My Friend Jonah's Proof for God

Jonah, in his e-mail to me, states:

If one believes in the big bang theory then they’ll agree that according to it, there is a never-ending cycle of big bangs, eventually followed by a Grand Collapsing when the universe reaches critical mass, and then another big bang.

If one believes in the Creation theory, they’ll agree that according to it, The universe was made at a point,(lets say at year 0) and will continue indefinitely.

P1. Time is infinite
You’re probably familiar with the Infinite Monkey Theorem if so, you’ll acknowledge that:
P2. If something is physically possible, given an infinite period of time it will happen.
P3. It is physically possible for there to be a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel (String theory)
C1. Given an infinite amount of time, there will be/has been a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel
C2. There will be/has been a being with the properties of Living Forever and Time Travel
P4. God is a being that has the properties of living forever and Time Travel
C3. There will be/has been a God(that can live forever and can Time Travel)
C4. God exists.

Premise 1:
You are correct in the assertion that there has been a proposed theory of a "Big Bounce" so to speak, involving an expansion and collapsing of space. This has never been proven, however, nor is it still a prevailing theory in astrophysics. This loop could only occur in what is called a closed universe, where the energy density is greater than one. For more information on the "shape" of the universe, I would recommend Lawrence Krauss's lecture, "A Universe from Nothing." The main point is that there is no proof that this Big Bounce idea is true, therefore premise one cannot be shown to be true. Without an infinite amount of time, the Infinite Monkey Theorem fails.

Premise 3:
It is questionable whether or not time travel is in fact possible.

Conclusion 3:

Even if this argument, with all of its questionable scientific principles, were to be accepted, you have not proven a very impressive god. All this would prove is an entity which both lives forever and can travel through time, presumably at will. This could be a unicorn, a garden pixie, or a living proton. It is possible such a being exists, but how would this "God" impact our lives? There is no justification for extrapolating that such a being was in any way responsible for the creation of humans, there is no reason to worship this being, this being has none of the properties attributed to a god, and the existence or nonexistence of such a being is for the most part irrelevant in almost all circumstances. For more on this, see my post on Words and Their Baggage.

Overall, it was an interesting attempt to reconcile science with god claims. Your two major flaws, however, were a few unjustified assumptions about scientific principles and you seem to be proving a meaningless god.

timemachinego.com

How do you justify your beliefs?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."
-1 Peter 3:15


I recently received an e-mail criticizing me because I could not disprove God. First, I have made it clear in a previous post that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. There are an infinite number of possible gods, and it would be absurd to request a disproof of so many unjustified claims. I challenge any and all readers to provide me with what they believe is their best proof for the existence of their God. Please be very clear in your attempt at proof, as I will copy and paste it directly in my response to your post. If you don't want your username referenced or would like me to refer to you by a certain name, please mention it in the e-mail. Please send all proof attempts to atwopiecepuzzle@gmail.com. Good luck c:

smbc-comics.com

Stages of (Dis)belief

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

-Leviticus 20:13

I'm commonly asked why I have this blog, as well as why I bother debating with theists who "will never change their mind." People seem to have the idea that the process of going from theism to atheism is simple and quick; one minute you believe, the next you don't. This is a common misunderstanding. It is entirely true that I have no chance of getting into a debate with a theist and having him leave as an atheist. That is not in any way what I can do or what I think I am able to do. Rather, people tend to fall into certain categories based upon how strongly they feel about their beliefs. If I were to say I have a specific goal when debating theists and agnostics, I would have to say that it is to move them, even just slightly, along this scale. I myself was raised Roman Catholic, and over the course of about four years I went through various stages, theism without organized religion, agnosticism, and finally full atheism.

Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Strong Believers

This category of believers generally encompasses those strong believers who feel they are absolutely correct in their beliefs. They tend to believe that the Bible (or other holy book) was written directly or indirectly by God, and base their life around their god. They believe they have proof for their god, and there is almost no chance of this person ever being convinced that they are wrong. Almost everyone who falls into this category also makes the absurd statements that the Universe is 6,000 years old, or that argue that evolution does not occur (it happens, it is a fact, if you still argue the point you are simply being ignorant). This was me until about five years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on either distorted/made up facts or the fallacies of special pleading, false dichotomies (attempting to disprove scientific theories such as evolution or the Big Bang and believing that proves their theory), or variations of the argument from design/uncaused causes.

Average Believers

Most theists fall into this category. They go to church, are familiar with some Bible stories (but most have never read the whole Bible), and some accept the 6,000 year old Universe or argue against evolution. These people believe what they are told by those in the above category as well as priests and other religious figures. This strata of believers often does not ever actually think about the truth behind the claims they accept, they simply dogmatically accept these claims as they were told to by parents and other authority figures. This was me until about four years ago. The method of debate employed by these theists generally depends on argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad ignorancium, special pleading, and anecdotal evidence.

Unaffiliated with Religion

This category is the group of theists that will say the bible was written by humans, it is not an authority, and they do not believe in any specific religion. They merely have this belief that a god exists, usually a personal god and usually one who has a heaven in store for us. I generally look down upon this group of believers as a great deal of them will acknowledge that they have no evidence or justification for their belief and yet they still believe. I have little respect for people who hold beliefs that they agree are unjustified. If you believe in a Judeo-Christian god and heaven, yet you accept that the Bible and other holy books were written by people and are likely fairy tales, where do you derive your beliefs from? Holding a belief purely and knowingly because it makes you feel better is something that I detest, despite that fact that I fell into this category until about three years ago. This group of theists almost always resorts to an appeal to emotion to justify their beliefs.

Agnostics

Agnostics tend to be one of two types. Some are pretty much atheists who are either scared of the word atheist or who are holding on to the last sliver of belief they have just for the sake of "fitting in." These people can generally be swayed to atheism somewhat easily by simply showing them that the reasons they think they have for belief make no sense. The second type is the group that simply chooses not to think about religion because of the cognitive dissonance it causes when they try to reconcile the nonsense that theism claims with the reality that is present and observably true. Again, these people can usually be persuaded to reject the absurd claims of religion as long as they you can get them to actually think about the subject. Agnostics generally use the first cause argument to justify their retained belief of a god.

Atheists


At this point, the person has fully stopped accepting god claims. They have concluded that there is inadequate evidence to support belief in a god, and will generally no longer accept claims without thinking critically about them first.

As noted above, I don't anticipate converting anyone overnight; it's not an instantaneous process. I hope by encouraging people to actually examine the truth value of their beliefs, I may at least shift some readers along the scale.

ffffound.com