Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[freesoulhope]

I guess if you still think it just “doesn’t add up” you might want to take up the issue with most physicists, who see things a bit differently. They present a very reasonable explanation that doesn’t need the existence of a creator being.

What the physicist is speaking of, if it is to be a alternative to the God, it would require something already existing “before the bigbang” Before time space and matter. The respectability of a scientist is not the issue; is the scientist correct? Thats whats more important.

 

[freesoulhope]

Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis presents a rational, scientific, response to the claim that the creation of matter can only have happened through the actions of a divine creator (a la miracle).

To summarize:

Einstein theorized that matter can be created out of energy, and can also disappear into energy

But what he didn’t say, is that “energy” existed “before” the BigBang.

For the physicist to be correct, at least “Time” and “space” would logically have to exist before the bigbang, as energy depends upon the passing of one moment to the next.

 

[freesoulhope]

This is why (I think I’ll put this in capital letters) AQUINAS DID NOT DEPEND IN HIS ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING.

This is true, but one would also have to accept that, if the world is eternal, then Space, time and energy, is apart of God (which is bordering on “pantheism”); not only that, It is easier for the athiest to simply dismiss that God is the cause, and say “i do not know!”.

The Big bang is very significant, because it proves that time space or matter, cannot be the cause, neither can energy be the cause since it is dependent upon the passing of time. There can be no cause or act, if everything is static, or if there is no time. Even more so, in order for matter to form, one would need the passing of time; for there to be an expansion of space, one would need the passing of time. Time is the key.

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

Stenger sums up the argument thusly: “In short, the existence of matter and energy in the universe did not require the violation of energy conservation at the assumed creation. In fact, the data strongly support the hypothesis that no such miracle occured. If we regard such a miracle as predicted by the creator hypothesis, then that prediction is not confirmed.”

This is an arguement for the existence of matter, not the existence of the universe as a “whole”. This is not a proof against God creating the universe, rather, it is and arguement, that the “hypothesis of God”, is not needed to explain the emergence of “Matter”. And… so what?
I as a thiest, can agree with the physicist and still say that you cannot logically, or should i say, it is “imposible” to explain “universal existence” on naturalistic terms.

You are simply failing to understand the arguements that i have been presenting to you. This is why your an atheist.

 

[freesoulhope]

Ummm…

That all boils down to having a bag of rocks, which, if it remains a bag of rocks, proves that the bag of rocks is indeed a bag of rocks.

This “theory” doesn’t even address the question of where the bag of rocks came from, much less answer it.

Comments?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

It is an arguement that God is not needed to explain the emergence of matter. As a “Scientist” and a theist, i can agree, because you first need time, energy and space, and one can say that matter is a result of these prior conditions. But you cannot deduce from this arguement that “God” is not needed to explain, “how” the universe: time, space, matter, and energy, came in to existence in the first place.

As we both know the universe have a begining, either Merry atheist has failed to understand this, or merry atheists has puposely use this arguement in order to try decieve us; as if i “a very reasonable theist”, would be that gullible!

 

[cpayne]

This is true, but one would also have to accept that, if the world is eternal, then Space, time and energy, is apart of God (which is bordering on “pantheism”)

I don’t think necessarily so. An eternal universe could easily lead to pantheism, but doesn’t have to.

For an analogy, think of a person in front of a mirror. The person’s standing there is the “cause” of the image’s existence. If the person has been there eternally, so has the image. But the person still is the cause, and is not identified with the image created.

Even if the contingent universe is eternal (it’s contingent because it changes, experiences conversion of energy), God is still its Cause, and not necessarily identified with it.

 

[freesoulhope]

Even if the contingent universe is eternal (it’s contingent because it changes, experiences conversion of energy), God is still its Cause, and not necessarily identified with it.

The Mirror reflection is a poor analogy, as the reflection is a reflection of “my self” of me; my standing in front of the mirror for all eternity, is logically contradictory. There is no way of knowing that i am the cause of the reflection, since there is no where in time, that i “caused” the reflection, even though my image is in the mirror. Secondly the real world is a bit different from a reflection. The world is not an infinite reflection of God, it is a creation of God; but if the world is infinite, then God can only be believed to be the first cause of energy=matter. If God has no beginning, and time has no beginning, what reason is there to relate the two? Unless you think of infinite time being a reflection of God? In this case, philosophically speaking, it would seem that pantheism is the most logical conclusion. If time has a beginning, then time has to be accounted for by something out side of its nature. If time is eternal, it makes no sense to ask “where did it come from, since it has no cause by definition of being eternal?”

Maybe im wrong.

Maybe you can give me another analogy?

 

[cpayne]

Actually, it was not such a good analogy, for the reasons you pointed out. Forget that one.

Here’s why Aquinas still thinks the universe requires a Creator. If the universe changes in any way, that means it is one of a variety of logically possible universes; its existence as the universe it is, is contingent upon the form of the changes. The changes in the universe need some kind of cause to have them be THESE changes rather than THOSE. Actually, this would apply to ANY change in any form, since any possible universe involving change would still be contingent and would require an explanation for its existence, i.e., a cause.

Whatever the Cause is that allows these changes in the contingent universe has to itself be unchanging and outside of the contingent universe (i.e., not identified with it). These are features of the theistic God, not a pantheistic one.

Okay, I feel better about this answer.

 

[cpayne]

What I forgot to mention (duh—the whole point) is that the above argument would still apply even if the universe were eternal. It would still be contingent.

 

[freesoulhope]

The Mirror reflection is a poor analogy, as the reflection is a reflection of “my self” of me; my standing in front of the mirror for all eternity, is logically contradictory. There is no way of knowing that i am the cause of the reflection, since there is no where in time, that i “caused” the reflection, even though my image is in the mirror. Secondly the real world is a bit different from a reflection. The world is not an infinite reflection of God, it is a creation of God; but if the world is infinite, then God can only be believed to be the first cause of energy=matter. If God has no beginning, and time has no beginning, what reason is there to relate the two? Unless you think of infinite time being a reflection of God? In this case, philosophically speaking, it would seem that pantheism is the most logical conclusion. If time has a beginning, then time has to be accounted for by something out side of its nature. If time is eternal, it makes no sense to ask “where did it come from, since it has no cause by definition of being eternal?”

Maybe im wrong.

Maybe you can give me another analogy?

Ignore this; its logically flawed.

 

[anthony022071]

Atheism is not only a lack of faith,it is also a deliberate and irresponsible limitation on reason. Scientific logic may discount the metaphysical and supernatural,because it is just a technique of reason;but reason allows for knowledge about the supernatural and metaphysical.

 

[freesoulhope]

What I forgot to mention (duh—the whole point) is that the above argument would still apply even if the universe were eternal. It would still be contingent.

I simply don’t see how an eternal universe is possible.

 

[cpayne]

I simply don’t see how an eternal universe is possible.

I don’t quite understand that part, myself. But my point is that both Aristotle and Aquinas thought that even if the universe IS eternal, it still needs a Creator outside of itself (Creator in the sense of necessary formal cause). Aquinas believed that the universe began, because the Bible says so, but he didn’t think it could be logically proven either way.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*“God is absolute love!” – Who would have thought that such a simple concept is that difficult to understand?

*

I have no problem understanding that statement. You do seem to have a problem demonstrating that it is true though…

Given my definition of God, the fact that God is pure love is “demonstrated” by the instance of God (of which there is only one, again by definition) which we experience which tells us God is pure love.

What is my definition of God? God is the singular all powerful being (in three persons) who is only capable of “doing” pure love.

The fact that that that definition is utterly circular, to you, is only proof that you don’t understand who God is, and are thereby excluded from “faith” in Him due to your “faith” in your own god…

…which, as I’ve said any number of times, is the “mask” that your god uses to distract you from serious consideration of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
To know that we don’t know something that we may think may be very important and then have the ability to “move on to other things”, having FAITH that we can do so and not have to “worry” about not knowing for certain, is the essence of faith.

I cannot speak for the rest of the non-theists here, but this is not the reason why I ‘move on to other things’.

You “move on to other things” precisely because there are “other” more immediately important things to move on to. As does everyone.

You have “faith” that you’ll wake up tomorrow, and that even if you don’t, that there was probably a very good reason that you weren’t given the opportunity to do that (wake up).

That “shrugging of anxiety” by “faith in ‘something’” (most likely physics, chemistry and probability in your case) is faith.

That faith keeps you from “worrying overly” about the “unlikely” possibilities of existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You show your faith in the fact that you are willing to not have to know everything right now, when you “agnosticize” your belief in God.

That is your faith.*

That is not quite the definition of faith. Which definition are you using? I prefer Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. In case you missed it, there was no ‘I do not know’ in that verse

The MOST sensible (best) faith is to believe in what has been revealed to us by God,… but a not-as-good version of faith is the faith in “science”, and an even less-good version of faith is the faith of “agnosticism”.

Science is “sure of what it hopes for and certain of what it can’t (now) see” in that in science ALL things ARE certainly ruled by an (eventual) invariable set of materialistic/energetic laws, which we don’t completely see yet, but HOPE to.

Agnosticism is “Science-ism” taken one step further in that there is only a HOPE that all things are ruled by laws.

You have faith, which is a requisite to being able to not obsess on one “thing” to the exclusion of all else, that it’s not “fatal” to leave some things to “take care of themselves for a time”. You have that faith because it’s your experience, and it tends to reinforce itself because it’s a PART of “full faith”.

But, when you put the part-faith of “knowledge/experience” in the place of full-faith, you “detune” yourself from being able to make sense out of what God has to say to you. You simply can’t distinguish the signal from the noise.

I’m not really sure why someone would boast of being unable to hear what God has to say to them?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Ummm…

That all boils down to having a bag of rocks, which, if it remains a bag of rocks, proves that the bag of rocks is indeed a bag of rocks.

This “theory” doesn’t even address the question of where the bag of rocks came from, much less answer it.

Comments? *

It is an arguement that God is not needed to explain the emergence of matter.

The “emergence of matter” is not the issue…!

The emergence of existence of anything (matter and energy and whatever else) is the issue.

As a “Scientist” and a theist, i can agree, because you first need time, energy and space, and one can say that matter is a result of these prior conditions. But you cannot deduce from this arguement that “God” is not needed to explain, “how” the universe: time, space, matter, and energy, came in to existence in the first place.

Precisely.

As we both know the universe have a begining, either Merry atheist has failed to understand this, or merry atheists has puposely use this arguement in order to try decieve us; as if i “a very reasonable theist”, would be that gullible!

Of course Merry knew that that argument was irrelevant to the question of beginnings.

So why the heck did you put that goofy tripe out there, Merry?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Been away a couple days, so please pardon me for my lack of reply…

My post #273 was in response to Freesoulhope’s statement: “We cannot advocate science as a revealer of truth, if we believe in logical contradictions such as the world poping out of nothing.”

The post presented current scientific theory which demonstrates a possible answer to the problem of “matter from nothing.” Since the universe itself is composed of matter and energy transforming into one another, it is reasonable to think that evidence of an outside creator would be linked to an imbalance in negative/positive energy. Afterall, if the energy needed for the Big Bang was provided by an outside source, the violation of the first law of thermodynamics would be easily determined. But since no imbalance exists, there is no evidence of a creator with regard to the existence of energy and matter.

The post was not intended as a complete answer to “how did the universe begin?” but was in direct response to what appeared to me to be an obviously flawed assertion about matter. FreeSoulHope seemed to be saying that the existence of matter cannot be explained logically or scientifically. That is simply not true.

When it comes to the Beginning of Everything, we are still a ways from understanding both it and whatever came before (if anything). I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to be skeptical about whatever answer is provided, whether it be from believers or unbelievers, until it can be shown to be valid through observation. To me it appears theists are largely adopting the “it agrees with my theology therefore it’s true” methodology, which I reject as ridiculously post hoc.

 

[MerryAtheist]

You are simply failing to understand the arguements that i have been presenting to you. This is why your an atheist.

Again with the mind-reading…

There are lots of reasons I am an atheist - none of them have anything to do with my ability to understand you (unless of course you are really God in disguise).

 

[Greg27]

The Mirror reflection is a poor analogy, as the reflection is a reflection of “my self” of me; my standing in front of the mirror for all eternity, is logically contradictory. There is no way of knowing that i am the cause of the reflection, since there is no where in time, that i “caused” the reflection, even though my image is in the mirror. Secondly the real world is a bit different from a reflection. The world is not an infinite reflection of God, it is a creation of God; but if the world is infinite, then God can only be believed to be the first cause of energy=matter. If God has no beginning, and time has no beginning, what reason is there to relate the two? Unless you think of infinite time being a reflection of God? In this case, philosophically speaking, it would seem that pantheism is the most logical conclusion. If time has a beginning, then time has to be accounted for by something out side of its nature. If time is eternal, it makes no sense to ask “where did it come from, since it has no cause by definition of being eternal?”

Maybe im wrong.

Maybe you can give me another analogy?

Scientists seem to emphasize that according to current cosmological models, there is no ‘before’ the big bang in the sense of time. Not being a scientific cosmologist there are probably models or theories which conceive of an existent universe which requires no discontinuity in time; one of Hawking’s models seemed to involve this.

Classical theism, in the sense God is a supernatural being whose essence is completely distinct from the universe, seems to require that everything which is not God’s essence is created by him as an act of will. Theistic philosophers developed an interesting range of ‘theories’ as to how this happened. John Scotus Eriugena for example, did in fact argue the visible cosmos is a mirror of God, or rather a theophany of God. Eriugena had the interesting idea God was not actually a ‘Being’ but was above Being itself, so Being itself must ‘emerge’ from nothingness, the nothingness of God’s transcendence itself. He was accused for pantheism for this though it might be more accurate to say his system can result in pantheism, if the universe is regarded as one mode of God’s infinite essence (a view revived by Spinoza).

We can then regard the creation of the universe as some kind of emanation or descent from a First Principle. Neo-Platonist philosophers adopted this view, and this was adopted by Philosophers such as Al-Farbi and Meister Eckhart. However if the universe proceeds continuously from the divine essence like water coming from a fountain, it would seem to contradict the dogma God creates out of nothing through his free will, and this also seems to imply there is a bridge between the infinite and finite.

A third view is that God makes the universe from nothing, as an act of will, and sustains the cosmos in existence, but not from his own essence. The universe then is seen as a visible manifestation of God’s wisdom and planning and also his beauty, in the sense of cosmic harmony and order. God’s prescence is everywhere through his sustaining activity and also by his omniprescence, which creates all things from nothing, sustains them, or allows them to pass into nothing, according to his will.

There is clearly a lot of room and flexibility for a philosopher or theologian of the monotheistic faiths then to try and explain how God creates the universe.

Of more general interest to me though, is how the Absolute is said to relate to the contingent or the relative. What about the interesting views Eastern Philosophy and Religion have on the nature of things? Eastern philosophy has a very interesting metaphysics and logic which centers around the idea that the core principle is not Being but Emptiness. Emptiness seems to accord well with a lot of findings of science such as in quantum theory which suggest objects from particles to perhaps even entire universes emerge from pure nothingness or a vacuum. Also given the contingency of many seemingly ‘solid’ things over time, and the strong evidence that the universe is not simply a static entity but is also something which is deeply process based, what of the Buddhist notion of the inherent emptiness of all things because of their ever-changing character? These views are certainly also well worth considering when considering a possible philosophical and religious analysis of what science has discovered about the universe and how it bears on classical metaphysical questions.

 

[freesoulhope]

Been away a couple days, so please pardon me for my lack of reply…

I hope you thought long and hard.

My post #273 was in response to Freesoulhope’s statement: “We cannot advocate science as a revealer of truth, if we believe in logical contradictions such as the world popping out of nothing.”.

Are you suggesting that it is reasonable to think that the world popped out of nothing?

The post presented current scientific theory which demonstrates a possible answer to the problem of “matter from nothing.” .

If you speaking about the Whole universe popping out of nothing, which it seems you were implying, It is simply not the case, otherwise it would be common knoledge to all of us. Nobody has solved how a universe can come about by naturalistic means, completly out of nothing; the problem is that you (if your an honest person, free from self denile) seem to have a problem understanding what “nothing” actually is. The significance of the word is unfortunatly lost to your understanding, and any one else, respected scientist or not, who claims that something can come out of nothing by naturalistic means. At very least the agnostic trys to keep his intelectual dignity by saying he doesn’t know.

Afterall, if the energy needed for the Big Bang was provided by an outside source, the violation of the first law of thermodynamics would be easily determined. But since no imbalance exists, there is no evidence of a creator with regard to the existence of energy and matter…

This is just verbal gymnastics, pretending to be an answer. There was “nothing”, and then there was “something”; how much of a violation of nature do you need?!! Do you know what nothing is?

The post was not intended as a complete answer to "how did the universe begin?.

But you presented it as one. So why, i wonder, are you changing your tune now? Thats kinda, “post hoc”, isn’t it?

but was in direct response to what appeared to me to be an obviously flawed assertion about matter. FreeSoulHope seemed to be saying that the existence of matter cannot be explained logically or scientifically. That is simply not true. .

I see you have used my possible error to your advantage in order to save some intellectual ground and honesty. But I’m sure that somewhere along the line, i was speaking of matter in “relation” to a whole, rather then by “itself”; that whole being “the universe”, time, space, “and” matter “together”; if that is not the case then i humbly accept correction. Otherwise i totally agree that, “matter”, based on what you have written, and what i have learned from other posters,(who are “theists”) can be explained by the scientific method.

When it comes to the Beginning of Everything, we are still a ways from understanding both it and whatever came before (if anything)…

There was “nothing”, no before, only after; that is all you have to understand.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to be skeptical about whatever answer is provided, whether it be from believers or unbelievers, until it can be shown to be valid through observation. .

Theres scepticism, and then theres an unreasonable scepticism, based on an atheistic principle to denie that God exists, regardless of how silly one looks in the long run.

There was nothing and then there was something; i think thats a very good common-sense reason to believe in a super-nature.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Nobody has solved how a universe can come about by naturalistic means, completly out of nothing;

I am not a scientist, so I can’t offer any solution on my own. But I have encountered information that suggests otherwise. I offer the following quote:

“Prominent physicists and cosmologists have published, in reputable scientific journals, a number of other scenarios by which a universe could have come about ‘from nothing’ naturally. None can be ‘proved’ at this time to represent the exact way the universe appeared, but they serve to illustrate that any argument for the existence of God based on this gap in scientific knowledge fails, since plausible natural mechanisms can be given within the framework of existing knowledge.”

Victor Stenger, “God: The Failed Hypothesis”, Prometheus Books, 2007, pg. 126.​

Stenger offers the following references:

• E.P. Tryon, “Is the Universe a Quantum Fluctuation?” Nature 246 (1973): 396-97
• Atkatz and Pagels, “Origin of the Universe as Quantum Tunneling Event” Physical Review D30 (1984)
• Alexander Vilenkin, “Quantum Creation of Universes” Physical Review D30 (1984)
• Andre Linde, “Quantum Creation of the Inflationary Universe,” Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento 39 (1984), 401-405
• T.R. Mongan, “Simple Quantum Cosmology: Vacuum Energy and Initial State,” General Relativity and Gravitation 37 (2005) 967-70.

the problem is that you (if your an honest person, free from self denile) seem to have a problem understanding what “nothing” actually is. The significance of the word is unfortunatly lost to your understanding, and any one else, respected scientist or not, who claims that something can come out of nothing by naturalistic means. At very least the agnostic trys to keep his intelectual dignity by saying he doesn’t know.

See above. In the meantime, I’ll ignore the implied insults.

I’m sorry if I came across as sure of anything regarding the Big Bang, the universe, and How It All Started. Since I’m no expert in cosmology, I tend to rely on the superior knowledge and thoughts of scientists who have a better grasp of the issue.

With regard to the idea that the universe came from nothing, the above references should illustrate that such a theory is considered possible and natural by many respected scientists. But there is also the possibility that the universe is without boundary, as proposed by Stephen Hawking:

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

Stephen Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” Bantam, 1996, pg.146.​

There was “nothing”, no before, only after; that is all you have to understand.

Spoken like a true believer. Your faith tells you it is true because there is no clear evidence either way. That’s not logic. That’s indoctrination.

Theres scepticism, and then theres an unreasonable scepticism, based on an atheistic principle to denie that God exists, regardless of how silly one looks in the long run.

There is also the path of following evidence and observation, wherever it leads. So far that method has led me to conclude the probability of God is very low.