Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?

[AndysDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Theist: But something must have created the universe. It's too complex to come from nothing. That's where God comes in.
Atheist: Well then who created God?
Theist: God has always existed.
Atheist: Well, if God has always existed, then why couldn't the universe have always existed? It's the same principle.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"

[/ QUOTE ]--Carl Sagan, Cosmos

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, since we're talking about counters to theoretical arguments, can anyone come up with a counter to this? It's the only theistic argument that I can't find an answer to and I don't even know if I've heard a theist mention it. I think it's something I came up with largely on my own.

Basically, time is nonsensical. Of all the events that ever happened, one of them must have happened first right? But if there was a starting point for time, how do things start at that point? Do they just appear? What made time start then? Either way I think of it, it doesn't make sense for time to either start at one point or to have been going on infinitely.

So, the only thing that really makes sense for time is that there must have been a force working outside time that created the universe. Since nothing in our current universe operates completely outside the constraints of time, that leads to the idea that a powerful force not constrained by time (God?) could have created the universe. I think this argument is strong enough for one to at least consider a Deist position, although I still think Christianity's largely ridiculous. Does anyone actually have an answer for this?

FWIW, I get the idea that just because we don't understand the start of the universe doesn't mean something else created it, and I'm still much closer to the atheist camp than the deist camp. I really don't understand how the universe could have started without a deity though. Anyone have a good answer here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The attempt to imagine a "force outside of time" that created time is really just an attempt to reframe the issue in a temporal context. The human mind looks for causes, and we want time itself to have a cause - but a cause is an event that precedes another event in time. It's meaningless to speak of causes "outside time." And even if a "beginning of time" does imply a force, there is no reason to conclude that this force is a god of any sort.

Time is one of the great mysteries of the universe, and it's a mystery we may never solve. Physics shows us that the workings of time and space are confusing and counterintuitive, so we may not be able to conceive of an appropriate answer. But just because something is unexplained doesn't mean God is responsible for it. This has been a common error of humans in the past.

Still, I don't have a major issue with the deist position here. There's nothing inherently illogical about it. My problems with religion have to do with its effects on the real world.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Sagan ever read Poe's poem Eureka. Look at the night sky and its obvious the universe must have had a beginning. If it didn't you would not see individual stars. An atheist, who considers him or herself to be intelligent, should never make the argument "Well then couldn't the universe have always existed."

Stu

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Sagan ever read Poe's poem Eureka. Look at the night sky and its obvious the universe must have had a beginning. If it didn't you would not see individual stars. An atheist, who considers him or herself to be intelligent, should never make the argument "Well then couldn't the universe have always existed."

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not much of a cosmologist but this seems nonsensical. Stars != universe, right? The universe isn't just another name for outer space.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt Sagan ever read Poe's poem Eureka. Look at the night sky and its obvious the universe must have had a beginning. If it didn't you would not see individual stars. An atheist, who considers him or herself to be intelligent, should never make the argument "Well then couldn't the universe have always existed."

Stu


[/ QUOTE ] I'd be surprised if Sagan didn't read this. I've seen Poe's work mentioned in various layman's physics books, including books by Gribbon. I was actually under the assumption that Poe has been credited for this insight into cosmology.

[how_can_losing?]

Nicho,

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone address this, por favor:

Quote:
Thinking back on it, this is what seems to have happened. He starts asking me questions that I do not know the answer to, such as where the universe came from. When I reply "I do not know" it makes my ideas seem incomplete. People listen to him, and his idea's answer that question: "God created the universe." Observers think "Athiest 0, Thiest 1".

What went wrong? I can say, "Who created God?" They can answer "God has always existed." Then what? "What is God?" "God is the creator of the universe." "Oh." "Oh."



How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would ask what his definition of God is and why. I suspect you will find it is an arbitrary definition colored by his (probably Christian) upbringing. If you are familiar with other religions/cultures it is not difficult to come up with examples of other deities that don't fit the description of the Abrahamic god. I doubt that he will find this significant but you might.

To put this another way, the question I find more interesting than "Does God exist?" is "What is your conception of God, and what does it say about you and your culture?"

On a side note, when I enter into an argument these days, it is not with the intention of trying to convince the other person that he or she is wrong and that I am right. This is not because I am less certain of my beliefs, but because I think it is a waste of time. If I do enter into an argument, it is hopefully with someone whose intellectual abilities I respect and whose points may challenge me to reconsider what I think.

hcl

[Dr_Chris]

I think your mistake was to focus too much on mathematics instead of the underlying forces of nature that we describe using the language of mathematics. We could probably use another language and come to the same conclusion.

The bonding between atoms can be accurately explained/predicted with simple mathematical formulas only using single digit integers or you could use a quantum mechanical approach and solve the schodinger equation and come to the very same conclusion. They are not mutually exclusive, just two ways of using mathematics to translate the laws of nature into a form that is practical for explaining nature as we can observe it.

Also, if science fails to explain what the universe looked like prior to the cataclysmic events of the big bang it is only a minor failure. Science is based on observing the present and extrapolating backwards. The big bang erased all traces of what came before.

If the theists want to hold on to the diminutive belief that some supernatural power may have existed in the past prior to the Big bang but are willing accept a mechanical universe without supernatural intervention since then, I’m willing to grant them that.

Chris

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?"


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt Sagan ever read Poe's poem Eureka. Look at the night sky and its obvious the universe must have had a beginning. If it didn't you would not see individual stars. An atheist, who considers him or herself to be intelligent, should never make the argument "Well then couldn't the universe have always existed."

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I can hear Hubble rolling around in his grave

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to imagine a "force outside of time" that created time is really just an attempt to reframe the issue in a temporal context. The human mind looks for causes, and we want time itself to have a cause - but a cause is an event that precedes another event in time. It's meaningless to speak of causes "outside time." And even if a "beginning of time" does imply a force, there is no reason to conclude that this force is a god of any sort.

Time is one of the great mysteries of the universe, and it's a mystery we may never solve. Physics shows us that the workings of time and space are confusing and counterintuitive, so we may not be able to conceive of an appropriate answer. But just because something is unexplained doesn't mean God is responsible for it. This has been a common error of humans in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess my point is that it seems like time has to have a beginning and if time just started at some point that implies an outside force. I was an astronomy minor for a while and they actually have a date that they estimate is the "age of the universe" based on the expansion that is currently taking place. The idea that the universe started X years ago does seem to imply an outside creative force.

I guess it comes down to what you define a 'god' as. I certainly don't think it's possible for anything approaching the Judeo-Christian or Islamic definition to exist. Does God just mean a creative force from another dimension? Or does it have to be sentient? I don't know, that's an interesting question. Actually, the idea of our universe being created by a non-sentient force from another dimension where time doesn't exist is something that I hadn't really though of. That's very interesting indeed.


[ QUOTE ]
Still, I don't have a major issue with the deist position here. There's nothing inherently illogical about it. My problems with religion have to do with its effects on the real world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely agree that the issue of the creation of the universe has little to do with organized religion. The only time they even bring that up is to argue with atheists or occasionally to try to inspire a little extra awe or guilt. The central focus of religion seems to be not on "God" but on controlling people's lives and using some kind of carrot and stick system to do so.

I mean think of this: according to Christianity, God created the entire universe yet the whole focus of the religion is on Jesus's trip to earth where he inhabits a human body and gets killed. How crazy is that? That the creation of millions of star systems across an expanse that's kiloparsecs across in every direction is overshadowed by some trivial story about a guy who gets in trouble with the Jewish authorities. Just shows how the focus of Christianity is really all on human behavior.