Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheist or Agnostic?

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Blackhorse Slim
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 1,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Blackhorse Slim


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I don't agree at all. I think evil can be explained by free-will and I can think of 3 good reasons for free-will be a good idea.

    See, this is where the pro-god arguments fall down.

    1 God is omnipotent
    2 God decides we should have free will
    3 God cannot allow us free will without allowing the possibility of evil
    4 Omnipotent, remember?


  • Options
    #63
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    kelly1 wrote: »
    It's really not very reasonable to claim that God can't explain the origin of the universe etc. God could certainly explain the big bang, the existence of life and the laws of nature. It just can't be scientifically verified and therefore can't be put forward as a scientific hypothesis.

    God explains nothing. It's the equivalent of an alien from another planet joining you for Sunday dinner and asking how asking how roast chicken, potatoes gravy and carrots are made, only to receive the answer 'Mum made it'; bearing in mind this alien has never come across fowl, vegetables, ovens or stoves. Let alone posses even a vague concept of cooking.


  • Options
    #64
    Blackhorse Slim
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 1,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Blackhorse Slim


    kelly1 wrote: »

    Is it not remarkable that the laws of nature can be described mathematically and that they are consistent, allowing us to make predictions? I think it is. We could be living in a chaotic universe which defies explanation. Instead we find the workings of nature to be quite elegant.

    This part I wholeheartedly agree with. ;)


  • Options
    #65
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    It seems Atheism and Agnosticism have lost some meaning due to semantics. A bit like Irish Nationalist and Irish Republican. Both mean much the same thing but they're used for different levels of extremity.

    I guess I'm an Agnostic because the universe existing instead of not existing puzzles me. On the other hand I've never come across a God/Religion that's convinced me it's anything more than a man-made story. So I'm an Atheist in respect to every religion I've thought about. Guess that makes me an Athist.

    I guess this sums me up "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist"
    kelly1 wrote: »
    It's really not very reasonable to claim that God can't explain the origin of the universe etc. God could certainly explain the big bang, the existence of life and the laws of nature. It just can't be scientifically verified and therefore can't be put forward as a scientific hypothesis.


    I'd agree if you're talking about scientific evidence but nobody I know of would claim that the tooth fairy created the universe! :rolleyes:
    The FSM etc is only useful in demonstrating that you can't disprove a claim for which there is no evidence. There's no comparison between flying teapots and God defined as the uncaused cause. God is a possible solution to the infinite regress problem, whereas a teapot isn't.

    Either you're an extremely gifted philosopher or you didn't understand the arguments!

    You seem to just have a different interpretation of the word "explain" to most people here

    Yes God/Christianity could "explain" the beginnings of the universe but no more than Allah/Islam or Hinduism or something I dream about tonight.

    When you post that God can explain the beginnings of the universe you posted it as if there was some weight to that claim. There's no weight to it because its simply an idea. No evidence.

    Is it not remarkable that the laws of nature can be described mathematically and that they are consistent, allowing us to make predictions? I think it is. We could be living in a chaotic universe which defies explanation. Instead we find the workings of nature to be quite elegant.

    It's remarkable I guess... suggest a God exists.... no.


  • Options
    #66
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I'd agree if you're talking about scientific evidence but nobody I know of would claim that the tooth fairy created the universe! :rolleyes:
    The FSM etc is only useful in demonstrating that you can't disprove a claim for which there is no evidence. There's no comparison between flying teapots and God defined as the uncaused cause. God is a possible solution to the infinite regress problem, whereas a teapot isn't.

    Even if I asserted that the teapot created the universe and had all the characteristics as your deity?
    Either you're an extremely gifted philosopher or you didn't understand the arguments!

    Go on then, please enlighten us with a convincing philosophical argument.
    Is it not remarkable that the laws of nature can be described mathematically and that they are consistent, allowing us to make predictions? I think it is. We could be living in a chaotic universe which defies explanation. Instead we find the workings of nature to be quite elegant.

    But we wouldn't be here typing this if we lived in a 'chaotic' universe, now would we? Ever hear of the Anthropic Principle?
    I don't agree at all. I think evil can be explained by free-will and I can think of 3 good reasons for free-will be a good idea.

    I'd argue again how can your God be omniscient and still give us free will? It's not free if he knows already, and if he does know already then he knows evil is going to happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    kelly1 wrote: »
    We could be living in a chaotic universe which defies explanation. Instead we find the workings of nature to be quite elegant.

    We wouldn't be alive, contemplating this stuff, if our universe didn't work in a predictable fashion. If the universe was chaotic, the very basics on which life on earth is based on wouldn't be consistent, and life wouldn't exist.

    Edit: I have just learned from Liam that this is called the Anthropic principle :)


  • Options
    #68
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    kelly1 wrote: »
    It's really not very reasonable to claim that God can't explain the origin of the universe etc. God could certainly explain the big bang, the existence of life and the laws of nature. It just can't be scientifically verified and therefore can't be put forward as a scientific hypothesis.

    But the Hindu triumvirate, a frog from the Galgamec alterverse, a white hole, me saying I did it, all can be put in place of "God" in that post and make just as much sense. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you do mean Judeo-Christian God when you say things like that, yes?


  • Options
    #69
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    kelly1 wrote: »
    It's really not very reasonable to claim that God can't explain the origin of the universe etc. God could certainly explain the big bang, the existence of life and the laws of nature. It just can't be scientifically verified and therefore can't be put forward as a scientific hypothesis.

    If everyone thought that god could explain things just because we didn't currently understand them we'd all be living in caves and dying of smallpox. Thankfully there are enough people who realise that "I don't know so it must be god" is terrible reasoning that provides no enlightment that we can live in the world we do today, where you can pray all you want but you still go to a hospital when you're sick


  • Options
    #70
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Gambler wrote: »
    For me I find less of an argument for god having done it. If there is a god why would god do it that way? Why bother with a giant explosion of matter? Why create a universe that is expanding at a slowing rate over time? What part of this suggests that god is the best possible explanation?
    I don't really want to get into theology here but I believe that God deliberately remains invisible to us so that we can practice the virtue of faith and faith merits reward. If there was no need for faith, there would be no reason for God to reward us.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    If the scientific method can find a natural explanation for something, we have to favour that over goddunnit.
    I agree with you on that point.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    goddunnit does not explain anything and therefore cannot compete with a rationale based on physical evidence.
    I don't agree with this bit. It may be that there is no natural/scientific explanation for the big bang for instance and that it was in fact caused by God. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then science will never discover the cause of the BB.
    strobe wrote: »
    For the record, I am open to the possibility (I find it very very unlikely) that there exists some form of entity that exists outside of our realm of understanding and it created our universe, there are huge obvious problems with that idea, but I am open to the fact that it may be the case......
    What kind of problems do you have in mind? Lack of scientific evidence? BTW, I really don't want to get bogged down in defining God as Christian, Jewish, Islamic etc. I'm talking about a God as an explanation for the design and creation of the universe.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The big bang was not the point in the past at which the universe began, this is a misrepresentation of what it says. The big bang was the point in the past at which the current space-time began to expand from a hot primordial state. The big bang does not claim that the universe came from nothing.
    Why do people keep getting this wrong?
    OK fair enough but science has yet to explain what caused the big-bang.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Really? After the massive thread where William Lane Craig's misunderstanding was explained to you at length?
    I'm not sure that anyone refuted the claim that the BGV theorem proves that the universe began at a finite time in the past. See post 57
    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    No, I don't believe God doesn't exist. I just don't believe in God....
    .....
    In general, most people who call themselves atheists are agnostics. The reason many use the term 'atheist' is simply because the question is usually phrased as 'Do you believe in God?' and not 'Do you know God exists?' Agnosticism is a claim to lack of knowledge, and atheism is a claim to lack of belief.
    Thanks for that and others who have clarified this for me. I have up to now thought of atheism and agnosticism as being mutually exclusive but didn't realize that you can have combination of atheism and agnosticism e.g. agnostic atheism or gnostic atheism.
    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    I haven't come across any that I could describe as 'very good.' Most seem to be variations of the cosmological and teleological arguments, but if you know of some more original arguments, I'd be interested in hearing them (or seeing them in this case :P).
    I'm just getting familiar with the arguments so I can't claim to have come across one that's water-tight and I doubt I ever will. But off the top of my head, I have a problem with an infinite regression of cause and effect. Must read more on this.
    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    The way to get an atheist to drop the whole Flying Spaghetti Monster thing would be to explain how your own god is any more plausible. I have yet to see anyone make a reasonable attempt at this.
    I don't think it's that difficult really. Nobody seriously suggests that the FSM created the universe but God, defined as the creator, is a genuine proposition because it solves the problem of an infinite chain of causes and effects where God is the only uncaused cause (or uncreated creator).
    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    ...... if God is beyond that, then surely he's beyond being knowable to us at all.
    That doesn't prevent God revealing His nature to us.


  • Options
    #71
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    [QUOTE=kelly1;64838580
    I'm not sure that anyone refuted the claim that the BGV theorem proves that the universe began at a finite time in the past. See post 57s.[/QUOTE]The part you quoted says that the inflation model alone cannot for what is observed. In what way does that mean that the universe came into existence at that point? As far as I can see all it means is that the inflation model is invalid at that point because the conditions didn't match those described by the model, the same way that different models are needed to describe a ball bouncing and the same ball roling down a hill. And I could swear that exactly the same point was made to you at the time. I suspect you don't really get the point any more than I do but some guy has come out with a suggestion that something in science might support your beliefs so you've decided to accept what he's saying without really understanding it, while still retaining the opinion that science cannot speak on the topic of god. Would that be accurate?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I don't think it's that difficult really. Nobody seriously suggests that the FSM created the universe but God, defined as the creator, is a genuine proposition because it solves the problem of an infinite chain of causes and effects where God is the only uncaused cause (or uncreated creator).

    It doesn't really solve the problem though.
    1. how do you know the universe had a cause?
    2. You have postulated an uncaused cause but that doesn't mean that such a thing actually exists or could even possibly exist. The fact that the idea fits nicely in your brain means pretty much nothing. The universe is not necessarily intuitive which is why we need evidence
    3. Even if there is a uncaused cause, why must it be a god?
    4. more importantly why must it be your god and not a being I have postulated called the uncaused spaghetti monster?


  • Options
    #73
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    robindch wrote:
    I have read most arguments for the existence of abstract deities ("God" in the general sense) and found them really quite silly, some of them amazingly so.
    Either you're an extremely gifted philosopher or you didn't understand the arguments!
    Contrary to what the professional religious philosophers say or imply to their client populations, one doesn't need to be a gifted philosopher to see through most religious arguments.

    At least not when they're boiled down to the fundamentals which the religious philosophers go to such splendid lengths to hide!


  • Options
    #74
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    My position is the same as it would be if someone told me that he knew what next week's lotto numbers are going to be. If I told him he was wrong I would be telling him that I know that those numbers are not going to come up next week, I would also be claiming to know something I cannot possibly know. What I would say is that I don't believe that he knows what the numbers are going to be and, while the numbers he predicts may well come up, he has given me no reason to suggest that those numbers are actually going to come up. I don't believe his claim but that is different to believing that his claim is false. I simply don't think religious people know what they're talking about and if they do turn out to be right it will be nothing more than luck that they happened to pick the right religion

    I've seen you say this on another thread, but I didn't think it relevant so I didn't bother responding to it there. Anyway, the above is just baffling 'logic':confused:


    You think if a Christian says that they know God exists and they end up being right that it will end up being nothing more than luck:confused:

    So the interventionist God of the bible exists.

    He reveals himself through his Holy Spirit and is said to open hearts.

    Yet, EVEN IF YOU FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT, AND GOD DOES IN FACT EXIST, you'll still not believe that God revealed himself to them.

    That seems to be a rather bizarre stand to take:confused: Your whole worldview is knocked down like a house of cards, yet you hold fast to your belief that God did not reveal himself:confused:

    Fair enough that you think its all a steaming pile, and you think believers are deluded, thick, or whatever. However, if as above, you find that you have been the deluded one and put too much faith in man and his fields of enquiry, you will still hold onto the notion that it was still just dumb luck:confused: I'd describe that as stubborn and rather dumb. Do you really stand by this rhetorical assessment?


  • Options
    #75
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    robindch wrote: »
    Contrary to what the professional religious philosophers say or imply to their client populations, one doesn't need to be a gifted philosopher to see through most religious arguments.

    At least not when they're boiled down to the fundamentals which the religious philosophers go to such splendid lengths to hide!

    Absolutely. Believers seem to hold these people in such high regard and I've found that a lot of the particularly bad arguments I've seen put forward have originated with such apologists. I'm sure you remember introducing me to the term "not even wrong" when I was explaining just how stupid a point being made by William Lane Craig was. I get the distinct impression that it's all just an argument from authority, that believers don't necessarily find these arguments all that convincing themselves but they just put it down to their own ignorance on the topic because these people wouldn't be so confident and so popular if they were just talking nonsense...........would they :p


  • Options
    #76
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I've seen you say this on another thread, but I didn't think it relevant so I didn't bother responding to it there. Anyway, the above is just baffling 'logic':confused:


    You think if a Christian says that they know God exists and they end up being right that it will end up being nothing more than luck:confused:

    So the interventionist God of the bible exists.

    He reveals himself through his Holy Spirit and is said to open hearts.

    Yet, EVEN IF YOU FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT, AND GOD DOES IN FACT EXIST, you'll still not believe that God revealed himself to them.

    That seems to be a rather bizarre stand to take:confused: Your whole worldview is knocked down like a house of cards, yet you hold fast to your belief that God did not reveal himself:confused:

    Fair enough that you think its all a steaming pile, and you think believers are deluded, thick, or whatever. However, if as above, you find that you have been the deluded one and put too much faith in man and his fields of enquiry, you will still hold onto the notion that it was still just dumb luck:confused: I'd describe that as stubborn and rather dumb. Do you really stand by this rhetorical assessment?

    what you seem to forget is that for every christian who thinks that god has revealed himself to him, thereby confirming the truth of his denomination to him, there are another ten who think that god has confirmed the truth of their denomination and another 50 who think that their own supernatural being has revealed him/her/itself to them thereby confirming the truth of their nonsense. Even if a god exists, I can say with absolute certainty that the vast majority of people in the world who think that a supernatural being has spoken to them are wrong because at most one denomination of one religion is true. So if you think that a god has revealed himself to you and you turn out to be right, you'll be one of the lucky few


  • Options
    #77
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    kelly1 wrote: »
    What kind of problems do you have in mind? Lack of scientific evidence? BTW, I really don't want to get bogged down in defining God as Christian, Jewish, Islamic etc. I'm talking about a God as an explanation for the design and creation of the universe.

    Well I'm glad (at least for the sake of this thread) you're not defining "God" as the God of the bible (or any other God that people have attested to), and just as the "first cause", to me personally at least, that is a more reasonable stance than saying it was Yahweh or Brahma or a Galgamec frog.

    But I still don't really understand why you view any entity being responsible as more realistic than no entity being responsible. The most obvious problem (there are others) is the same basic problem with any arcitect of everything, what caused the cause? If you are capable of saying "nothing caused the cause, it's always been" then why can't you say that "nothing caused the universe, it's always been"? If you can except infinity in one instance, why not another? I mean we can see the universe, we know it's there, even if we only have a basic understanding of the concept, as far as we can tell it definately exists. We can't say that of "the entity".

    There is just nothing I can think of that, for me, (and I have a lot of trouble putting this next bit into the right words) points to a purpose, and all designed creations have some purpose, for most of the universe. You could say that Earth or the Universe, was put here for humans (a very very arrogant opinion in my mind, especially since we've only being occupying it for a fraction of it's existance) by "the entity". But if that was the case why did he do such a crap job making it suitable for humans to live in? Seems like if he could design a universe he could have designed an Earth and Universe that wasn't mainly inhospitable for the things it was designed for and didn't keep trying to drown, drought, burn, crush and starve the poor bastards. I find it bizare to suggest that an entity could create and design everything that exists but not do a very good job.


  • Options
    #78
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    strobe wrote: »
    Well I'm glad (at least for the sake of this thread) you're not defining "God" as the God of the bible (or any other God that people have attested to), and just as the "first cause", to me personally at least, that is a more reasonable stance than saying it was Yahweh or Brahma or a Galgamec frog.

    to be honest I wish believers wouldn't do that. Kelly1 does't believe in an "uncaused cause", he believes in a being that consists of three parts, that had a son who is also himself, that disapproves of shellfish, homosexuality and women having authority, that regularly interacts with the world to pick random people to cure of diseases etc etc etc.

    When someone misrepresents your position to make it easier to attack it's called a straw man but what's it called when someone misrepresents their own position to make it easier to defend?


  • Options
    #79
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    An Ironman? :eek:

    ironman1_Small.jpg


  • Options
    #80
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    kelly1 wrote: »
    But I think it is reasonable to say that any true religion must be based on divine revelation.

    Divine revelation amounts to a personal subjective experience. Now, perhaps you've had one (or more) and are privvy to information that I and others are not. Great for you. But how could I possibly know either way? Ever? Your word here just isn't enough. You know how it works in a courtroom. "I know what I know and that's it" simply doesn't cut it.


    This is what I find silly. Nobody claims that the FSM created the universe or is omnipotent/omniscient!

    I agree with you on this, to a point. The FSM-type arguments tend to get a bit overplayed. It's true that a flying teapot or any of that stuff is obviously silly, the idea that the universe may have had a creative influence is not quite so obviously silly. What is obviously silly to me is that any such creator would be exactly like the sort of god that you and other christians believe in.

    If God can created a universe, He can surely communicate with us!

    Why all the cloak and dagger then? Why the games? Surely if god can communicate with me and reveal his true existence then he owes it to me to do so and save me from damnation? It's a bit of a put-up job otherwise, wouldn't you say? Strange that he's turned into a rather shy fellow this god. He really has changed since the biblical fire and brimstone days when you couldn't fart sideways without being turned into a pillar of salt or drowned in some great flood.

    I still think agnosticism is the more honest view.

    Perhaps, but you still fail to grasp that it would also be the more honest position for you to take, rather than claiming to know all the answers.


  • Options
    #81
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Believers seem to hold these people in such high regard and I've found that a lot of the particularly bad arguments I've seen put forward have originated with such apologists. [...] believers don't necessarily find these arguments all that convincing themselves
    Like the English and their music, I think the religious may not enjoy the arguments all that much, but they certainly enjoy the sound they make :)

    Which reminds me of two lines. The first is from Peter Medawar's review of de Chardin's frightful "The Phenomenon of Man":
    Peter Medawar wrote:
    its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself
    And another from a well-known cryptographic adage:
    Some Guy wrote:
    Everybody's smart enough to build a cryptosystem that they themselves are not smart enough to break.
    And so it is with the fine people who develop and promulgate religious arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Go on then. How does belief in god "explain the big bang"?
    I understand the God cannot be part of any scientific theory and that science would stop progressing if the creation of the universe were attributed to God. But personally I think we're approaching the boundaries of scientific enquiry. From the lay science I've read, it seems very little progress has been made in the past 30 years towards a grant unification theory. String theory seems to be in tatters because it can't make any testable predictions.

    Maybe God is actually in the gaps! Maybe he did create the universe out of nothing and sustains its existence. Maybe there is no Higgs Boson and it's God who gives particles mass.

    I'm not against scientific enquiry but if God is responsible for creation, science will inevitably hit a brick wall.

    Blackhorse Slim wrote: »
    See, this is where the pro-god arguments fall down.

    1 God is omnipotent
    2 God decides we should have free will
    3 God cannot allow us free will without allowing the possibility of evil
    4 Omnipotent, remember?

    I don't follow. God cannot do what is logically impossible. Are you suggesting that God should have given us free will but prevent us from commiting evil, thereby putting a limit on our freedom which would make our "free-will" illusory?
    liamw wrote: »
    Even if I asserted that the teapot created the universe and had all the characteristics as your deity?
    Liam, this is silly. Don't you think the creator would have to exist "outside" the universe. Does a physical teapot fit that description? And why a teapot and not a tennis racket? It makes no sense.
    liamw wrote: »
    But we wouldn't be here typing this if we lived in a 'chaotic' universe, now would we? Ever hear of the Anthropic Principle?
    True.
    liamw wrote: »
    I'd argue again how can your God be omniscient and still give us free will? It's not free if he knows already, and if he does know already then he knows evil is going to happen.
    I'd debate you point in bold. I know it's counter-intuitive and subtle but I think knowing the future doesn't necessarily affect our free-will. In every moment of our lives we make choices and God doesn't force us either way. Theologians speculate that since God exists outside time, every instant of time, past, present and future, is present to God now. So God knows what will happen but this knowledge of the future if the outcome of our freely made choices.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The part you quoted says that the inflation model alone cannot for what is observed. In what way does that mean that the universe came into existence at that point? As far as I can see all it means is that the inflation model is invalid at that point because the conditions didn't match those described by the model, the same way that different models are needed to describe a ball bouncing and the same ball roling down a hill. And I could swear that exactly the same point was made to you at the time. I suspect you don't really get the point any more than I do but some guy has come out with a suggestion that something in science might support your beliefs so you've decided to accept what he's saying without really understanding it, while still retaining the opinion that science cannot speak on the topic of god. Would that be accurate?
    I certainly don't claim to understand the physics as I didn't specialize in physics but I want to draw attention to the statement by Vlienkin i.e.

    "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

    Doesn't this imply that before the beginning, there was nothing? Because if there was something before the big-bang, then we don't have a beginning but only a change of state.


  • Options
    #83
    hiorta
    Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭hiorta


    Much of this difficulty is that we were conditioned to understand that 'god' was/ is an individual 'person' with human traits and desires.

    Perhaps if 'god' were seen as the Life-force animating all that lives, neutral in essence, but eternal in all reality (whatever that means), it might be a more acceptable notion than the discredited theology of yesteryear?


  • Options
    #84
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    ...I'd debate you point in bold. I know it's counter-intuitive and subtle but I think knowing the future doesn't necessarily affect our free-will...

    I should know better but I have to respond to this. The implications on free will of knowing the future are huge and to suggest otherwise is just irrational. In short it is logically impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient creator of a system to create a system in which he doesn't know the outcome of the execution of the system. It's one very compelling piece of evidence against any of the gods of man therefore I'm an atheist and honestly so, I am however agnostic to that which I don't know and cannot know considering the limitations of my mind but that can apply to everything. Belief and Knowledge are not the same thing.


  • Options
    #85
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I certainly don't claim to understand the physics as I didn't specialize in physics but I want to draw attention to the statement by Vlienkin i.e.

    "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

    Doesn't this imply that before the beginning, there was nothing? Because if there was something before the big-bang, then we don't have a beginning but only a change of state.

    There was already a 21 page thread where it was explained that the theory does not have the implications that you and William Lane Craig think it does so please read it again


  • Options
    #86
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I understand the God cannot be part of any scientific theory and that science would stop progressing if the creation of the universe were attributed to God. But personally I think we're approaching the boundaries of scientific enquiry. From the lay science I've read, it seems very little progress has been made in the past 30 years towards a grant unification theory. String theory seems to be in tatters because it can't make any testable predictions.

    Maybe God is actually in the gaps! Maybe he did create the universe out of nothing and sustains its existence. Maybe there is no Higgs Boson and it's God who gives particles mass.

    I'm not against scientific enquiry but if God is responsible for creation, science will inevitably hit a brick wall.
    It honestly pisses me off to see people enjoying all the benefits that science has brought them and using one of those benefits (a computer) to drag science through the mud because they prefer to make stuff up and declare it to be true. The only way we will ever understand the universe is through science. The only thing that will ever surpass science is better science. Science could have all the answers just like religion but it's not prepared to make unsupportable claims about things it cannot possibly know. If science ever does hit a brick wall that still doesn't entitle religious people to declare that their god is on the other side of it, "I don't know so it must be god" will remain as ridiculous then as it is today. Science prefers to have the right answers and know they are the right answers than to make answers up and have "faith" that they're right.


  • Options
    #87
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I don't really want to get into theology here but I believe that God deliberately remains invisible to us so that we can practice the virtue of faith and faith merits reward. If there was no need for faith, there would be no reason for God to reward us.

    Why does faith merit reward over, say, rational and evidence based thinking? Why is faith so important to god? What does he get out of it?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I don't agree with this bit. It may be that there is no natural/scientific explanation for the big bang for instance and that it was in fact caused by God. If that is the case, and I believe it is, then science will never discover the cause of the BB.

    But it may be that there is no natural/scientific explanation for the big bang for instance and that it was in fact caused by me. But what do you do with that? How do you propose toverify it?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    OK fair enough but science has yet to explain what caused the big-bang.

    Possibly because the word "cause" doesn't necessarily apply to the big bang. The big bang created space and time, meaning that "beofre" it started there was no space and time (as we know it anyway). This means that cause and effect as we know it (ie cause happening before effect, effect needing a cause at all) may not actually be relevent at all.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I'm not sure that anyone refuted the claim that the BGV theorem proves that the universe began at a finite time in the past. See post 57

    Actually all it proves is that the universe as we know it began at a finite time in the past. The initial condition the universe came from is not subject to rules of the universe as we know it, and so is undescribed (possibly undescribable).
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I'm just getting familiar with the arguments so I can't claim to have come across one that's water-tight and I doubt I ever will. But off the top of my head, I have a problem with an infinite regression of cause and effect. Must read more on this.

    I wouldn't think of it as an infinite regression of cause and effect. I would think of it as a single regression of cause and effect, that happens an infinite number of times. Each time the big bang occurs, cause and effect then proceeds as normal (assuming the universe created is chronologically linear like ours). However once the universe ceases to exist (the big crunch, or whatever it will be) cause and effect cease to apply, as time and space cease to exist. Thus there is no infinite regress as space-time itself doesn't exist as an infinite stream, it comes into existence with each big bang (or not, maybe it doesn't always come into existence) but each sperate existence of space-time is independent form each other.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I don't think it's that difficult really. Nobody seriously suggests that the FSM created the universe but God, defined as the creator, is a genuine proposition because it solves the problem of an infinite chain of causes and effects where God is the only uncaused cause (or uncreated creator).

    And how exactly does that solve the problem of an infinite chain of regression? It just arbitrarily inserts something which arbitrarily doesn't need a cause. Why cant there be second completely seperate universe that is eternal and uncaused which caused this one to exist? Wouldn't that also "solve" the problem of an infintie chain of cause and effect.


  • Options
    #88
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You think if a Christian says that they know God exists and they end up being right that it will end up being nothing more than luck:confused:

    So the interventionist God of the bible exists.

    He reveals himself through his Holy Spirit and is said to open hearts.

    Yet, EVEN IF YOU FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT, AND GOD DOES IN FACT EXIST, you'll still not believe that God revealed himself to them.

    That seems to be a rather bizarre stand to take:confused: Your whole worldview is knocked down like a house of cards, yet you hold fast to your belief that God did not reveal himself:confused:

    The only way to know god exists is if you yourself are god. Any experience that you have that makes you think god exists could just be a big misinterpretation by your fallible human sense. You could be mistaking a natural occurance or an advanced being for god and you cant know wether or not you are unless you are infallible, which only god is.
    Given that there are so many different gods, very nearly every one an interventionalist god, and given that you did not reach the conclusion of your own gods existence entirely unbiasedly, the only way you could be right is luck.


  • Options
    #89
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It honestly pisses me off to see people enjoying all the benefits that science has brought them and using one of those benefits (a computer) to drag science through the mud because they prefer to make stuff up and declare it to be true.
    It's sad, if predictable, that the contempt that many people feel towards a disembodied "science" is (almost always) inversely proportional to their need for their doctors.

    Wasn't it Iain Banks who suggested that everybody who had problems with science should go live in a cave, wear an animal skin, eat bad food and die from en easily-treatable disease by their mid-twenties?

    <grunt>!(*)

    (*) time for dinner, methinks!


  • Options
    #90
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I understand the God cannot be part of any scientific theory and that science would stop progressing if the creation of the universe were attributed to God. But personally I think we're approaching the boundaries of scientific enquiry. From the lay science I've read, it seems very little progress has been made in the past 30 years towards a grant unification theory. String theory seems to be in tatters because it can't make any testable predictions.

    And from the religious opinions I've read, very little progress has been made in the last 2 thousand years towards a rational argument for god.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Maybe God is actually in the gaps! Maybe he did create the universe out of nothing and sustains its existence. Maybe there is no Higgs Boson and it's God who gives particles mass.

    Never have I read a sentence with more wishful thinking.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I'm not against scientific enquiry but if God is responsible for creation, science will inevitably hit a brick wall.

    And then religion can hit a brick wall when asked why god bothered.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I don't follow. God cannot do what is logically impossible.

    If god annot do what is logically impossible then how can he give us free will if he knows exactly what we are going to do with it in a universe that at any time our free will enacts, he has to choose to let us do it? the only free will is gods.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that God should have given us free will but prevent us from commiting evil, thereby putting a limit on our freedom which would make our "free-will" illusory?

    We cant time travel, does that not put a limit on our free will?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Liam, this is silly. Don't you think the creator would have to exist "outside" the universe.

    No, why would it?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Does a physical teapot fit that description?

    A magical flying teapot does.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    And why a teapot and not a tennis racket? It makes no sense.

    Of course it makes no sense, a tennis racket is full of holes everything would fall out of it.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I'd debate you point in bold. I know it's counter-intuitive and subtle but I think knowing the future doesn't necessarily affect our free-will. In every moment of our lives we make choices and God doesn't force us either way. Theologians speculate that since God exists outside time, every instant of time, past, present and future, is present to God now. So God knows what will happen but this knowledge of the future if the outcome of our freely made choices.

    What you and these theologians seem to be ignoring is gods omnipower. God exists at all points of time and at all points of time god is omnipowerful. That means at the time of creation, when god is making the universe and deciding exactly how all the universal constants work, he is aware of what effects these will have at every point in the existence of the universe and he is capable of changing any one thing to change any outcome any way he likes. God is incapable of not being aware of these outcomes as he is omniscient, so every outcome is his choice. This also applies to when god is creating humans souls, he is incapable of not being aware of what decisions we will make and every tweek he makes in moulding our souls is done with god full knowing every outcome and act that it will result in. Therefore every part of the universe and every act and decision made by humans is actually previously, currently and already decided by god.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I certainly don't claim to understand the physics as I didn't specialize in physics but I want to draw attention to the statement by Vlienkin i.e.

    "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

    Doesn't this imply that before the beginning, there was nothing? Because if there was something before the big-bang, then we don't have a beginning but only a change of state.

    No, it implies that space time doesn't exist eternally in the past, it says nothing about what the nature of the change of state that may be represented by the big bang, as the intial state is not subject to space time, which is what the theory deals with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    beat root
    Registered Users Posts: 29 ✭beat root


    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones[/SIZE][/FONT]


Advertisement