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

Atheism: how can you be so sure?

Options
1…457910

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    axer wrote: »
    How can you define something that nobody has ever seen, heard or has seen any evidence of? You would have to simply make it up without ANY evidence.
    Afaik, science accepts that our universe had a beginning and that time didn't exist before the universe began. So something caused the universe to come into existence. Things don't just happen for no reason. If you follow a chain of dependencies back far enough you have to come to the ultimate Creator. Otherwise you have the absurd proposition that there is an infinite chain or creators and creations. Which do you think is more likely? You might not see evidence but the philosophical argument for God's existence is strong.


  • Options
    #183
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    You might not see evidence but the philosophical argument for God's existence is strong.
    ...right up until the point at which one realizes that your argument also applies to itself, and the question of how a creator "god" came into existence.

    Try answering the question it without defining the problem away by saying that god is "outside of time"/"has no creator" etc.


  • Options
    #184
    beans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭beans


    Personally, I'm starting to think that the whole God question is just a smokescreen to keep our minds occupied - I mean, look at the amount of wasted time that has gone into this thread already!

    Personally, I think the existance of beings outside the universe is un-knowable one way or the other. I also believe the Christian god is an allegory that got out of hand.

    Excuse the glib response, but that's my thoughts in a nutshell :)


  • Options
    #185
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    robindch wrote: »
    ...right up until the point at which one realizes that your argument also applies to itself, and the question of how a creator "god" came into existence.

    Try answering the question it without defining the problem away by saying that god is "outside of time"/"has no creator" etc.
    What?? Why are you imposing such a restriction on my answer? How could God have a creator?? If you have no ultimate Creator then you end up with an infinite chain of creators and creations. Do you think that's possible?

    Time only exists within the universe that God created.


  • Options
    #186
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Dades wrote: »
    Exactly.

    You are attempting to define "God" out of reach; as "anything" that may have been involved in the origin of matter. Whatever that may or may not be, it is not a "God", it does not have any known characteristics to believe (or not) in, and it sure as hell doesn't know or care that we exist.

    Jeepers.
    This is really deteriorating...

    My definition of God in this context was quite simple:

    "an omnipotent being who created the universe".

    No attempt was made to define any other qualities whatsoever, including the latest ones of "reachability", "believability" and whatever else pops into someone's head at a whim...

    My question was also quite simple:

    Was the universe created by an omnipotent being or does it simply exist?
    What would you base your probabilities on?

    Would anyone care to answer it or should I prepare myself for another pile of dogma which can easily be obtained on Christianity/Islam forums and the like...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Afaik, science accepts that our universe had a beginning and that time didn't exist before the universe began. So something caused the universe to come into existence. Things don't just happen for no reason. If you follow a chain of dependencies back far enough you have to come to the ultimate Creator. Otherwise you have the absurd proposition that there is an infinite chain or creators and creations. Which do you think is more likely? You might not see evidence but the philosophical argument for God's existence is strong.

    Things happen for no reason all the time. Don't you mean things don't just happen with no cause?

    Why do you have to come to an ultimate creator not an ultimate cause?


  • Options
    #188
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Dave! wrote: »
    One might as well say "does the universe simply exist, or was it created by a giant invisible apple?"

    Here we go again...


  • Options
    #189
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Jeepers.
    This is really deteriorating...

    My definition of God in this context was quite simple:

    "an omnipotent being who created the universe".

    No attempt was made to define any other qualities whatsoever, including the latest ones of "reachability", "believability" and whatever else pops into someone's head at a whim...

    My question was also quite simple:

    Was the universe created by an omnipotent being or does it simply exist?
    What would you base your probabilities on?

    Would anyone care to answer it or should I prepare myself for another pile of dogma which can easily be obtained on Christianity/Islam forums and the like...

    Coulda sworn I posted 2 replies to your questions to which you didn't respond.......

    In summary, it was: nobody knows.

    Now what about yourself? You going to fire away with a guess, or let scientists do their job, and reserve judgement until new evidence comes to light?


  • Options
    #190
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why are you imposing such a restriction on my answer?
    For the reason that I gave you -- that you are imposing the same "causality" restriction on our answer to the same question.

    You can't excuse your own arguments from the restrictions that you apply to the arguments of others.


  • Options
    #191
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Afaik, science accepts that our universe had a beginning and that time didn't exist before the universe began. So something caused the universe to come into existence. Things don't just happen for no reason. If you follow a chain of dependencies back far enough you have to come to the ultimate Creator. Otherwise you have the absurd proposition that there is an infinite chain or creators and creations. Which do you think is more likely? You might not see evidence but the philosophical argument for God's existence is strong.
    who created the ultimate Creator? It is an unanswerable question imo.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    How could God have a creator??
    Are you saying "he just was"? If he can "just be" then why can the universe not "just be".
    kelly1 wrote: »
    If you have no ultimate Creator then you end up with an infinite chain of creators and creations. Do you think that's possible?
    Exactly. Maybe now you are seeing from an aethiests point of view.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Time only exists within the universe that God created.
    Where did you hear this from?
    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    My definition of God in this context was quite simple:
    "an omnipotent being who created the universe".
    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Was the universe created by an omnipotent being or does it simply exist?
    Nobody knows this answer. They do know what science tells us. There is no evidence to suggest it was created by an "omnipotent being". It is a possibility but it seems highly unlikely since there is no evidence whatsoever.
    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    What would you base your probabilities on?
    On the probability of someone knowing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    My question was also quite simple:

    Was the universe created by an omnipotent being or does it simply exist?
    What would you base your probabilities on?

    There is nothing in the universe that points to the existence of an omnipotent being. There is nothing in theoretical physics, astrophysics, all of science in fact that even hints that an omnipotent creator would need to exist (or have existed) for the universe to come into being.


  • Options
    #193
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    robindch wrote: »
    For the reason that I gave you -- that you are imposing the same "causality" restriction on our answer to the same question.

    You can't excuse your own arguments from the restrictions that you apply to the arguments of others.
    Stop playing games. Do you not accept that everything within our universe had a cause?


  • Options
    #194
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Stop playing games. Do you not accept that everything within our universe had a cause?

    Don't want to speak for him, but no, I don't believe every last thing in our universe was created with a purpose in mind.


  • Options
    #195
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Stop playing games.
    I'm not playing games. I'm pointing out a hole in your argument:
    Kelly1 wrote:
    Things don't just happen for no reason. If you follow a chain of dependencies back far enough you have to come to the ultimate Creator. [...] How could God have a creator?? If you have no ultimate Creator then you end up with an infinite chain of creators and creations [...] Do you not accept that everything within our universe had a cause?
    If you accept "causality" (the idea that every event has a cause), then you must accept that the universe's creator had a cause. This contradicts the view of christianity which says that god (the universe's creator) has no cause (or creator). Therefore, as a christian, you must believe that causality does not happen, or at least, not always.

    My own position is that we can trace causality back fairly consistently and reliably to the Big Bang. Before that, I don't believe there's any firm evidence to suggest the issue one way or the other, so I remain undecided.


  • Options
    #196
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    kelly1 wrote: »
    time didn't exist before the universe began

    If time was created along with the rest of the universe then the concept of "before" the universe does not exist.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    If you have no ultimate Creator then you end up with an infinite chain of creators and creations. Do you think that's possible?

    You're absolutely correct, any argument that is based on logic that causes an infinite causal chain is a very bad argument.

    However, its your argument, not his. The fact that you eventually abandon logic altogether and declare our God as being outside the causal chain does not shift the blame for the awful argument from your shoulders.

    Anyway, even if we hypothetically accept that the universe must have a cause, its requires almost child like naivety to assume that that cause is an infinitely powerful intelligence that loves humanity.


  • Options
    #197
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    axer wrote: »
    who created the ultimate Creator? It is an unanswerable question imo.
    The question makes no sense.
    axer wrote: »
    Are you saying "he just was"? If he can "just be" then why can the universe not "just be".
    I suppose because the universe changes. We know it came from the big-bang because we know it's expanding.
    axer wrote: »
    Exactly. Maybe now you are seeing from an aethiests point of view.
    I'm not sure that you got my point and you didn't answer my question. Do you think an infinite chain of creators creating creatures is possible? Sounds totally absurd if you ask me. I think it makes for more sense that an eternal Creator created the universe in which we live.
    axer wrote: »
    Where did you hear this from?
    We know that time began with the big-bang, don't we? Maybe you're talking about multiple parallel universes. Are you?
    axer wrote: »
    Nobody knows this answer. They do know what science tells us. There is no evidence to suggest it was created by an "omnipotent being". It is a possibility but it seems highly unlikely since there is no evidence whatsoever.
    Science tells us that the universe had a beginning. So the question is how did it come into being. Something must have caused the big bang. Do you agree? So if something caused the big-bang, you have to ask what caused the cause. So you can either go back along an infinite chain of cause and effect which seems absurd or accept that there is an un-created Creator who depends on nothing else.


  • Options
    #198
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Was the universe created by an omnipotent being or does it simply exist?
    The correct answer is we have no damned idea.
    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    What would you base your probabilities on?
    Probabilities does not come into it. Just because you phrase your question with two possible scenarios, does not make the probability of either 50/50, or anything at all. The fact is we have a complete lack of any information on which to base a decision, therefore the question is best just left unanswered, and better still, unasked, outside of a philosophy forum.

    And before you suggest it, just because there exists unanswerable questions, does not mean everyone should be agnostic. Certainly not in any practical sense, and definitely not in any useful one.


  • Options
    #199
    steve-hosting36
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭steve-hosting36


    Why?

    Why must you the universe have a 'cause' in that sense?

    If god is omnipotent and omniscient he is also infinitely complex. This makes his spontaneous appearance or existence far more unlikely than the universe simply coming into existence, which has a finite complexity.


  • Options
    #200
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    You gotta love this line of reasoning: 'We don't know how the universe was created yet, therefore it must have been a creator'


  • Options
    #201
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm not playing games. I'm pointing out a hole in your argument: If you accept "causality" (the idea that every event has a cause), then you must accept that the universe's creator had a cause. This contradicts the view of christianity which says that god (the universe's creator) has no cause (or creator). Therefore, as a christian, you must believe that causality does not happen, or at least, not always.
    OK, I see what you mean. So strictly speaking it's not true to say everything has a cause because God and only God breaks this rule. Does that make sense to you?
    robindch wrote: »
    My own position is that we can trace causality back fairly consistently and reliably to the Big Bang. Before that, I don't believe there's any firm evidence to suggest the issue one way or the other, so I remain undecided.
    Ok, but the universe did have a beginning which surely means something created it out of nothing. The alternative is that the universe is eternal which raises all kinds of problems. I'm not a physicist but wouldn't the laws of thermodynamics exclude the possibility of an eternal universe?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    steve-hosting36
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭steve-hosting36


    Why does the fact that the universe had a beginning mean it had a beginner? Surely the most plausible option is that it simply exists, and came into existence, rather than attributing that event to a person/place/thing?


  • Options
    #203
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    steve-hosting36 wrote: »
    If god is omnipotent and omniscient he is also infinitely complex. This makes his spontaneous appearance or existence far more unlikely than the universe simply coming into existence, which has a finite complexity.
    To quote Thomas Aquinas, "God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form"

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Nature_of_God
    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    You gotta love this line of reasoning: 'We don't know how the universe was created yet, therefore it must have been a creator'
    Don't you at least agree that the universe had a cause? Is science wrong is saying that the universe began with the big-bang?
    steve-hosting36 wrote: »
    Why does the fact that the universe had a beginning mean it had a beginner? Surely the most plausible option is that it simply exists, and came into existence, rather than attributing that event to a person/place/thing?
    Do you see the conradiction in what you've just said? How can something "simply exist (eternally)" and "come into being"?? If the universe came into being, it must have been created.


  • Options
    #204
    steve-hosting36
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,161 ✭✭✭steve-hosting36


    To state that god is 'simple' within his/it's own definition is a tougher pill to swallow than his existence in the first place :)

    Things can 'come into being' without having been 'created' with intent.

    The belief that God created the universe and God just exists makes too many unproven assumptions, therefore using Occam's Razor one can "shave" off the unnecessary assumptions, leaving the universe just exists.

    Why attribute things we don't yet understand to a supernatural being?


  • Options
    #205
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Don't you at least agree that the universe had a cause? Is science wrong is saying that the universe began with the big-bang?

    Ok, what if science discovers why and how the universe began within your lifetime. What then? Where does God run to then?


  • Options
    #206
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I don't believe every last thing in our universe was created with a purpose in mind.
    That's not the causality argument, but the teleological argument, which shows up quite often in religious discussions -- the idea that everything must have a "purpose" of some kind, which assumes at some prior level, a conscious intention.

    It seems that a significant proportion of the population believe, incorrectly, that nothing happens without intention, including several christian posters. And that's interesting, since it suggests that the brain's intention-seeking mechanism has a tendency to overcompensate quite wildly, suggesting itself that the ability to monitor third party intentions is a very significant, but incompletely evolved, part of the mammalian brain.

    However, that discussion is off-topic at this point :)


  • Options
    #207
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    robindch wrote: »
    However, that discussion is off-topic at this point :)
    Live that ever stopped anyone before. ;)


  • Options
    #208
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    So strictly speaking it's not true to say everything has a cause because God and only God breaks this rule. Does that make sense to you?
    Well, yes, I understand what you're doing as I've pointed out up above. You're saying that your assertion that everything must have a cause simply doesn't apply to your explanation (which happens to be the christian deity).

    You can certainly claim this if you want to, but you're putting yourself on very thin ice indeed when you won't let other people (like me) claim the same thing. Not a very fair debating technique, it must be said!
    kelly1 wrote: »
    but the universe did have a beginning which surely means something created it out of nothing. The alternative is that the universe is eternal which raises all kinds of problems. I'm not a physicist but wouldn't the laws of thermodynamics exclude the possibility of an eternal universe?
    No, they don't exclude it. The subject of thermodynamics is complex and difficult to understand and I'd hesitate to recommend using it in arguments if one hasn't studied it for some years.

    At the moment, physics doesn't claim to know or predict anything before a very short time following the big bang. There are various guesses and ideas, and even a few theories, around the place, but there's nothing there which suggests anything decisively one way or the other -- ie, whether there was a "cause" in the sense that we understand the word, or whether or not the the universe simply didn't derive from some earlier cycle, or even that causality or time existed. Physicists simply don't know, though they are working on it.


  • Options
    #209
    thebaldsoprano
    Closed Accounts Posts: 827 ✭✭✭thebaldsoprano


    Dades wrote: »
    The correct answer is we have no damned idea.

    Fair enough, I can understand that viewpoint.
    Dades wrote: »
    Probabilities does not come into it. Just because you phrase your question with two possible scenarios, does not make the probability of either 50/50, or anything at all.

    Yet again, you're answering a different question to the one asked...
    I didn't imply that they did, I just asked what you would base an assessment of probabilities on.

    If you think it's impossible to make such an assessment, fine, but ffs stop putting words in my mouth.
    Dades wrote: »
    The fact is we have a complete lack of any information on which to base a decision, therefore the question is best just left unanswered, and better still, unasked, outside of a philosophy forum.

    Here we go again... I wasn't disputing the availability or lack of information.

    If me asking questions trying to understand atheism from an agnostic's viewpoint disturbs you that much that you suggest I refrain from asking in a forum called atheism/agosticsm, well, apologies.

    Just a note of interest, they have a policy about people asking such questions on the Islam forum, maybe you should add it to the charter for this board to make such infractions less likely.
    Dades wrote: »
    And before you suggest it, just because there exists unanswerable questions, does not mean everyone should be agnostic. Certainly not in any practical sense, and definitely not in any useful one.

    Wow! Do you think you can see into the future? Try some anti psychotic medication and such delusions may cease.


  • Options
    #210
    axer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    Kelly1, you argument is flawed for one simple reason. You claim that the universe did not just come into being so you argue that god created it since nothing can come from nothing but in the same breath you for no logical reason assume that god breaks this rule.

    It seems to be me that you are arguing that god can come from nothing but the universe cannot just come from nothing. This is like creating your own rule to suit yourself instead of logic.

    Please explain.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    My question was also quite simple:

    Was the universe created by an omnipotent being or does it simply exist?
    What would you base your probabilities on?
    Dades wrote: »
    Just because you phrase your question with two possible scenarios, does not make the probability of either 50/50, or anything at all. The fact is we have a complete lack of any information on which to base a decision, therefore the question is best just left unanswered, and better still, unasked, outside of a philosophy forum.
    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Yet again, you're answering a different question to the one asked...
    I didn't imply that they did, I just asked what you would base an assessment of probabilities on.

    If you think it's impossible to make such an assessment, fine, but ffs stop putting words in my mouth.
    Oh, I'm sorry - did I misread this post of yours?
    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Was the universe created by and omnipotent being or does it simply exist?

    Personally, I'd rate the odds at about 50/50.
    thebaldsoprano wrote: »
    Wow! Do you think you can see into the future? Try some anti psychotic medication and such delusions may cease.
    I have given you the benefit of the doubt, but you will leave me no choice if you continue your troll like behaviour. You're not being oppressed, you're being debated with. Adjust your attitude or begone.


Advertisement