I know this has most likely been posted before, but

[Mister E]

Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?

[Goat]

Oh right. But surely that God wouldn't need a cause since an uncaused... thing before a logical universe existed would be illogical and therefore have no problems with having no cause?

That would allow it to be omnipotent in a sense, too.

This itself is based on an unsupported assumption that the universe at some time did not exist.

Indeed, the M-theory demands that the conditions 'before' the universe have it's own frame of time.

[catalyst]

False dilemma - the fact that we don't know whether the universe came into existance or not doesn't mean it can be overruled. Also, doesn't most popular physics support the universe coming into existence (Big Bang/"multiverse" theory)?

The most amusing thing about the above arguement is the comment of "most popular" and the Big Bang theory HAS been "accepted" as it in itself, rings "true" to the concept of GOD and the causal arguement. God was allegedly the "cause" of the big bang, right?

There are other theories out there as to an uncaused universe which of course have been poo-pooed because they negate the need for the causal god.

One such theory is the Hawkings and Hartle "uncaused universe" - the "wave function theory", which the likes of Craig, Isham, Dees have JUMPED on frantically, denying the possibility of, however not actually attacking the concept of Hawking's wave function law, as they really cannot as it is observable evidence, and to deny THAT part would certainly put an end to any credibility in their field they have. Their issue however is that this observable evidence lends to their "god" or any god by "creator" definition, NOT existing, hence the hissy fits.

All I can suggest to you Mister E is to give it a read. If the hawkings/hartle gobity- gook is too much for you ( it is for me) I have found that Quentin Smith's commentary is a much easier read.

[bernee51]

This itself is based on an unsupported assumption that the universe at some time did not exist.

False dilemma - the fact that we don't know whether the universe came into existance or not doesn't mean it can be overruled.

My point exactly. Not sure hthugh where the 'false dilemma' is?

Also, doesn't most popular physics support the universe coming into existence (Big Bang/"multiverse" theory)?

does Popular physics = argumentum ad populum

Ther is always the Big Bounce Theory to consider.

Also, I noticed you said " For all concepts of god with which I have so far been presented I can confidently claim to be ‘absolutely atheist’ ". I know this is very pedantic, but a pretty common concept of God is "that which we cannot understand" (straight of Wikipedia). If you do not understand something for the entirety of your lifetime, then you cannot understand it, so it is therefore a concept of God.

I 'cannot understand' infinitely more than I understand, in fact I have no idea exactly what I cannot understand.

If god is merely all that I cannot understand then call me a theist.

[Goat]

False dilemma - the fact that we don't know whether the universe came into existance or not doesn't mean it can be overruled. Also, doesn't most popular physics support the universe coming into existence (Big Bang/"multiverse" theory)?

The most amusing thing about the above arguement is the comment of "most popular" and the Big Bang theory HAS been "accepted" as it in itself, rings "true" to the concept of GOD and the causal arguement. God was allegedly the "cause" of the big bang, right?

There are other theories out there as to an uncaused universe which of course have been poo-pooed because they negate the need for the causal god.

One such theory is the Hawkings and Hartle "uncaused universe" - the "wave function theory", which the likes of Craig, Isham, Dees have JUMPED on frantically, denying the possibility of, however not actually attacking the concept of Hawking's wave function law, as they really cannot as it is observable evidence, and to deny THAT part would certainly put an end to any credibility in their field they have. Their issue however is that this observable evidence lends to their "god" or any god by "creator" definition, NOT existing, hence the hissy fits.

All I can suggest to you Mister E is to give it a read. If the hawkings/hartle gobity- gook is too much for you ( it is for me) I have found that Quentin Smith's commentary is a much easier read.

The one thing about the Big Bang theory, even among the people who accept it, they are looking for ways to disprove it. That is the way science works.. nothing is 'proven', but they keep on trying to DISPROVE various theories.

There are some cracks in the standard model.. and it doesn't answer everything, but they will keep on trying to crack it totally open

[Mister E]

There are other theories out there as to an uncaused universe which of course have been poo-pooed because they negate the need for the causal god.

Yes, I was just giving an example which agrees with a caused universe. There are hundreds of theories, I don't ignore that, therefore agnosticism.

My point exactly. Not sure hthugh where the 'false dilemma' is?

I thought you were arguing that atheism was correct from a reasonable human perspective, so the false dilemma was "based on an unsupported assumption" - ruling out one option because (false dilemma) an unsupported assumption cannot be correct, and that a supported assumption is correct (whereas an unsupported assumption can still be correct). I think that's a false dilemma, anyway.

does Popular physics = argumentum ad populum

Yes, I was just giving an example which agrees with a caused universe. There are hundreds of theories, I don't ignore that, therefore agnosticism.

I'll read that book now, and understand it when I'm a little older (17 in one week exactly) .

I 'cannot understand' infinitely more than I understand, in fact I have no idea exactly what I cannot understand.

If god is merely all that I cannot understand then call me a theist.

I agree this is a ridiculous concept of God, but I thought I'd mention it out of peculiarity.

[msmcneal]

The problem with an "uncaused first cause" is that there is no evidence that it is divine, or even conscious. The "uncaused first cause" could be nothing more than a natural occurence. As far as being absolutely atheist, I don't think that position is possible to take. Even if one is an atheist, no belief in a god or gods, given enough proof or evidence, an atheist could go to agnostic, or even theistic, if there is ever enough evidence. i don't believe, however, that it's fallacious to take that point of view, as it's more honest than the theistic one. I'm just of the opinion that it's not without it's faults. But then again, so are all philosophies, agnosticism included. It's just what makes the most sense to me.

The theist claims that all things need a cause therefore a god exists who caused. However this god does not need a cause

This is part of what keeps me as agnostic, and not full atheist. If there is a god, why would it be bound by natural laws? Any god that is "real", theoretically speaking, would by necessity have to be outside our perceptions of what's real. This includes the scientific laws that work in the universe. Would said god have to operate by the laws it created? I'm not arguing for theism, I'm just stating the things that go through my head that at times keeps me up at night.

Because they are within our universe and our universe is logical. I mean "universe" as within logic/cause, not as within our perception of what exists, though. Why would something outside of logic have to follow any premises whatsoever?

Here's the problem. If something exists outside of logic, then is there anyway of knowing that it is real or not? In my way of thinking, something that is outside the bounds of logic, whether it exists or not, is a non-issue. It's completely irrelevant if said deity/cause exists or not.

a pretty common concept of God is "that which we cannot understand" (straight of Wikipedia). If you do not understand something for the entirety of your lifetime, then you cannot understand it, so it is therefore a concept of God

I might be either misreading or misunderstanding your post, but if I'm understanding it correctly, then I would say something to this effect: "I do not now, nor do I ever plan on knowing, anything about quantum physics. Is quantum physics, therefore, a concept of god"? Or are you just using the definition of Wikipedia as a point of debate?

My problem with the theism/atheism debate, is that I don't think we CAN ever have the knowledge of whether or not a god exists, and if one does, then it certainly hasn't shown itself to be involved in human or worldly affairs, so there's almost no point wondering about it in the first place. I believe that's called "hard", or "strong" agnosticism.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm not arguing for theism, I'm just stating the things that go through my head that at times keeps me up at night.

If you would just BELIEVE what the self-proclaimed prophets and priests SAY you wouldn't have to trouble yourself thinking about such things. You wouldn't have to use your mind -- and chance staying awake at night.

Just turn your mind over to the priests and go to sleep. That's the way it is done.

Some members may be willing to demonstrate the process.

[msmcneal]

If you would just BELIEVE what the self-proclaimed prophets and priests SAY you wouldn't have to trouble yourself thinking about such things. You wouldn't have to use your mind -- and chance staying awake at night.

Just turn your mind over to the priests and go to sleep. That's the way it is done.

Some members may be willing to demonstrate the process

LOL. I wish it were just that easy. However, I don't forsee myself giving up my mind or abilty to think for myself anytime soon.

[Nilloc James]

.

I'm not arguing for theism, I'm just stating the things that go through my head that at times keeps me up at night.

If you would just BELIEVE what the self-proclaimed prophets and priests SAY you wouldn't have to trouble yourself thinking about such things. You wouldn't have to use your mind -- and chance staying awake at night.

Just turn your mind over to the priests and go to sleep. That's the way it is done.

Some members may be willing to demonstrate the process.

Theres a quote to that effect:

"Religion keeps the mind safe, and a safe mind can not grow"