Question to Athiests strongly built on Scientific Reasoning

[runner4life7]

The biggest thing that I am unfamiliar with is the answer to where did it all come from and if there isn't an answer why is a god such a terrible choice? Wherever your starting point is I want to know what happened/existed before that. You say big bang, then cloud of dust, I say where did that cloud of dust come from? I'm sure these are natural questions and many of you have considered them, I just am unaware of a common answer if there is one.

[DougShrapnel]

The nature of existence of the universe is indeed a troubling aspect to humans. Our mind does play a filling in the details role, so that it appears to us that God is a reasonable and rational solution to the gaps in our knowledge. However the mind doesn't bother to tell us that it's only speculation on its part. The problem is that we now know that complex things have simple origins. Matter isn't really that complex originally. We can actually trace the creation of each element during the universes "birth". God is a very complex entity and doesn't make a good starting point, as the original starting point must be less complex not more. To ask what happened before the starting part may be a particularly nonsense question. It may not even make sense to ask what happened before time existing. Is there really a before? How can there be a before, without time. The laws of the early universe were not the same as they are now. Even things like conservation of matter probably did not exist. Time likely did not exist as well. People are studying the nature of the creation of the universe, and there is wide speculation. But no serious study of the nature of the working of nature, the mind of God, if you will, Should lead anyone to posit any of the major religions known today.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest thing that I am unfamiliar with is the answer to where did it all come from and if there isn't an answer why is a god such a terrible choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this question arises in the first place?

God is such an awful answer because by definition you have to make it/her/him responsible for what you experience and you see others experience too.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
People are studying the nature of the creation of the universe, and there is wide speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freudian slip? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MaxWeiss]

We don't know for sure. It's not that god isn't comforting or nice to hear--it's claiming god is true. It's an abomination to what is true and a cop-out for just admitting you don't know. If I told you you won the lottery, it might make you feel good, but it has no bearing to whether or not it's true. At least with that example you can immediately test it and find out.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People are studying the nature of the creation of the universe, and there is wide speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freudian slip? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]No, mixing it up with some multiverse theory.

I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">You say big bang, then cloud of dust, I say where did that cloud of dust come from? </font>

So answering one unknown question (where did the elements that caused the big bang come from), with another unknown question (where did God come from), solves everything, right?

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest thing that I am unfamiliar with is the answer to where did it all come from and if there isn't an answer why is a god such a terrible choice? Wherever your starting point is I want to know what happened/existed before that. You say big bang, then cloud of dust, I say where did that cloud of dust come from? I'm sure these are natural questions and many of you have considered them, I just am unaware of a common answer if there is one.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's a perfectly fine starting point as long as you cooperate with the following:

a) you need a definition of god that is not contradicted by this universe.

b) you need to provide a theory as to why god is allowing us to live in a dark place - a place where the set of unknowns is very large compared to the set of knowns.

any explanation you give needs to correctly address ethics insofar as choice is concerned.

you will also need to describe your view on when exactly our consciousness began and if and when it will end.

you have a divine right to compose a grand theory that is inconsistent but then if you want to be honest you must admit that it is inconsistent and be willing to defend your right to be inconsistent. although i suppose that if anybody is willing to compose an inconsistent theory they'd also be willing to say it isn't inconsistent. (i.e. they'd be a lover of paradox)

ray

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest thing that I am unfamiliar with is the answer to where did it all come from and if there isn't an answer why is a god such a terrible choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this question arises in the first place?

God is such an awful answer because by definition you have to make it/her/him responsible for what you experience and you see others experience too.

[/ QUOTE ]

false. get your mind right.

here is a perfectly fine explanation:

if our consciousness began before this life
if our pre-existence involves a place where the set of unknowns is nearly zero
if the only missing information was data about existence within a large set of unknowns
then this entire universe can be explained as a knowledge deprivation lab study.

god: "we can create a place where the set of unknowns is significantly large but if you decide to visit there to gain understanding of it you might not enjoy the experience but i can guarantee that you'll come back here safe and sound"

none of what i've just said is contradicted by science.

in this explanation god is responsible but not unethically so, it was your choice to participate in the lab study.

ray

[ZenMusician]

Another possibility lies in the
framework of human thinking.

The brain cannot deal well with
random information and will
always attempt to construct a
connection/pattern.

The other problem is that we
can only conceive of something
relative to the origin; what if
something doesn't NEED to have
been created.

Again, not an idea processed well
by the human brain!

-ZEN

[bocablkr]

God is such a bad choice because it still doesn't explain where he came from. You can't say he always existed or that answer is available for whatever natural phenomena started the Universe.

[madnak]

There is no scientific answer, and God is a reasonable choice.

Two caveats. First, god is a nonsensical choice. That doesn't really say anything about the probability of God, and hey, maybe even God himself is rather nonsensical (http://www.dresdencodak.com/cartoons/dc_019.htm). But if we suggest that everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. There is no more reason to believe God is immune to the argument to causation than there is to believe the big bang is so immune.

Moreover, such assumptions wreak havoc with other ideals typically loved by Christians, such as that of free will.

But the second point is that while there is no evidence that God doesn't exist, there is plenty of evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist. Some of the atheists here believe the likelihood of any god existing is infinitesimal, others believe it's greater than that, some may even believe it's almost a sure thing.

But that doesn't matter much when we agree that the likelihood of this God or that God is infinitesimal. The first cause thing is just a red herring - even if we knew for sure that God existed, that would be no more reason to believe in Christianity. As one hypothesis among an infinite number, and furthermore as a highly implausible one, Christianity is completely irrelevant.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest thing that I am unfamiliar with is the answer to where did it all come from and if there isn't an answer why is a god such a terrible choice?

[/ QUOTE ]
God is not even a 'terrible choice'. God is not an answer at all, as God would face the same question. 'I don't know' would be the honest answer right now.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
God is such a bad choice because it still doesn't explain where he came from. You can't say he always existed or that answer is available for whatever natural phenomena started the Universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

the set of all possible things does not need a first cause.

ray

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God is such a bad choice because it still doesn't explain where he came from. You can't say he always existed or that answer is available for whatever natural phenomena started the Universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

the set of all possible things does not need a first cause.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that include the Universe?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything must have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most dichotomies end up being false dichotomies, but i think this one is valid.

1. Everything needs a cause.

In this case god would need a cause too. So what good is she as a first cause?

2. Some things need no cause.

In this case why not just keep finding causes for things, knowing we may run up against some that have no cause. A god is just not necessary here.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]When you get right down to it Skidoo, the actuality of reality of the universe is far more magnificant then any god imagined. If by religion you mean awe inspiring, then yes, the universe is indeed worthy of awe. And to make the point more so that it is so awe inspiring with the limited knowledge that we have. Einstein called nature God. Even Dawkins takes pause with argueing that the natural world isn't worthy of the title God. I stop short of refering to it as God. However you won't catch me argueing with einstein without more evidence to the contrary. After all if we wish to look to Gods word, what better place can we focus then the only place sure to be his word uncorrupted. The nature of reality itself.

Things must having a cause is rather presumptious. Although I agree with that statement for items in the middle world. I'm not sure that it pertains to the really small. But complex beings must come from less complex beings, thru you guessed it a slow and gradual process. This process if nothing else is God's most eliquent diliberate statement. He would be ashamed that you deny and reject His painstakingly crafted message and sweep it under the rug. In favor of a rather insipid man writen story.

[runner4life7]

ok this thread did not go at all as planned. I'm not sure why God was even brought up to be honest. I asked what you guys believe, not can you bash my beliefs. Honestly I find this all ridiculous and you could have said no we dont know, not we dont know but your idea is [censored] retarded.

I just ask you then if you don't know doesnt it make you think maybe there is more than just people, I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.

As far as religion is concerned since it was brought up, the christian definition of God is that he has no beginning and no end, he always was, while it does not make the most sense to many people, it does answer the where and how and leaves no questions to that matter.

I also am interested in the overwhelming proof that the Christian God does not exist.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
ok this thread did not go at all as planned. I'm not sure why God was even brought up to be honest. I asked what you guys believe, not can you bash my beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your original question is a very common argument against atheism that has been around forever, so it's reasonable to assume that you were fishing for acknowledgement that your religion of choice is better than atheism. To have people respond accordingly and then cry foul is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
the atheist definition of the universe is that it has no beginning and no end, it always was

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you seeing the problem here?

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
ok this thread did not go at all as planned. I'm not sure why God was even brought up to be honest. I asked what you guys believe, not can you bash my beliefs. Honestly I find this all ridiculous and you could have said no we dont know, not we dont know but your idea is [censored] retarded.

I just ask you then if you don't know doesnt it make you think maybe there is more than just people, I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.

As far as religion is concerned since it was brought up, the christian definition of God is that he has no beginning and no end, he always was, while it does not make the most sense to many people, it does answer the where and how and leaves no questions to that matter.

I also am interested in the overwhelming proof that the Christian God does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP needs to read OP!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest thing that I am unfamiliar with is the answer to where did it all come from and if there isn't an answer why is a god such a terrible choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this question arises in the first place?

God is such an awful answer because by definition you have to make it/her/him responsible for what you experience and you see others experience too.

[/ QUOTE ]

false. get your mind right.

here is a perfectly fine explanation:

if our consciousness began before this life
if our pre-existence involves a place where the set of unknowns is nearly zero
if the only missing information was data about existence within a large set of unknowns
then this entire universe can be explained as a knowledge deprivation lab study.

god: "we can create a place where the set of unknowns is significantly large but if you decide to visit there to gain understanding of it you might not enjoy the experience but i can guarantee that you'll come back here safe and sound"

none of what i've just said is contradicted by science.

in this explanation god is responsible but not unethically so, it was your choice to participate in the lab study.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... too many "ifs" to warrant an answer.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything must have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most dichotomies end up being false dichotomies, but i think this one is valid.

1. Everything needs a cause.

In this case god would need a cause too. So what good is she as a first cause?

2. Some things need no cause.

In this case why not just keep finding causes for things, knowing we may run up against some that have no cause. A god is just not necessary here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Things not reducible to pre-existing causes:

1. Random events.

2. Conscious acts.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]When you get right down to it Skidoo, the actuality of reality of the universe is far more magnificant then any god imagined. If by religion you mean awe inspiring, then yes, the universe is indeed worthy of awe. And to make the point more so that it is so awe inspiring with the limited knowledge that we have. Einstein called nature God. Even Dawkins takes pause with argueing that the natural world isn't worthy of the title God. I stop short of refering to it as God. However you won't catch me argueing with einstein without more evidence to the contrary. After all if we wish to look to Gods word, what better place can we focus then the only place sure to be his word uncorrupted. The nature of reality itself.

Things must having a cause is rather presumptious. Although I agree with that statement for items in the middle world. I'm not sure that it pertains to the really small. But complex beings must come from less complex beings, thru you guessed it a slow and gradual process. This process if nothing else is God's most eliquent diliberate statement. He would be ashamed that you deny and reject His painstakingly crafted message and sweep it under the rug. In favor of a rather insipid man writen story.

[/ QUOTE ]

See the second item in my previous post for the only known source of original complexity.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ok this thread did not go at all as planned. I'm not sure why God was even brought up to be honest. I asked what you guys believe, not can you bash my beliefs. Honestly I find this all ridiculous and you could have said no we dont know, not we dont know but your idea is [censored] retarded.

I just ask you then if you don't know doesnt it make you think maybe there is more than just people, I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.

As far as religion is concerned since it was brought up, the christian definition of God is that he has no beginning and no end, he always was, while it does not make the most sense to many people, it does answer the where and how and leaves no questions to that matter.

I also am interested in the overwhelming proof that the Christian God does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP needs to read OP!

[/ QUOTE ]

Get down with OPP.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]When you get right down to it Skidoo, the actuality of reality of the universe is far more magnificant then any god imagined. If by religion you mean awe inspiring, then yes, the universe is indeed worthy of awe. And to make the point more so that it is so awe inspiring with the limited knowledge that we have. Einstein called nature God. Even Dawkins takes pause with argueing that the natural world isn't worthy of the title God. I stop short of refering to it as God. However you won't catch me argueing with einstein without more evidence to the contrary. After all if we wish to look to Gods word, what better place can we focus then the only place sure to be his word uncorrupted. The nature of reality itself.

Things must having a cause is rather presumptious. Although I agree with that statement for items in the middle world. I'm not sure that it pertains to the really small. But complex beings must come from less complex beings, thru you guessed it a slow and gradual process. This process if nothing else is God's most eliquent diliberate statement. He would be ashamed that you deny and reject His painstakingly crafted message and sweep it under the rug. In favor of a rather insipid man writen story.

[/ QUOTE ]

See the second item in my previous post for the only known source of original complexity.

[/ QUOTE ]I'll go with the possibility of number 1. And number 2 is possible as well, but I think conciousness nesessarily exists on a continuim. Even looking at human history you can see the raising of conciousness. We don't know enough about it yet. Skidoo, If faced with strong evidence to the contrary of your interperatiation of the bible. What do you chooose? If you side with reason, IME that is fine. It's not perfect, but providing you are willing to step back from ideas you are highly vested into have doubt casted upon them, we can certainly discuss the intricacies of each others beliefs. But if you deny reason in favor of faith, that's an issue that deserves redressing.

Lots of people agree with you that Emergence of life, Emergence of Consciousness, Why there is something instead of nothing, and randomness, are evidence of God. Perhaps it's true that these questions point to a God, but not one that we have ever dreamed of, and certainly never written about. These items are in our blind spot right now. I implore you to reconsider the possibility that your mind is just presenting it's own rational and nesessary making up stuff, and this known falsehood, Presented to us by our powerful minds, as truth is what we call "faith".

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I just ask you then if you don't know doesnt it make you think maybe there is more than just people, I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.

[/ QUOTE ]
To single out God as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe is to lack imagination.

I propose The Great Keno Machine. Every ten minutes in The Great Casino, it generates a new set of constants and generates a fully independent space-time universe. This has been going on for all eternity.

The universe was created by the Xenutians during their war with the Zanactions as a biological weapons research project. Our universe' time runs much faster than theirs. Cats are routinely harvested from our planet and used to infect the Zanactions. The Xenutians and Zanactions have always just been.

The universe is actually a simulation being run by the computer Deep Thought. Deep Thought has always just been.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]When you get right down to it Skidoo, the actuality of reality of the universe is far more magnificant then any god imagined. If by religion you mean awe inspiring, then yes, the universe is indeed worthy of awe. And to make the point more so that it is so awe inspiring with the limited knowledge that we have. Einstein called nature God. Even Dawkins takes pause with argueing that the natural world isn't worthy of the title God. I stop short of refering to it as God. However you won't catch me argueing with einstein without more evidence to the contrary. After all if we wish to look to Gods word, what better place can we focus then the only place sure to be his word uncorrupted. The nature of reality itself.

Things must having a cause is rather presumptious. Although I agree with that statement for items in the middle world. I'm not sure that it pertains to the really small. But complex beings must come from less complex beings, thru you guessed it a slow and gradual process. This process if nothing else is God's most eliquent diliberate statement. He would be ashamed that you deny and reject His painstakingly crafted message and sweep it under the rug. In favor of a rather insipid man writen story.

[/ QUOTE ]

See the second item in my previous post for the only known source of original complexity.

[/ QUOTE ]I'll go with the possibility of number 1. And number 2 is possible as well, but I think conciousness nesessarily exists on a continuim. Even looking at human history you can see the raising of conciousness. We don't know enough about it yet. Skidoo, If faced with strong evidence to the contrary of your interperatiation of the bible. What do you chooose? If you side with reason, IME that is fine. It's not perfect, but providing you are willing to step back from ideas you are highly vested into have doubt casted upon them, we can certainly discuss the intricacies of each others beliefs. But if you deny reason in favor of faith, that's an issue that deserves redressing.

Lots of people agree with you that Emergence of life, Emergence of Consciousness, Why there is something instead of nothing, and randomness, are evidence of God. Perhaps it's true that these questions point to a God, but not one that we have ever dreamed of, and certainly never written about. These items are in our blind spot right now. I implore you to reconsider the possibility that your mind is just presenting it's own rational and nesessary making up stuff, and this known falsehood, Presented to us by our powerful minds, as truth is what we call "faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

Doug, I try to avoid looking at anything from a prejudiced perspective. Most of the ideas I now hold I was at one time very skeptical of. You make a good point against getting stuck and putting "truth" in a box, but let us not keep ourselves in similar boxes through mere materialism.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything must have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most dichotomies end up being false dichotomies, but i think this one is valid.

1. Everything needs a cause.

In this case god would need a cause too. So what good is she as a first cause?

2. Some things need no cause.

In this case why not just keep finding causes for things, knowing we may run up against some that have no cause. A god is just not necessary here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Things not reducible to pre-existing causes:

1. Random events.

2. Conscious acts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure thats all?

Also, 1) is self-evidently true, no? I mean, isn't the definition of a random act a causeless one?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything must have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most dichotomies end up being false dichotomies, but i think this one is valid.

1. Everything needs a cause.

In this case god would need a cause too. So what good is she as a first cause?

2. Some things need no cause.

In this case why not just keep finding causes for things, knowing we may run up against some that have no cause. A god is just not necessary here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Things not reducible to pre-existing causes:

1. Random events.

2. Conscious acts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure thats all?

Also, 1) is self-evidently true, no? I mean, isn't the definition of a random act a causeless one?



[/ QUOTE ]

My list is not necessarily exhaustive. Can you suggest an addition?

The first item does appear self-evident, but the second must be also, I think.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll say that, If there is an Intelligent Creator, he too must have simple origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when must everything must have a cause? That's hardly in evidence and sounds more like a religious belief to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most dichotomies end up being false dichotomies, but i think this one is valid.

1. Everything needs a cause.

In this case god would need a cause too. So what good is she as a first cause?

2. Some things need no cause.

In this case why not just keep finding causes for things, knowing we may run up against some that have no cause. A god is just not necessary here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Things not reducible to pre-existing causes:

1. Random events.

2. Conscious acts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you sure thats all?

Also, 1) is self-evidently true, no? I mean, isn't the definition of a random act a causeless one?



[/ QUOTE ]

My list is not necessarily exhaustive. Can you suggest an addition?

The first item does appear self-evident, but the second must be also, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose, but it would depend on your definitons. And if it is, then how is it useful? Its just question-begging that random events actually happen, or that conscious ones do, at least according to your, rather strict, definition.

[runner4life7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just ask you then if you don't know doesnt it make you think maybe there is more than just people, I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.

[/ QUOTE ]
To single out God as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe is to lack imagination.

I propose The Great Keno Machine. Every ten minutes in The Great Casino, it generates a new set of constants and generates a fully independent space-time universe. This has been going on for all eternity.

The universe was created by the Xenutians during their war with the Zanactions as a biological weapons research project. Our universe' time runs much faster than theirs. Cats are routinely harvested from our planet and used to infect the Zanactions. The Xenutians and Zanactions have always just been.

The universe is actually a simulation being run by the computer Deep Thought. Deep Thought has always just been.

[/ QUOTE ]

and to give examples such as those it shows immaturity and the inability to provide a reasonable counter-argument.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.


[/ QUOTE ]

But a god doesn't answer that question! You are simply shifting it. The same problems exists: where does god comes from? If you can accept god to be without cause, why can't you accept the universe as it is, as being without cause? What is the fundamental difference? Hint: one can be experienced, the other is a mere figment of your imagination!

[runner4life7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.


[/ QUOTE ]

But a god doesn't answer that question! You are simply shifting it. The same problems exists: where does god comes from? If you can accept god to be without cause, why can't you accept the universe as it is, as being without cause? What is the fundamental difference? Hint: one can be experienced, the other is a mere figment of your imagination!

[/ QUOTE ]

because if a god hypothetically exists, him having no start or end makes sense. to say the same for the universe doesnt compute the same in my brain at least.

[MidGe]

If you think the products of your imagination are more valid than your experiences... hey, what can I say! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[runner4life7]

why do people think that christians at least current day ones imagined the religion? Clearly its from experiences they have had as we didn't form it. So true or not, you are looking at it all wrong.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.


[/ QUOTE ]

But a god doesn't answer that question! You are simply shifting it. The same problems exists: where does god comes from? If you can accept god to be without cause, why can't you accept the universe as it is, as being without cause? What is the fundamental difference? Hint: one can be experienced, the other is a mere figment of your imagination!

[/ QUOTE ]

There certainly is a fundamental difference.

Irreducible organizations of matter are never seen to arise without conscious agency, while consciousness has never been shown to be reducible to material causes.

[Magic_Man]

Of course you didn't form it. You were taught it by your parents, right?

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just ask you then if you don't know doesnt it make you think maybe there is more than just people, I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.

[/ QUOTE ]
To single out God as a possible explanation for the existence of the universe is to lack imagination.

I propose The Great Keno Machine. Every ten minutes in The Great Casino, it generates a new set of constants and generates a fully independent space-time universe. This has been going on for all eternity.

The universe was created by the Xenutians during their war with the Zanactions as a biological weapons research project. Our universe' time runs much faster than theirs. Cats are routinely harvested from our planet and used to infect the Zanactions. The Xenutians and Zanactions have always just been.

The universe is actually a simulation being run by the computer Deep Thought. Deep Thought has always just been.

[/ QUOTE ]

and to give examples such as those it shows immaturity and the inability to provide a reasonable counter-argument.

[/ QUOTE ]


For those keeping score at home:

Runner4life: I think that everything came from God. This makes sense. Where else could everything have come from?

Benjdm: Here are a bunch of causes that I think are equally silly/arbitrary as God.

Runner4life: No, those are too immature. Give us better examples.




Why is God (and especially the Christian God, in your case) any less immature than Deep Thought, or an alien experiment? How about a more mature example that is one of my favorites:

During the first few moments of the big bang, parts of the universe went back in time and caused the big bang. (See also: "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe")

~MagicMan

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
There certainly is a fundamental difference.

Irreducible organizations of matter are never seen to arise without conscious agency, while consciousness has never been shown to be reducible to material causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell us what you think an "irreducible organization of matter" is? Does a proton count? How about a quark? Do you have an example of those being caused by conscious acts? Perhaps you've been led astray by ID dogma.

~MagicMan

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There certainly is a fundamental difference.

Irreducible organizations of matter are never seen to arise without conscious agency, while consciousness has never been shown to be reducible to material causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell us what you think an "irreducible organization of matter" is? Does a proton count? How about a quark? Do you have an example of those being caused by conscious acts? Perhaps you've been led astray by ID dogma.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

The famous pocket watch is irreducible.

Fundamental particles like protons are consciously created all the time. Bad example.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There certainly is a fundamental difference.

Irreducible organizations of matter are never seen to arise without conscious agency, while consciousness has never been shown to be reducible to material causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell us what you think an "irreducible organization of matter" is? Does a proton count? How about a quark? Do you have an example of those being caused by conscious acts? Perhaps you've been led astray by ID dogma.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

The famous pocket watch is irreducible.

Fundamental particles like protons are consciously created all the time. Bad example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Protons are not irreducible anyway, although for the record they are never created in isolation. I don't see how a pocketwatch proves your point. We're talking about whether "irreducible organizations" (whatever that means) can exist without conscious acts. Presumably, your point is that God therefore must have created the universe. Man created pocketwatches, so this doesn't really prove anything. Also, pocketwatches are reducible to an extent, but we'll get to that later.

~MagicMan

[tw0please]

The strict scientific answer to the first cause question is that "we don't know". Just because we know the Big Bang occurred does not rule out the existence of God, it simply is one more event further back in time. However the more that we learn about the universe there is less and less phenomena out there that needs to be explained by a supernatural being. Postulating God to explain things that we don't know is an easy out but it's clearly not good science.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
You say big bang, then cloud of dust, I say where did that cloud of dust come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

So why not just call the cloud of dust god then? While you're at it you can also say the cloud of dust listens to your prayers and sends you to heaven when you die.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There certainly is a fundamental difference.

Irreducible organizations of matter are never seen to arise without conscious agency, while consciousness has never been shown to be reducible to material causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell us what you think an "irreducible organization of matter" is? Does a proton count? How about a quark? Do you have an example of those being caused by conscious acts? Perhaps you've been led astray by ID dogma.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

The famous pocket watch is irreducible.

Fundamental particles like protons are consciously created all the time. Bad example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Protons are not irreducible anyway, although for the record they are never created in isolation. I don't see how a pocketwatch proves your point. We're talking about whether "irreducible organizations" (whatever that means) can exist without conscious acts. Presumably, your point is that God therefore must have created the universe. Man created pocketwatches, so this doesn't really prove anything. Also, pocketwatches are reducible to an extent, but we'll get to that later.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

An irreducible organization cannot be accounted for in terms of the measurable properties of its constituents and antecedents.

Protons come about from neutrons etc in predictable ways, though eventually there are limitations to physical understanding, obviously.

We observe the conditions available to create a watch and so surmise that nothing natural is present that could culminate in its formation. Therefore, it was created from the top down, as it were.

As to the origin of the universe, incomplete information prohibits a proof in either direction, but the two options are not equivalent.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest thing that I am unfamiliar with is the answer to where did it all come from and if there isn't an answer why is a god such a terrible choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one knows where it all came from, and no one ever will. It is typical human arrogance not to be able to accept this simple fact, and to invent numerous fantasies based on zero evidence.

Is God a good choice? Well it’s a wrong choice as far as accuracy is concerned, but then any choice would be. However if believing God created it all, keeps you happy, then by all means be happy.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God is such a bad choice because it still doesn't explain where he came from. You can't say he always existed or that answer is available for whatever natural phenomena started the Universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

the set of all possible things does not need a first cause.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that include the Universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

what does it not include?

ray

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
and to give examples such as those it shows immaturity and the inability to provide a reasonable counter-argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
You said:
[ QUOTE ]
I just ask you then if you don't know doesnt it make you think maybe there is more than just people, I'm not saying you have to say for sure, but to fully deny a god existing is extreme when you can't answer where everything came from.

[/ QUOTE ]
The God-explanation has as much evidence to back it up as the explanations I gave. They also provide an answer where everything came from equally well. If you are going to demand a God-explanation be respected in spite of no evidence leading to it and no proposed ways of testing it, be consistent, because you have to respect those other explanations too.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I also am interested in the overwhelming proof that the Christian God does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you believe in all of Allah, Zeus, Shiva, Thor or Ra?

If not... Im interested in your overwhelming proof that they dont exist

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Clearly its from experiences they have had as we didn't form it. So true or not, you are looking at it all wrong. </font>

Do you honestly think that if you were born to Muslim parents, you're "experience" would still be one of a Christian nature and not Islamic? If you were from a Jewish family would you still "experience" Jesus as the Son of God? You're kidding yourself.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Clearly its from experiences they have had as we didn't form it. So true or not, you are looking at it all wrong. </font>

Do you honestly think that if you were born to Muslim parents, you're "experience" would still be one of a Christian nature and not Islamic? If you were from a Jewish family would you still "experience" Jesus as the Son of God? You're kidding yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is consistantly the most obvious question that I find that no theist can ever reasonably answer.

The number of Christians who don't think the fact that they're Christian is attributed entirely to chance... ie- where they're born, amazes me.

They also think their 'feelings' and 'experiences' which make their religion so real to them are unique to them. They can't explain why someone born elsewhere raised as a Muslim who has the same experiences/beliefs/passions about their God.

That's usually where they bring out the well thought out, "I know I'm right" argument. At which point my impression of the thoughtfullness of Christians drops another peg.

[runner4life7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also am interested in the overwhelming proof that the Christian God does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you believe in all of Allah, Zeus, Shiva, Thor or Ra?

If not... Im interested in your overwhelming proof that they dont exist

[/ QUOTE ]

this was addressed to the person who said they had it, I wasn't saying it doesnt exist or that I have evidence to prove others wrong? I feel like everyone on this forum is an atheist and rather than looking at things rationally and make sound arguments that they would just rather bash christianity, which is fine, but dont expect me to respect any of the arguments then.

Like all the bogus startnig points are funny and all but no one believes them so to argue they should hold the same as major religions is a ridiculous statement.

[runner4life7]

I fully agree chance was a factor in me becoming Christian, and i have many issues with a lot of the different denominations, but I haven't just accepted what I have heard to be true. I have spent hours upon hours studying it and yes I have studied other religions, not with the interest in converting to those, but rather as to why would I believe those to be wrong and why do they exist if they are wrong.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I fully agree chance was a factor in me becoming Christian, and i have many issues with a lot of the different denominations, but I haven't just accepted what I have heard to be true. I have spent hours upon hours studying it and yes I have studied other religions, not with the interest in converting to those, but rather as to why would I believe those to be wrong and why do they exist if they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, between your previous comment that everyone on this forum is just an atheist out to use irrational arguments to attack Christianity to this one detailing your exhaustive studies of other world religions for the sole purpose of figuring out why they are wrong, you've really painted for us a wonderful picture of yourself.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I fully agree chance was a factor in me becoming Christian, and i have many issues with a lot of the different denominations, but I haven't just accepted what I have heard to be true. I have spent hours upon hours studying it and yes I have studied other religions, not with the interest in converting to those, but rather as to why would I believe those to be wrong and why do they exist if they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aah. So you went in there with your mind set that they are wrong. Just like every Christian I've met.

Of course every person of every other religion feels exactly the same way you do. And they're all convinced they're right. And none of them have any logical reason.

Again... they just know they're right.

And again... to any rational person they all look foolish and/or crazy.

[runner4life7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I fully agree chance was a factor in me becoming Christian, and i have many issues with a lot of the different denominations, but I haven't just accepted what I have heard to be true. I have spent hours upon hours studying it and yes I have studied other religions, not with the interest in converting to those, but rather as to why would I believe those to be wrong and why do they exist if they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aah. So you went in there with your mind set that they are wrong. Just like every Christian I've met.

Of course every person of every other religion feels exactly the same way you do. And they're all convinced they're right. And none of them have any logical reason.

Again... they just know they're right.

And again... to any rational person they all look foolish and/or crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree everything you just sound is completely rational. I dont have an answer for you, but yes this is what i believe and it makes sense to me. It is not a crutch, its not because I need an answer.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a crutch, its not because I need an answer.


[/ QUOTE ]

It does not make sense to you. You just said it is irrational.

You were raised to believe your religion was correct and you have too much invested to look at it rationally. So, even though you admit that there is plenty of things that don't make sense and are irrational, you block out reason and believe what you like better.

The correct answer is "it doesn't make sense but this is what I believe." If you were really contemplative you might dig into why you believe in your God when you'd have just as much reason to worship Zeus or Odin.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
Like all the bogus startnig points are funny and all but no one believes them so to argue they should hold the same as major religions is a ridiculous statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I convince a bunch of people of one of these bogus starting points, it will gain credibility without any merit ? Makes perfect sense. Scientology (http://www.xenu.net/archive/leaflet/xenuleaf.htm) and Jediism (http://www.thejediismway.org/) are credible, I guess. (Yes, there is a real and growing Jediism religion, based on the ideas from the Star Wars movies.)

[runner4life7]

no but to make your agrument is just a waste of everyone's time.

[runner4life7]

i never said anything I believe is irrational.

[CallMeIshmael]

I'll just throw my two cents in here...

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like everyone on this forum is an atheist and rather than looking at things rationally and make sound arguments that they would just rather bash christianity

[/ QUOTE ]


I think I fall closest to Madnak in my thoughts on God...

I have absolutely 0 problem with anyone saying a belief in God is rational, since I can see that argument. I mean, something exists.. and we have no idea how it got there. And, if you want to say "God is the most likely explanation" then Im totally OK with that.

Its when you start talking about the properties of God that I really start to think less of the person's ability to reason. The "how did matter come to exist" could be seen as decent evidence for the existence of SOME God, but not any SPECIFIC God. (and, in this sentence, "some God" could mean just about anything)

I find the evidence for any specific God to be quite lacking. I mean, do you really believe the most likely explanation for the story of Jesus to be that he was ACTUALLY the son of God, and ressurected? Or, that people claimed that based on lacking evidence, and it was eventually passed down through the generations?

If the theists were less tied to THEIR God, but instead to some God, I really think the bashing would stop, since their belief is far more rational (imo).

[Lestat]

Can you share your conclusions? What is it about the evidence for an invisible man in the sky that you find faulty in the Koran, but compelling in the bible?

[kurto]

But you said it makes sense to you. I think that you are contradicting yourself if you agree it is irrational.

I think it would be more accurate to say, "I FEEL this is true even though it I admit it is completely irrational." (then we can look at the reasons for your belief... low and behold we find that you were raised in a Western Culture which indoctrinates their children into this belief system when they're too young to look at it rationally. And then we can explain your irrational belief.)

Then it all makes sense.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I have absolutely 0 problem with anyone saying a belief in God is rational, since I can see that argument. I mean, something exists.. and we have no idea how it got there. And, if you want to say "God is the most likely explanation" then Im totally OK with that.

Its when you start talking about the properties of God that I really start to think less of the person's ability to reason. The "how did matter come to exist" could be seen as decent evidence for the existence of SOME God, but not any SPECIFIC God. (and, in this sentence, "some God" could mean just about anything)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I'm an atheist, but I make no claim that any and all gods are impossible. I just believe there's no compelling reason to believe in any of them, and that chances are there never will be.

If you're going to make an argument for "Some god, maybe" and then leap straight to a specific religion, you're missing a lot of steps. And if you think that "There could be some sort of god I guess" is a concession for most atheists, you're mistaken.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have absolutely 0 problem with anyone saying a belief in God is rational, since I can see that argument. I mean, something exists.. and we have no idea how it got there. And, if you want to say "God is the most likely explanation" then Im totally OK with that.

Its when you start talking about the properties of God that I really start to think less of the person's ability to reason. The "how did matter come to exist" could be seen as decent evidence for the existence of SOME God, but not any SPECIFIC God. (and, in this sentence, "some God" could mean just about anything)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I'm an atheist, but I make no claim that any and all gods are impossible. I just believe there's no compelling reason to believe in any of them, and that chances are there never will be.

If you're going to make an argument for "Some god, maybe" and then leap straight to a specific religion, you're missing a lot of steps. And if you think that "There could be some sort of god I guess" is a concession for most atheists, you're mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the biggest problem is that, for a lot of theists, that is EXACTLY the sort of "Gotcha!" concession they are going for, as if by getting the atheist to admit he can't disprove all gods he is somehow admitting defeat. And this is what makes atheists in general hesitant to make statments like "Of course god is possible."

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Like all the bogus startnig points are funny and all but no one believes them so to argue they should hold the same as major religions is a ridiculous statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not ridiculous at all. Think about it for a minute. If all major religions are wrong (except yours), then they are no less ridiculous than Zeus, Apollo, a cosmic keno machine, or any other explanation for the universe a human could dream up.

Muslims think Mohammed toured heaven and hell on a flying donkey and then returned to earth. Ridiculous, right? How about a talking snake and a woman being turned into a pillar of salt? How about a man walking out of his tomb after being dead for 3 days and then floating up to heaven? Ridiculous, right?