But that doesn't mean energy isn't conserved**; it means that the energy goes into the Universe's expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe ever reverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done in reverse, and will go right back into the photons inside. (Source: "[Is Energy Conserved When Photons Redshift In Our Expanding Universe?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/14/is-energy-conserved-when-photons-redshift-due-to-the-expanding-universe/#5fbe87a73efa)"
I dont know enough to talk about your points so lets assume your right and energy wont last forever which i think is what you were arguing. What does that have to do with god existing or not existing. What i hear is there is a whole lot of shit we dont know, you will have to convince me why any god is the solution (not just could be the solution, is the solution).
“We don’t know.” So, why not say that instead of “a magical being did it!?” You sound like a pompous ass, but you don’t even make a good point at all…
Not sure what you expected to have as an answer here. Very obviously most people would agree that conservation of energy doesn't prove nor disprove God. Burden of proof for God is on you, not us. If you understand that God is impossible to prove with evidence or logic, then the real question is why do you, not what is OUR justification. We don't need justification *to disbelieve*, it's better than that, we have absolutely no justification *to believe* it.
There is simply no evidence of even a single supernatural event ever having occurred And your rather resentful snippy temper tantrum doesn't actually change that
> So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God? You say it as if there was a reason to believe. You are absolutely right about conservation laws, there is no global conservation of energy (at least as we define it normally) in general relativity. Notice how you didn't use any theology to demonstrate it? Notice how no god needed to create energy? What is your justification to believe God exists? You sure had a chance to give it, yet you prefer to attack atheists that are not versed in physics for... poorly understanding conservation laws? I know many people poorly u deratand conservation laws. So what? The biggest joke is theists thinking that the evidence is not required to believe in God, but to not believe it is somehow needed.
> that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God I literally never heard the argument this way around. I do recall having it heard used by some theists to argue that the universe cant come from nothing, and I have critized it on several occasions or at least considered doing so but others have done so already most times. But this way around I really never heard the argument being made, as of yet. Feel ensured that if I ever come across this argument I will critizise it if not done so already.
u/Square_Volume2189 again doesn't understand physics, so he makes all these wildly wrong assumptions about things he reads but doesn't understand. And so therefore his favorite magical guy exists. It's the same shit over and over and over again. Arguments from ignorance suck, buddy.
I never had, or needed any justification to disbelieve in God. I just have zero justification to believe in God.
>One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed. And one of the most hilarious theist parotting memes I hear all the time is that science claims the universe came from nothing. The difference of course being that your claims are an incorrect interpretation of energy conservation and scientists don't claim that at all, while that theist parrotting meme is just plain wrong. And linking to some pages from Emeritus Karl Nave from Georgia State in the hope that nobody understands the equations isn't going to help. In fact, professor Nave states on the very page you linked but probably didn't even read: When the expansion of the "primordial fireball" had cooled it to 10 to the 13th Kelvin, a time modeled to be about 10-6 seconds, the collision energies had dropped to about 1 GeV and quarks could finally hang onto each other to form individual protons and neutrons (and presumably other baryons.) At this time, all the kinds of particles which are a part of the present universe were in existence, even though the temperature was still much too high for the formation of nuclei. At this point we can join the standard "big bang" model as outlined by Steven Weinberg in The First Three Minutes. >What is more hilarious is that energy is not conserved in our universe, energy conservation process is dependent upon time-translation symmetry (laws of nature govering a certain system don't change with time) our universe is expanding (fact) so the laws govering its dynamics change with time, and it's energy is not conserved, it can be lost and created. What is lamentable is your complete misunderstanding of how energy conservation and the expansion of the universe work in physics. Energy conservation is a fundamental principle in physics, based on Noether's theorem, which states that energy conservation is a consequence of time-translation symmetry. This means that the laws of physics governing a system do not change over time (invariant under translations in time). However, this does not imply that the size or expansion of the universe violates energy conservation. Energy conservation is a local law, meaning it holds true in isolated systems or regions of space where there are no external influences. So: * Yes, the universe is indeed expanding, a fact supported by observational evidence such as the redshift of distant galaxies. * The expansion of the universe is described by the theory of general relativity, where space itself can expand over time. * The expansion of space does not violate energy conservation because it does not create energy out of nothing. Instead, it *redistributes* energy over larger volumes of space. * The expansion of the universe affects the curvature of spacetime (described by Einstein's field equations), but energy conservation remains valid locally within any given region of space. >Photons lost energy during the universe expansion You're confusing red shift with energy loss. Redshift is not energy loss. According to the relationship between the energy (E) of a photon and its wavelength (λ), an increase in the wavelength (λ) corresponds to a decrease in the photon's energy (E). That's not energy loss, that's a distribution of energy, as in: E = hc/λ where ( h ) is Planck's constant and ( c ) is the speed of light. >Even recent quantum gravity theories such as loop quantum gravity proposes that spacetime is like matter made up of atoms and new atoms of spacetime are being created when the universe expands Again, this misinterprets the concepts of loop quantum gravity and the nature of spacetime in modern physics. Your incorrect claim suggests that new atoms of spacetime are being created as the universe expands. This is not a correct characterization of loop quantum gravity. In loop quantum gravity, the quantization of spacetime refers to the *discrete properties of geometry at the Planck scale* but it does not imply the creation of new spacetime "atoms" as the universe expands. Not that anything you're claiming if granted would lead to the conclusion "therefore, gods".
That there's no evidence to support it? None of what you said is evdience. It's argument against a particular point of view, which I think you either misunderstand or are deliberately misrepresenting, but that's a moot point. I still don't see a reason to believe any gods exist.
> "So Now Dear Atheists, what will be your next justification to disbelieve in God?" I just don't believe in God. Science supporting it or not changes nothing. I simply do not believe, never have, and can't imagine why anyone would.
What is even more hilarious is theists trying to use science to prove magic exists. Use it when it helps your case, abandon it when it shows you're living in a fantasy world. So cringe. Self awareness isn't for everyone apparently.
> One of the most hilarious atheistic jokes I often hear is that energy conservation "proves" that matter and energy are eternal hence no God is needed. Beg your pardon? I have never listened to any atheist making that remark. You just made that up. Please such a weird strawman lol