Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-04-2014 12:08pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was inserting what I understood X to be. The lack of data in the categories (of evidence) familiar (better said: acceptable to) yourself.

You have not given any evidence at all, so you do know know what is familiar to me. You appear to be avoiding the simple fact you have no evidence to give, by changing the subject to the topic of evidence itself.

There is either a god, or there is not. You either have arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god. Or you do not. It really is that simple.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would remind you that we are in the mode of IF/THEN

I am in the mode of IF you claim X... THEN I am willing to hear your substantiation for X. You have offered none. Your whatiffery games do not substitute and the only one playing with clay here is you. If your clay ever takes form, do come back and show it to me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How can God evidence himself to someone if the someone hasn't got the "eyes to see"?

This is charlatan 101 stuff you are attempting here. Rather than substantiate your claims, you are attempting to explain away your lack of any substantiation by suggesting some kind of failure in the "mark". It is not that you have no evidence in your mind, it is that anyone who simply does not buy what you are shoveling has some lack of fault.

It is not just in religion that such linguistic charlatan trickery is tried. I see it all the time in many realms of discourse.

At the end all your "whatiffery" is doing is attempting to bolster unsubstantiated claims... with other unsubstantiated claims. At some point you will need to terminate the infinite regress of ifs and maybes.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies, I meant our discussion

I have no idea what discussion you are having with yourself, or imagine what WE are having. I am here discussing the thread title-topic. IF you wish to go off topic that's fine with me. But I will not be following you.

Again the thread is about whether a god exists or not. And I am merely pointing out, once again, that no one (much less you) has even started, let alone actually, offered me a shred of even an iota of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to the claim that there is one.

All I have been offered so far ever is

A) Re definitions of the word "god" in order to define it into existence or

discussions of what effect thinking there is a god has had on people or
C) Total changes of subject such as nagarrics totally off topic tangential failed attempt to claim reincarnation exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The one at the end of your slogan. About faith being irrational and unjustified.

All I am saying there is that I do not find it rational to believe X if one has quite literally no reason to believe X or base a belief in X. Not clear what is wrong with that statement. Though I can imagine you view that differently given you have a username that indicates being against skepticism at all which sort of slaps your bias here right on your sleeve.

antiskeptic · 10-04-2014 2:57pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You have not given any evidence at all, so you do know know what is familiar to me. You appear to be avoiding the simple fact you have no evidence to give, by changing the subject to the topic of evidence itself.

There is either a god, or there is not. You either have arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the claim there is a god. Or you do not. It really is that simple.

Since no attempt is being made by me to evidence God in this discussion, for the sake of brevity I'll move on

I am in the mode of IF you claim X... THEN I am willing to hear your substantiation for X. Your whatiffery games do not substitute and the only one playing with clay here is you. If your clay ever takes form, do come back and show it to me.

IF/THEN is dismantled by argument - not by attempting to belittle it.

No attempt is being made to substitute - the aim is to conclude your slogan erroneous. Concluding so isn't evidence for God's existence, rather, it's a removal of an objection (namely: faith is necessarily irrational and groundless)

I am not concerned with your agenda in this particular discussion since the discussion topic has been set between us by me.

Argue the case against your slogan or terminate the discussion.

This is charlatan 101 stuff you are attempting here. Rather than substantiate your claims, you are attempting to explain away your lack of any substantiation by suggesting some kind of failure in the "mark". It is not that you have no evidence in your mind, it is that anyone who simply does not buy what you are shoveling has some lack of fault.

It is not just in religion that such linguistic charlatan trickery is tried. I see it all the time in many realms of discourse.

At the end all your "whatiffery" is doing is attempting to bolster unsubstantiated claims... with other unsubstantiated claims. At some point you will need to terminate the infinite regress of ifs and maybes.

Other than reword a neutral, logical problem in terms favorable to your own position you've argued nothing here.

IF you wish to go off topic that's fine with me. But I will not be following you.

Hmm..

You made a statement, my challenging that statement isn't restricted only to providing evidence of God. I can challenge it in any legitimate way I like - which I have done with IF/THEN.

You can refuse that challenge, either by ducking behind this thread's title or refusing to engage in a new thread.

All I am saying there is that I do not find it rational to believe X if one has quite literally no reason to believe X or base a belief in X.

And if one does have reason (for example God turning up, albeit personally)?

Not clear what is wrong with that statement.

Your likely objection to what I've just said above will probably help reveal this..

Though I can imagine you view that differently given you have a username that indicates being against skepticism at all which sort of slaps your bias here right on your sleeve.

It's antiskeptic

Skeptic 3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, especially Christianity, or of important elements of it.

And I am anti-such-skeptics in that I oppose and challenge and counter their views and, when they are ardently and actively skeptic, their influence on the direction of society.

Our discussion is a case in point.

nozzferrahhtoo · 11-04-2014 8:40am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since no attempt is being made by me to evidence God in this discussion, for the sake of brevity I'll move on

Well then you will have to move on without me because that to my mind is the subject of the thread, and my reason for being on it. If you want to open a new thread with a new topic I will certainly read it and reply if I find anything worthy of note.

antiskeptic wrote: »

discussion topic has been set between us by me.

Not your prerogative. This thread for me is about the claims that there is a god. If you have anything to substantiate that claim I am all ears. If you want to derail into another discussion, then you will not be doing so with me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

you've argued nothing here.

Nor have I intended to. I am here to evaluate the arguments of others that there is a god. So far no one has.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can refuse that challenge, either by ducking

The one ducking here is you. You are ducking the thread topic. The question here is whether there is any evidence to suggest there is a god or not. You are dodging that subject by derailing into another one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if one does have reason (for example God turning up, albeit personally)?

Then I am here to hear their arguments, evidence, data and reasoning to substantiate the claim that such an event did take place. Do you have any? or will you be dodging that again? I am not going to take their word for it, and certainly not going to take yours.

antiskeptic · 11-04-2014 2:23pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well then you will have to move on without me because that to my mind is the subject of the thread, and my reason for being on it. If you want to open a new thread with a new topic I will certainly read it and reply if I find anything worthy of note.

Thank you. I've opened a thread in the A&A forum for your attention.

robp · 13-04-2014 12:03am

smacl wrote: »

As an atheist, I think the faith people place in their gods is similarly irrational, as I don't believe the gods exist any more than the item listed as the principal active ingredient in the homoeopathic remedy are present in the pills. That doesn't mean people don't benefit from their faith, but it does make their faith irrational to an atheist.

As a theist I find the trust that atheists put in dismissing theism is irrational. That does not mean I don't understand the typical arguments of new atheism popular these days. Don't get me wrong I think its pretty plausible that some people benefit from atheism. The escape from arduous religious moral rules and the responsibility of being called to an often impractical higher purpose but it is a unsustainable irrational position to a theist.

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

Canis Lupus · 13-04-2014 3:49am

robp wrote: »

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

But gods do?

robp · 13-04-2014 8:26am

Canis Lupus wrote: »

But gods do?

No as God is not matter within space-time. God is not a being or a thing. God is the unconditioned reality that all of reality depends.

_Redzer_ · 13-04-2014 9:23am

robp wrote: »

No as God is not matter within space-time. God is not a being or a thing. God is the unconditioned reality that all of reality depends.

So you can confidently say that matter cannot arise from nothing, yet you can say equality as confidently that god is the "unconditioned reality that all of reality depends".

The correct answer is we don't know enough to make a statement either way.

MrPudding · 13-04-2014 10:01am

robp wrote: »

The escape from arduous religious moral rules and the responsibility of being called to an often impractical higher purpose but it is a unsustainable irrational position to a theist.

I take issue with a couple of your words. Arduous, for example. I would not say that religious moral rules are arduous. Silly, pointless, controlling? Perhaps, arduous? No. Clearly I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't reject gods and religion to escape the associated strictures, I reject them because they don't make any sense and there is no plausible evidence to suggest that i should follow them.

I assume you are trying to run the old line that without a belief in god one cannot be a moral being? I am fine with that, to be perfectly honest. I am happy to be immoral, by your standards. I engage in sex before marriage, I use contraception, I have children, but I am not married, I think the RCC is a despicable organisation, I support gay rights and gay marriage. Does that make me immoral? Good, I am happy with that.

How I live my life is, as far as I am concerned, ethical. I don't harm people, I do charitable works, I treat people with respect. I am raising my children to know right from wrong. Not because they will be punished or rewarded for eternity, but because it is the right thing to do, right here, right now.

And what is the impractical higher purpose? To die and become a sycophantic worshipper of some childish monster of a god? Meh, no thanks. I don't need a higher purpose. I have purpose. My purpose is to better myself as a human being, to try to leave things a little better than i found then and to instil a similar outlook in my children, and to do all this without resorting to a bogeyman or his opposite number.

robp wrote: »

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

Says renowned physicist robp.

MrP

MrPudding · 13-04-2014 10:03am

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So you can confidently say that matter cannot arise from nothing, yet you can say equality as confidently that god is the "unconditioned reality that all of reality depends".

In his defence, he has to say that otherwise none of it makes any sense. Where would that leave him?

MrP

Polarix · 13-04-2014 11:39am

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So you can confidently say that matter cannot arise from nothing, yet you can say equality as confidently that god is the "unconditioned reality that all of reality depends".

The correct answer is we don't know enough to make a statement either way.

Exactly, but people can have a belief/non belief which way it might be.
Just the same as some people believing that alien life exists out there somewhere, despite their being no evidence to date. Possibility is not evidence. Some people also believe that there is no alien life out there, again, they hold this position without any evidence.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 13-04-2014 1:22pm

robp wrote: »

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

Hi Robp,

I've seen this argument made a number of times on various Christian blogs, particularly speakers such as William Craig Lane. I sympathise with the position, it seems logical to state that if you have absolutely nothing then you do not have the material to produce something since where would that come from in the first place.

I'm curious though what do Christians believe matter is made out of if it was at some point created? When I discussed this with Christians before the answers tended to fall between the concept that the universe is made out of God, that matter is a form of what ever substance God is, the answer that God made the universe out of nothing. I can follow the first answer, it makes sense that the universe is made out of something else that existed before and and which is eternal. There is no issue then where this material came form since God is eternal and always existed. The second answer though seems to cause the same logical conflict discussed above, but it seems far more popular in modern Christianity, at least among the Christians I have talked to about it. One Christian put it to me that it is illogical for something to exist out of nothing, but God is not constrained by logic and thus this is not an issue. This in itself seems a logical paradox, if there exists anyway that matter can exist out of nothing then it is not illogical that matter can exist out of nothing.

Can I ask what you believe in relation to where the matter God created ultimately came from?

Thanks
Penny

robp · 13-04-2014 1:30pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I take issue with a couple of your words. Arduous, for example. I would not say that religious moral rules are arduous.

Yes they are arduous. they are extremely arduous and challenging. Anyone who is Christian, Jewish or Muslim can testify to that. This is widely accepted.

MrPudding wrote: »

I assume you are trying to run the old line that without a belief in god one cannot be a moral being? I am fine with that, to be perfectly honest. I am happy to be immoral, by your standards. I engage in sex before marriage, I use contraception, I have children, but I am not married, I think the RCC is a despicable organisation, I support gay rights and gay marriage. Does that make me immoral? Good, I am happy with that.
MrP

No you are completely missing the point. I am making no judments of how secular people live their lives. I was demonstrating that smacl 's arguments can give weight to theism as well as against theism as he/she was doing. I was doing that by giving a crude basis for selection for atheist beliefs.

MrPudding wrote: »

Says renowned physicist robp.

MrP

A reverse appeal to authority. Its not an opinion. Physics does not allow for matter to come from nothing. It has to be repeated over and over again as many new atheists are in denial about this.

robp · 13-04-2014 2:04pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Hi Robp,

I've seen this argument made a number of times on various Christian blogs, particularly speakers such as William Craig Lane. I sympathise with the position, it seems logical to state that if you have absolutely nothing then you do not have the material to produce something since where would that come from in the first place.

I'm curious though what do Christians believe matter is made out of if it was at some point created? When I discussed this with Christians before the answers tended to fall between the concept that the universe is made out of God, that matter is a form of what ever substance God is, the answer that God made the universe out of nothing. I can follow the first answer, it makes sense that the universe is made out of something else that existed before and and which is eternal. There is no issue then where this material came form since God is eternal and always existed. The second answer though seems to cause the same logical conflict discussed above, but it seems far more popular in modern Christianity, at least among the Christians I have talked to about it. One Christian put it to me that it is illogical for something to exist out of nothing, but God is not constrained by logic and thus this is not an issue. This in itself seems a logical paradox, if there exists anyway that matter can exist out of nothing then it is not illogical that matter can exist out of nothing.

Can I ask what you believe in relation to where the matter God created ultimately came from?

Thanks
Penny

I would go with the first suggestion. For the matter to come from nothing it would imply the universe its self is eternal and there a great deal of evidence against this.

I am going to post more on the where did God come from question via the work of Robert Spitzer.

Something cannot come from nothing, except that is if it always existed. If a reality doesn’t have a beginning, if it is not conditioned in its existence, and if it is not conditioned by time, that reality does not have to have a creator—it does not have to have a cause for its existence, because it was never nothing

There is nothing in the world of logic that requires every being to have a creator or a cause. The only beings that require a creator or a cause, are those which have a beginning, those which are dependent on something else for their existence, and those which are conditioned by time.

God is defined as not having a beginning, that is not dependent on anything for its existence, and that is not conditioned by time, as what is eternal does not need a cause.

How do know the universe was not eternal? Tthere is an increasing amount of evidence from physics, the philosophy of mathematics, and metaphysics that imply and even require that the universe has a beginning e.g. Borde-Vilenkin-Guth 2003 theorem, entropy, the Borde-Vilenkin 1993 theorem, etc. These questions don’t come up with respect to God because there must be at least one thing—that does not have a beginning, is not dependent on anything for its existence, and is not conditioned by time.

MrPudding · 13-04-2014 2:08pm

robp wrote: »

Yes they are arduous. they are extremely arduous and challenging. Anyone who is Christian, Jewish or Muslim can testify to that. This is widely accepted.

But their main feature is pointlessness, and that kind of wipes out the arduousness of it. The non-silly things, like not murdering, not stealing etc, do you consider those arduous? I know I don't. So I guess that you are talking about things like not playing with your bits and not having sex before marriage? What, exactly, is wrong with these things? Why should we not do them?

I would suggest that if they are rejected it is less to do with how arduous they are, and more to do with the fact that they appear to be without foundation.

robp wrote: »

No you are completely missing the point. I was demonstrating that smacl 's arguments can give weight to for theism as well as against theism. I was doing that by giving a crude basis for selection for atheist beliefs.

I don't think many, if any, atheists are atheist for this reason. It is kind of stupid. You are effectively saying that atheist chose to be atheists not because they reject the evidence for gods, but because they want to masturbate and have sex without getting married. The issue with this is that to arrive at atheism by this route the atheist must believe that god exists, but ignore that belief in order to have an easy life. The logical extension of this is that this same person must believe that the restrictions they are ignoring, in order to have an easy life, mean that they are jeopardising their immortal soul, just to have a bit of fun... How does that make any sense? I would suggest that very few people come to atheism by this route, it's kind of stupid. I think the more likely scenario is mine, I looked at the evidence for gods and found it to be lacking. As a result I decided I was an atheist, an agnostic atheist with anti-theist tendencies to be more accurate. I came to this position not to have an easy life, but because it seems to me to be the correct position, given the evidence currently available. By a happy coincidence, I can also masturbate as much as I want, within the strictures of criminal law and what society deems to be acceptable, and I can have sex before marriage and use contraception if I choose to. I can also, quite happily, choose to support my fellow human beings that do not share my attraction for the opposite sex, but prefer their own, without threat of displeasing some idiot in a silly hat or the god he claims to speak for. All in all, it's win win.

robp wrote: »

A reverse appeal to authority. Its not an opinion. Physics does not allow for matter to come from nothing. By the way this is not a particularly central proof of God for theists but it has to be repeated over and over again as many new atheists are in denial about this.

So, if you were sitting in the canteen at work, describing a problem you had, let say some kind of medical problem which had you quite worried and one of your colleagues, one without any background in medicine, offered you some advice, the veracity of which you doubted, if you said to him you would see what you doctor said, would that be an appeal to authority?

Don't get me wrong, I love logical fallacies, but that does not take away from the fact that if you want to know what is wrong with you, medically, you go to the doctor, and if you want to discuss the origin of the universe you talk to someone that knows a little about physics, and not someone who's entire life in invested in the scientists being wrong.

MrP

robp · 13-04-2014 2:26pm

MrPudding wrote: »

But their main feature is pointlessness, and that kind of wipes out the arduousness of it. The non-silly things, like not murdering, not stealing etc, do you consider those arduous? I know I don't. So I guess that you are talking about things like not playing with your bits and not having sex before marriage? What, exactly, is wrong with these things? Why should we not do them?

I would suggest that if they are rejected it is less to do with how arduous they are, and more to do with the fact that they appear to be without foundation.

Not at all. Your whole argument seems to revolve around that leading a moral life is pretty easy. Its simply not. There are conflicts all around us that present challenges in secular and religious morality. Should I give up meat? Should I support social welfare reform? Should I give to charities when I am uncertain about where the money goes. Is giving a few a bob to charity really living for the poor as Francis calls out to us to do. How as a Christian can I live out God's plan and not my selfish desires. There is a lot more the Christianity morality then masturbation and causal sex.

MrPudding wrote: »

So, if you were sitting in the canteen at work, describing a problem you had, let say some kind of medical problem which had you quite worried and one of your colleagues, one without any background in medicine, offered you some advice, the veracity of which you doubted, if you said to him you would see what you doctor said, would that be an appeal to authority?[/B]

Its pretty easy to check this stuff. We don't need to rest upon someone's degree.

MrPudding wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I love logical fallacies, but that does not take away from the fact that if you want to know what is wrong with you, medically, you go to the doctor, and if you want to discuss the origin of the universe you talk to someone that knows a little about physics, and not someone who's entire life in invested in the scientists being wrong.

Have I ? That is the first I heard about it. I might not be a physicist but I do consider myself a scientist.

antiskeptic · 13-04-2014 7:45pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I'm curious though what do Christians believe matter is made out of if it was at some point created?

Energy? Physics tells us that M = E/Csquared and that energy can't be created or destroyed (which all sounds very eternally existent) but merely converted from one form to another

Penny 4 Thoughts · 13-04-2014 9:56pm

robp wrote: »

I would go with the first suggestion.

Thanks for answering the question. So if Christianity is true we are in essence fashioned out of the material that God is composed of, for want of a better term. There is something rather poetic about that, similar to the secular notion that we are all star dust

tommy2bad · 13-04-2014 11:10pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Thanks for answering the question. So if Christianity is true we are in essence fashioned out of the material that God is composed of, for want of a better term. There is something rather poetic about that, similar to the secular notion that we are all star dust

Well the secular notion that we are stardust is in fact true, the idea that we are made from 'god stuff' is not, it's not even a Christian notion.
I'm not 100% sure that science tell us that the universe came from nothing, no I'll rephrase that I'm not sure that science makes any claim about what existed or didn't exist before the universe existed.

robp · 14-04-2014 2:41pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm not sure that science makes any claim about what existed or didn't exist before the universe existed.

There is huge interest in studying pre-Big Bang existence. It is inevitable that it is really hard to find direct pre-Big Bang evidence but it is not impossible to study and to create models. Many pre-Big Bang scenarios have been suggested but they are very unlikely. Maybe one day we will be able to prove a pre-Big Bang existence but an eternal universe is conclusively improbable for scientific reasons.

pauldla · 14-04-2014 3:05pm

robp wrote: »

There is huge interest in studying pre-Big Bang existence. It is inevitable that it is really hard to find direct pre-Big Bang evidence but it is not impossible to study and to create models. Many pre-Big Bang scenarios have been suggested but they are very unlikely. Maybe one day we will be able to prove a pre-Big Bang existence but an eternal universe is conclusively improbable for scientific reasons.

Sorry, I'm confused by the term 'conclusively improbable'. Could you explain it, please?

robp · 14-04-2014 3:59pm

pauldla wrote: »

Sorry, I'm confused by the term 'conclusively improbable'. Could you explain it, please?

I was just trying to say it doesn't make sense. An eternal universe doesn't make sense.

marienbad · 14-04-2014 4:48pm

robp wrote: »

I was just trying to say it doesn't make sense. An eternal universe doesn't make sense.

That is just to our current understanding though is it not ? And hasn't that always been the case since we first walked upright ?

robp · 14-04-2014 5:47pm

marienbad wrote: »

That is just to our current understanding though is it not ? And hasn't that always been the case since we first walked upright ?

There are good mathematical reasons for an eternal universe not to be possible.

marienbad · 14-04-2014 6:05pm

robp wrote: »

There are good mathematical reasons for an eternal universe not to be possible.

That is not answering my point though . Is there good mathematical reasons for the existence of god ?

robp · 14-04-2014 6:38pm

marienbad wrote: »

That is not answering my point though.

Sure. I didn't really answer your question. I can give the example of Aristotle, Galileo and Newton as people who saw the universe as eternal. I think (but not certain) it was a popular idea until Einstein revised this. So its not true that people have always assumed the universe is finite.

marienbad wrote: »

That is not answering my point though . Is there good mathematical reasons for the existence of god ?

Yes. There is indirect mathematical evidence of God.

marienbad · 14-04-2014 6:49pm

robp wrote: »

Sure. I didn't really answer your question. I can give the example of Aristotle, Galileo and Newton as people who saw the universe as eternal. I think (but not certain) it was a popular idea until Einstein revised this. So its not true that people have always assumed the universe is finite.

Yes. There is indirect mathematical evidence of God.

But overall though going back to the dawn of time we always attributed what we didn't know to God and as we increased our knowledge we realized we were wrong 100 % of the time .

So how is this any different ? Is it not more reasonable to assume that as we have always been wrong attributing something to God we are wrong now also and our knowledge just needs to catch up ?

robp · 14-04-2014 7:09pm

marienbad wrote: »

But overall though going back to the dawn of time we always attributed what we didn't know to God and as we increased our knowledge we realized we were wrong 100 % of the time.

Your are not qualifying that statement. Its a pure assumption. there is a lot things we don't know about past worldviews. Even in with traditional societies that survived until the early 20th cen there are crucial gaps missing in our knowledge of their traditional belief systems, and we are almost completely clueless about beliefs at the 'dawn of time'.

I can think of many cases were God is not the fall back explanation in traditional societies. In fact a monotheistic God/creator God is often the last thing to be blamed.

marienbad wrote: »

So how is this any different ? Is it not more reasonable to assume that as we have always been wrong attributing something to God we are wrong now also and our knowledge just needs to catch up ?

Its a false assumption. Look at medical medicine. People used naturalistic explanations (e.g. Miasma or Humour theory ) even though they really did not understand the science of the human body.

marienbad · 14-04-2014 7:24pm

robp wrote: »

Your are not qualifying that statement. Its a pure assumption. there is a lot things we don't know about past worldviews. Even in with traditional societies that survived until the early 20th cen there are crucial gaps missing in our knowledge of their traditional belief systems, and we are almost completely clueless about beliefs at the 'dawn of time'.

I can think of many cases were God is not the fall back explanation in traditional societies. In fact a monotheistic God/creator God is often the last thing to be blamed.

Its a false assumption. Look at medical medicine. People used naturalistic explanations (e.g. Miasma or Humour theory ) even though they really did not understand the science of the human body.

I meant 'dawn of time' just as a figure of speech . But we do know enough of what people attributed to God from all the texts and scriptures available to us . And as our knowledge increased through the centuries we found in every case that it was our lack of knowledge that explained why we believed that God did this that or the other.

Not once has the God explanation stood us to scrutiny as our knowledge advanced. And in this particular discussion the limits of our knowledge is 'what happened before the big bang' and again you are reaching for the God did it explanation . I am just asking as this has never held through in our recorded history why would it be so now ?

Is'nt the more reasonable explanation that our current knowledge isn't up to it ,but as always we will understand it in time , but new questions will arise to baffle us.

robp · 14-04-2014 7:47pm

marienbad wrote: »

I meant 'dawn of time' just as a figure of speech . But we do know enough of what people attributed to God from all the texts and scriptures available to us . And as our knowledge increased through the centuries we found in every case that it was our lack of knowledge that explained why we believed that God did this that or the other.

Not once has the God explanation stood us to scrutiny as our knowledge advanced. And in this particular discussion the limits of our knowledge is 'what happened before the big bang' and again you are reaching for the God did it explanation . I am just asking as this has never held through in our recorded history why would it be so now ?

Is'nt the more reasonable explanation that our current knowledge isn't up to it ,but as always we will understand it in time , but new questions will arise to baffle us.

A nice bit of tautology there. This is what you claim but you will have a hard proving it as its a flawed conclusion.

marienbad · 14-04-2014 8:08pm

robp wrote: »

A nice bit of tautology there. This is what you claim but you will have a hard proving it as its a flawed conclusion.

Can you elaborate on that please.

Can you give me any instance in our history where phenomena we attributed to God turned out not to have a scientific explanation ?

Have we not always just pushed our ignorance ahead of us only to have it debunked as our knowledge progressed ?

And if so why is this question any different ?

tommy2bad · 14-04-2014 8:28pm

I'm gona watch this play out between Marien and Robp as it an interesting idea. We have always been wrong about what God is before so it's likely we are wrong this time too.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-04-2014 7:52am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thank you. I've opened a thread in the A&A forum for your attention.

If you say so. Have you anything to add on the subject of this thread, or are we pretty much agreed that you have no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer to substantiation the claim that a non human intelligent intentional agent is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe?

robp wrote: »

As a theist I find the trust that atheists put in dismissing theism is irrational.

Except it isnt. There is nothing at all irrational about dismissing unsubstantiated claims as unsubstantiated. And that is all we are doing. We are not "dismissing" theism so much as we are pointing out that the assertions of theism (such as the existence of god) are just that: Assertions. And assertions that are entirely unsubstantiated in even the tiniest way at this time.

robp wrote: »

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

More assertion from you. How do you know it does not? Can you substantiate this positive claim you have just made? Actually we observe particles popping in and out of existence all the time, so your assertion appears to be wrong on the face of it. I would recommend you watch the video "A universe from nothing" from Laurence Krauss on You Tube for more details on this.

It is double wrong however due to the assumption built into it. Why is nothing the default and matter has to be explained? Why is "something" not default?

Polarix wrote: »

Just the same as some people believing that alien life exists out there somewhere

I would not say it is "just" the same. There is one subtle but important difference. Us. The fact we know life exists in this universe (us) lends at least a small level of credence to the idea that there might be other such life. Not massive credence mind you, but not none either.

Contrast this to the claim there is a god. This is supported by nothing at all, in any way, anywhere, that I have been made aware of. There simply is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning on offer (much less on this thread) to substantiate this claim even a little bit that there is such an entity.

So no I would not say "Just the same" at all here. I see differences.

pauldla · 15-04-2014 8:57am

robp wrote: »

I was just trying to say it doesn't make sense. An eternal universe doesn't make sense.

Then why not just say that it doesn't make sense to you? 'An eternal universe is conclusively improbable for scientific reasons' sounds weighty, but on closer inspection I don't see any merit in it at all. 'Conclusively improbable', to me, sounds as scientific as a 'definite maybe'. To elaborate, we are told that vast majority of our cosmos is comprised of dark energy and dark matter, of which we know not a great deal at all. If this is indeed the case, how can we then talk 'conclusively' about the 'improbability' of an eternal universe 'for scientific reasons'? To me, it seems that the most that we can safely say is that we don't know if the universe is eternal, but we're still looking into it.

robp · 15-04-2014 8:58am

marienbad wrote: »

Can you elaborate on that please.

Can you give me any instance in our history where phenomena we attributed to God turned out not to have a scientific explanation ?

Have we not always just pushed our ignorance ahead of us only to have it debunked as our knowledge progressed ?

And if so why is this question any different ?

hmm existence..

Lets take the example of a medieval person sick with the Black Death. This particular medieval person believes in providence. They believe the black death is a divine punishment. So its the kind of person in the God of the Gaps theory you refer to. But why do you assume that they have do not believe the disease arises by a naturalistic mechanism which in turn caused by God? if this is the case then their belief is the same as typical modern day Christians. The only difference being most modern Christian don't accept providence. This antidote reveals that the notion of a retreating God of the Gaps is based on an untested generalisation about how people explain things.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

More assertion from you. How do you know it does not? Can you substantiate this positive claim you have just made? Actually we observe particles popping in and out of existence all the time, so your assertion appears to be wrong on the face of it. I would recommend you watch the video "A universe from nothing" from Laurence Krauss on You Tube for more details on this.

The nothingness you refer to is a quantum state. Its a low energy field with dimensions subject to constants. Its very little but it is unequivocally incorrect to claim its nothing. Nothing has to be the default as the universe cannot have existed for ever.

marienbad · 15-04-2014 1:16pm

robp wrote: »

hmm existence..

Lets take the example of a medieval person sick with the Black Death. This particular medieval person believes in providence. They believe the black death is a divine punishment. So its the kind of person in the God of the Gaps theory you refer to. But why do you assume that they have do not believe the disease arises by a naturalistic mechanism which in turn caused by God? if this is the case then their belief is the same as typical modern day Christians. The only difference being most modern Christian don't accept providence. This antidote reveals that the notion of a retreating God of the Gaps is based on an untested generalisation about how people explain things.

The nothingness you refer to is a quantum state. Its a low energy field with dimensions subject to constants. Its very little but it is unequivocally incorrect to claim its nothing. Nothing has to be the default as the universe cannot have existed for ever.

You are still not answering my question , it makes to difference how they explain the Black Death, some may have got it right some may have got it wrong .But it is not what I am asking.

Is their any instance in recorded history where any phenomena previously attributed to God has stood the test of our advancing knowledge ?

Now the frontier of our knowledge is what happened before the big bang and I am simply asking based on our track record why this should be any different ?

robp · 15-04-2014 4:05pm

marienbad wrote: »

Is their any instance in recorded history where any phenomena previously attributed to God has stood the test of our advancing knowledge ?

Its an problematic question for several reasons.

i) untestable phenomena. Many of things that are reported cannot be tested. Many are historical events that no scientific achievements can shed light on so its very hard to prove it ether way. Take Fatima for example, there is no way to prove or disprove it as it is a historical event which we can not go back to.

ii)Disagreement on the claimed phenomena amongst theists. Since the beginning of Christianity many Christians have believed naturalistic explanations can explain the phenomena we see around us but many do not. Many see supernatural processes much more closely at play. In your God of the of Gaps theory you are referring to people in general, but how can you define that when there is little agreement. Its not reasonable to project beliefs of less educated religious and their potential errors on more educated religious.

I would argue the biggest questions which religious people ask today are no different to the questions they asked right through history. I do not sense any theological retreat from ordinary life into astrophysics.

marienbad wrote: »

Now the frontier of our knowledge is what happened before the big bang and I am simply asking based on our track record why this should be any different ?

Its fundamentally flawed to pick something considered impossible e.g. an eternal universe and to label it a frontier of science on a whim.

A more credible frontier would be understanding gravitational waves or say creating lab grown organs. Somewhere there is a basis to start from.

marienbad · 15-04-2014 5:30pm

robp wrote: »

Its an problematic question for several reasons.

i) untestable phenomena. Many of things that are reported cannot be tested. Many are historical events that no scientific achievements can shed light on so its very hard to prove it ether way. Take Fatima for example, there is no way to prove or disprove it as it is a historical event which we can not go back to.

ii)Disagreement on the claimed phenomena amongst theists. Since the beginning of Christianity many Christians have believed naturalistic explanations can explain the phenomena we see around us but many do not. Many see supernatural processes much more closely at play. In your God of the of Gaps theory you are referring to people in general, but how can you define that when there is little agreement. Its not reasonable to project beliefs of less educated religious and their potential errors on more educated religious.

I would argue the biggest questions which religious people ask today are no different to the questions they asked right through history. I do not sense any theological retreat from ordinary life into astrophysics.

Its fundamentally flawed to pick something considered impossible e.g. an eternal universe and to label it a frontier of science on a whim.

A more credible frontier would be understanding gravitational waves or say creating lab grown organs. Somewhere there is a basis to start from.

Then pick any frontier you like , it still doesn't affect the question I am asking you.

Is there any phenomena in recorded history previously attributed to God that in fact was just our own ignorance as subsequently shown by the advancement of our knowledge .

Why would this be any different in the case of- pick any example you like- this time round ?

nagirrac · 15-04-2014 8:30pm

All the scientific evidence we have supports the view that our observed space time universe had a beginning. That is not to say that an eternal universe is "impossible", it is entirely possible as Sean Carroll has proposed, however there is no scientific evidence to support it.

It is really important to separate philosophy from science. Unless we can observe something, make predictions about how it should behave, and devise experiments to test these predictions, it ain't science. Science is based on observation and experiment, and as we have neither for eternal universes, multiverses, etc. they should be correctly viewed as speculation. Scientists are as entitled as anyone to speculate on philosophical questions, but imo it is a mistake to invoke highly speculative "science" to make a philosophical argument. Krauss' book on "nothing" for example is a philosophical argument against the ideas of theism based on the highly speculative work of Viliken and Guth.

Personally I think (based on the evidence that I am aware of) that our observed space time universe had a beginning, but emerged from an eternal universe outside our window of observation. The most fascinating area of investigation I have seen recently is the discovery of the amplituhedron, a "jewel like geometric figure that dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions". The implications of this discovery are that what we have thought of as fundamental in nature such as locality and space time itself may not be fundamental at all, but are rather human constructs that do not exist in nature, or are illusionary. Our brains may be creating a much bigger delusion than any religious delusions we scoff at. Now that this object has been observed, it will be interesting to see where it leads and what experiments can be ran to investigate it further.

Whatever about wrapping our heads around what happened before the big bang, it will be an entirely different challenge if we have to abandon our model of our space time universe and replace it with a model that is based on our universe arising out of pure geometry. If God exists, then it suggests he/she is a mathematician, or more precisely a geometer.

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

robp · 16-04-2014 8:20pm

nagirrac wrote: »

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

Mostly that is a very interesting and reasonable post.

Though just to hit on one point

nagirrac wrote: »

All the scientific evidence we have supports the view that our observed space time universe had a beginning. That is not to say that an eternal universe is "impossible", it is entirely possible as Sean Carroll has proposed, however there is no scientific evidence to support it.

I hate to use the word impossible for anything but there is good reasons against it, principally that it ultimately breaks the laws of thermodynamics. To explain an eternal universe you need a whole new set of (100% hypothetical) laws of physics. Of course believing such laws could have existed requires quite a leap of faith.

tommy2bad · 16-04-2014 9:52pm

robp wrote: »

Mostly that is a very interesting and reasonable post.

Though just to hit on one point

I hate to use the word impossible for anything but there is good reasons against it, principally that it ultimately breaks the laws of thermodynamics. To explain an eternal universe you need a whole new set of (100% hypothetical) laws of physics. Of course believing such laws could have existed requires quite a leap of faith.

Except that that is exactly what hypothesising a God is, effectively claiming a whole new set of laws of physics.
Of course it all depends on how you define eternal, timeless state or unending time state. Lets tell the truth, before the BB and after heat death, all bets are off. We don't have any idea what might or might not have happened.

marienbad · 16-04-2014 10:09pm

robp wrote: »

Mostly that is a very interesting and reasonable post.

Though just to hit on one point

I hate to use the word impossible for anything but there is good reasons against it, principally that it ultimately breaks the laws of thermodynamics. To explain an eternal universe you need a whole new set of (100% hypothetical) laws of physics. Of course believing such laws could have existed requires quite a leap of faith.

But all of this is just avoiding my question robp .

robp · 16-04-2014 10:46pm

marienbad wrote: »

But all of this is just avoiding my question robp .

Marien,I think you have asked me 2 or 3 questions at this stage and each one less universalizing then the one before. I have already given examples where unexplained phenomena cannot be readily explained by the march of science. However these phenomena are pretty unimportant for me personally as its a negative. The whole argument is a reductio ad absurdum.

The irony is the God of the Gaps theory was proposed by Christian preachers.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Except that that is exactly what hypothesising a God is, effectively claiming a whole new set of laws of physics.
Of course it all depends on how you define eternal, timeless state or unending time state. Lets tell the truth, before the BB and after heat death, all bets are off. We don't have any idea what might or might not have happened.

Tommy, its a case of going for parsimony. I think theism has parsimony covered.

marienbad · 16-04-2014 11:08pm

robp wrote: »

Marien,I think you have asked me 2 or 3 questions at this stage and each one less universalizing then the one before. I have already given examples where unexplained phenomena cannot be readily explained by the march of science. However these phenomena are pretty unimportant for me personally as its a negative. The whole argument is a reductio ad absurdum.

The irony is the God of the Gaps theory was proposed by Christian preachers.

Tommy, its a case of going for parsimony. I think theism has parsimony covered.

No robp I am just asking the same question over and over again . To be honest I only understand about 5% of all the scientific stuff posted by you and nagiracc etc on here . But sometimes the simplicity of things can be lost in complexity (imho) and it is in that vein I am posing my question .

And that question why if in all of recorded history has any phenomena attributed to God turned out to be just our own ignorance, and if that is the case then is that still not the most reasonable explanation now ?

Penny 4 Thoughts · 17-04-2014 3:28pm

robp wrote: »

The nothingness you refer to is a quantum state. Its a low energy field with dimensions subject to constants. Its very little but it is unequivocally incorrect to claim its nothing. Nothing has to be the default as the universe cannot have existed for ever.

Hi Robp,

Excuse my ignorance, physics isn't my thing, but can you explain what you mean by "nothing has to be the default"? Would that not rule out the existence of God? I assume you don't include God when you say "nothing"?

Penny

robp · 18-04-2014 4:22pm

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Hi Robp,

Excuse my ignorance, physics isn't my thing, but can you explain what you mean by "nothing has to be the default"? Would that not rule out the existence of God? I assume you don't include God when you say "nothing"?

Penny

When I said nothing I referred to the natural world and not what is beyond it e.g. God.

There are two possibilities i) the universe(s) did not always exist, ii) the universe(s) always existed. For various reasons physics suggests overwhelmingly it did not always exist.

marienbad wrote: »

No robp I am just asking the same question over and over again . To be honest I only understand about 5% of all the scientific stuff posted by you and nagiracc etc on here . But sometimes the simplicity of things can be lost in complexity (imho) and it is in that vein I am posing my question .

And that question why if in all of recorded history has any phenomena attributed to God turned out to be just our own ignorance, and if that is the case then is that still not the most reasonable explanation now ?

See you are identifying a trend which just is not a trend at all. I really do not think that people in the past explained everything by blaming God. people invoked all sorts of causes. One very common one in early societies is witchcraft and curses. Instead of a trend its actually binary i.e. reasoned belief vs unreasoned belief.

marienbad · 18-04-2014 4:46pm

robp wrote: »

When I said nothing I referred to the natural world and not what is beyond it e.g. God.

There are two possibilities i) the universe(s) did not always exist, ii) the universe(s) always existed. For various reasons physics suggests overwhelmingly it did not always exist.

See you are identifying a trend which just is not a trend at all. I really do not think that people in the past explained everything by blaming God. people invoked all sorts of causes. One very common one in early societies is witchcraft and curses. Instead of a trend its actually binary i.e. reasoned belief vs unreasoned belief.

Sorry robp, | am not blaming anybody, but the point you are making here is just exactly what I am asking you.

Witchcraft, curses god, gods , whatever you wish to add,the same applies.

And that question why if in all of recorded history has any phenomena attributed to God,gods witchcraft,curses, spells ,whatever, turned out to be just our own ignorance waiting for our knowledge to catch up, and if that is the case then is that still not the most reasonable explanation now ?

Turtwig · 18-04-2014 6:02pm

robp wrote: »

When I said nothing I referred to the natural world and not what is beyond it e.g. God.

There are two possibilities i) the universe(s) did not always exist, ii) the universe(s) always existed. For various reasons physics suggests overwhelmingly it did not alway.

None of this explains why nothing has to be the default.

What is "outside" the universe (or multiverses) is that something or is that nothing? If it's nothing, how does something expand into it?

Also if we assume time and the universe are part of the same then the universe always existed. But, I digress.

Penny 4 Thoughts · 18-04-2014 6:24pm

robp wrote: »

When I said nothing I referred to the natural world and not what is beyond it e.g. God.

There are two possibilities i) the universe(s) did not always exist, ii) the universe(s) always existed. For various reasons physics suggests overwhelmingly it did not always exist.

Thanks for reply Robp. I think I understand what you mean with the two options, what I wasn't following is why if the universe didn't always exist that must mean there was nothing. I appreciate that there wasn't a universe, but could there could have been other non-universe things, such as God or the multiverse or a proto-universe? I'm not suggesting there was these things, but they aren't ruled out by science?

Brian Shanahan · 18-04-2014 8:07pm

robp wrote: »

Matter just does not pop out of nothing

Ever hear of the Casimir effect?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments