Atheist Placeholder's At A Table With God. | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » Philosophy/Politics
Dark Enlightenment
Dark Enlightenment Aug 29 '19
Before I said, "Fuck it, let's go the other way" I almost posted this one. This one is, "why you can make suppositions, but..."

Atheist is almost never a superior position.

Almost all theories of the universe you can throw out to supplant god falls prey to the regress paradox. 

For the sake of this thread I will lay out the 5 most common creation explanations. For the god option we are going with Catholicism circa 1920's, and Father Georges Lemaître. All options assume big bang/cosmic inflation happened.

1. God (The Christian Science Monitor God)
2. Repeating cycles, no end nor beginning
3. Vacuum Genesis 
4. Cosmic Brane Collision
5. Budded of from Another Universe

From there it is an assortment of cyclical models (even after 'dark energy' was proposed), every variation of multiverse splitting, every option has a place somewhere in things which still fall behind the Christian and Hindus in terms of popularity.

From three and on you will take you to another reset of things that need explaining. For the zero-energy universe or vacuum genesis you still need the absolute vacuum for this speck to rise from.

In the end, no matter what you do, whatever cosmological idea you can come up with, there is an; "infinite total vacuum", "hyperspace bulk of branes", or "sea of soap bubble universes, sometimes independant, sometimes splitting off" to explain away. 

The point of all this being, no creation theory gives you the proto form, or you are left assuming any number of new features must have always existed, or the product of something else. You give yourself one more thing to explain away..

Its hard for an atheist to find an answer not contrived. It is hard to not incorporate a like placeholder in a like way.  God is supplanted for a contemporary and may the new feature in your explanation to explain away god sit at a table with god. Especially if you cross an argument for god as the Alpha and The Omega Less Than The Value of One.  

"I am so done with this one, let's just get this the fuck over with".

It is for this reason I must surmise the only path for an atheist to take, and have integrity doing, is to hold cyclical model. A view of universal oroboros. The universe that's tail eating snake existence is the humorous way out of the regress paradox of its creation.  

In short: The only way for an atheist to have integrity in an argument against blind belief is to hold the same creation belief as a Hindu. 

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 29 '19
Anna Aug 29 '19

This can be solved in a quite simple manner.

I don't know and I don't have to know it. But if you know something I don't, please tell me. Don't forget to prove it.

Proceed then to demand evidence. Certainly, science doesn't have answers to all the questions but it's up to the person making claims to prove them. But only if he/she presents them as facts. Just saying " I believe God created the universe" doesn't require evidence. People have every right to believe whatever they want. However, claiming "God created the universe, it's the fact/the truth" demands extraordinary proof like any other extraordinary claim.

That is if one really wants to waste their time debating believers.

The Forum post is edited by Anna Aug 29 '19
Dark Enlightenment
Dark Enlightenment Aug 29 '19
You are always left with equivocal statements, except the cyclical model which never needed creation, but even there you are left with one of now 3 identical presuppositions.

•A god that always existed
•An absolute vacuum that always existed
•A universe in a perpeputal death/rebirth cycle of swallowing its own tail.

Not one can provide said extraordinary evidence. Endless presuppositional apologetic battles later and you are still at the fucking table.

And that is the segue I need.  I feel there is another mechanism that is more fitting. Acid thoughts and wild assumptions on creation are fine, but what you are doing is rejecting a supernatural assumption and choosing to give an alternative one equally hard to prove.


* Acceleration of the Universe face saving extra, sorry for trolling "you all". Thank you for being direct, AK.*   

Lets take the Ω = 1 universe.  Alas we have reverted to flatlanders.  Now the entire universe is flat or so large you cannot measure the curvature with light.  And if omega equals one then it will slowly lose energy and halt its expansion.  If Ω < 1 you have a hyperbolic open negative curvature universe, greater than 1 you have a closed spherical one.   

Current observation and measurements taken come back 180°, but a few type 1A supernovae  proved further away than originally expected, suggesting both negative curve, acceleration, and reducing the "conventional" part of the universe to 4-5%, and making 76% of it "dark energy".

Sadly, one can even argue this dark energy is evidence of a god. A god which almost certainly must look like this:

As of now, that /\ is what acceleration implies. 

The Forum post is edited by Dark Enlightenment Aug 29 '19
Anna Aug 29 '19
Assumption is an assumption, supernatural or not. In either case, one is talking out of one's ass. Nobody knows the origin of the universe at least for now on. All we can do is to speculate. And all such speculations don't have much value except entertainment.
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Spread the Word. Help Us Grow


Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.

Satanic International Network was created by Zach Black in 2009.