Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[john_doran]

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 with these references, is that none of them - not one - actually posits the coming-to-be of the universe out of literally nothing: each of them posits at least a prior universe (e.g. tryon’s now discredited oscillatory model) or the quantum vacuum and the laws governing it (i.e. vilenkin, linde, and everyone else).

the question at that point is simply, where did the vacuum come from? where did the stochastic laws governing the generation and destruction of virtual particles come from? why those laws rather than some other set of laws? why this universe rather than some ***other ***other universe?

MerryAtheist:

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.

hawkings’ model requires the introduction into our science of something called “imaginary time”. that is to say, he introduces i into the temporal variable, and then reifies it, making his model dependent upon the actual existence of the thing his variable ranges over: i.e. imaginary time.

but that doesn’t really mean anything, does it? do you know what he’s talking about?

and at any rate, how is accepting the existence of “imaginary time” as proposed by a couple of theoretical physicists, any more respectable than accepting the existence of god?

 

[MerryAtheist]

You make some great points. Hawking’s thoughts are way beyond the powers of my puny brain to understand, that’s for sure. The point, however is that it is possible to reasonably imagine a universe created via natural causes; the fact that we lack precise knowledge of the exact mechanisms involved is a good reason to keep looking and thinking about it.

Like I’ve said several times, there are gaps in our knowledge of the origin of the universe that I cannot explain (or even understand). But it’s a leap of faith, not logic, to posit an omnibenevolent, omniscient, creator behind these gaps. Yet (for argument’s sake) even if there is a creator behind all this, I see no reason to believe it cares or even knows of our existence, which to me would have the practical effect of no God at all.

 

[Gareth]

But it’s a leap of faith, not logic, to posit an omnibenevolent, omniscient, creator behind these gaps. Yet (for argument’s sake) even if there is a creator behind all this, I see no reason to believe it cares or even knows of our existence, which to me would have the practical effect of no God at all.

That’s exactly it. I don’t totally discount the concept of a creator. That I think is neither proven nor unproven. But wether he’s benovelent or not, that really sticks in the craw.

Millions of years, of pain and suffering ought to convince anyone with a heart that there’s no interventionist God out there. Instead all kinds of crazy rationilizations and philosophical nonsense are trotted out: bottom line for me is theistic Gods are imaginary.

 

[Dispector]

You make some great points. Hawking’s thoughts are way beyond the powers of my puny brain to understand, that’s for sure. The point, however is that it is possible to reasonably imagine a universe created via natural causes; the fact that we lack precise knowledge of the exact mechanisms involved is a good reason to keep looking and thinking about it.

Like I’ve said several times, there are gaps in our knowledge of the origin of the universe that I cannot explain (or even understand). But it’s a leap of faith, not logic, to posit an omnibenevolent, omniscient, creator behind these gaps. Yet (for argument’s sake) even if there is a creator behind all this, I see no reason to believe it cares or even knows of our existence, which to me would have the practical effect of no God at all.

MerryAtheist,

Please excuse any rude response from my religious brethren. I was a hard-lined atheist at one time. Maybe I can share some things that made me come back to a life of faith.

1. Whether you believe in an eternal universe or an eternal God the premises for an “eternal” anything is the same. It’s about having some level (although extremely small and relatively non-existent) understanding of the concept of eternity.
2. There is no scientific proof for the existence of God. Nor is there any scientific proof against the existence of God. Any proclaimed “scientific evidence” against the existence of God generally deals with the nature of matter/energy. The problem is that the understanding of God does not limit Him to an existence on the same level as ours (meaning one of the physical/matter/energy form). So the so called “scientific evidence” against God is grossly undervaluing His infinite nature. Kinda like saying that my tail does not exist all the while ignorant of the fact that a tail was not a part of my being in the first place nor required for my existence. On the same note I discard most “scientific evidence” for the existence of God as faulty science.
3. Given that there is no scientific proof for or against the existence of God, neutrality (or agnosticism) is the most scientifically based answer.
4. Faith, of course, requires you to believe in something which cannot be proven. That is why people have faith in God. God cannot be proven yet they still believe in Him. Similarly, believing that nothing exists when it’s nothingness can never be proven requires faith as well. So either way (either an atheist or theist) one must take a leap of faith.
5. We each have the choice to choose which direction to take that leap of faith in. I chose to leap in the direction that I believed would lead to the most personal satisfaction and happiness. I have chosen wisely. After I made that choice everything else just fell into place.

Anyways, I know you’re getting bombarded with several different theories at once which can make it difficult to respond with any sort of purpose, but I hope maybe this can help shed some light on my process. If you have any questions please feel free to send me a PM or keep on posting here. I’ll monitor the thread.

Respectfully,
Mark

 

[john_doran]

You make some great points. Hawking’s thoughts are way beyond the powers of my puny brain to understand, that’s for sure. The point, however is that it is possible to reasonably imagine a universe created via natural causes; the fact that we lack precise knowledge of the exact mechanisms involved is a good reason to keep looking and thinking about it.

how do you figure? none of the papers you referenced deal with the creation of the universe, but only its development.

so how is your case for the conceivability of the universe actually coming to be from literally nothing, assisted?

but that is as may be - the imaginability of a causeless effect is beside the point. here’s a good quote from elizabeth anscombe on the subject:

the trouble about it is that it is very unconvincing. for if i say i can imagine a rabbit coming into being without a parent rabbit, well and good: i imagine a rabbit coming into being, and our observing that there is no parent rabbit about. but what am i to imagine if i imagine a rabbit coming into being without a cause? well, i just imagine a rabbit coming into being. that this is the imagination of a rabbit coming into being without a cause is nothing but, as it were, the title of the picture. indeed i can form an image and give my picture that title. but from my being able to do that, noting whatever follows about what is possible to suppose ‘without contradiction or absurdity’ as holding in reality"
G.E.M. Anscombe, “‘whatever has a beginning of existence must have a cause’: hume’s argument exposed”, Analysis 34 (1974); 150

MerryAtheist:

Like I’ve said several times, there are gaps in our knowledge of the origin of the universe that I cannot explain (or even understand). But it’s a leap of faith, not logic, to posit an omnibenevolent, omniscient, creator behind these gaps. Yet (for argument’s sake) even if there is a creator behind all this, I see no reason to believe it cares or even knows of our existence, which to me would have the practical effect of no God at all.

it’s not a leap of faith in the way you’re using “faith” - there are good reasons to believe in the existence of a first cause that must also be personal, maximally powerful, and maximally knowledgeable. the other characteristics can be reasonably postulated, but are the proper object of religion…

 

[Nepenthe]

john doran:

t’s not a leap of faith in the way you’re using “faith” - there are good reasons to believe in the existence of a first cause that must also be personal, maximally powerful, and maximally knowledgeable. the other characteristics can be reasonably postulated, but are the proper object of religion…

Like what? And please, no First Cause, Watchmaker or Wager here. Please be serious.

The characteristics of a deity are indeed the proper object of religion (or they can make for some fun thought experiments and speculation). But this thread is addressed to those of us with no sense of religion.

 

[MerryAtheist]

so how is your case for the conceivability of the universe actually coming to be from literally nothing, assisted?

Technically, it’s not my case. My atheism does not rest upon either side being true.

Not being a scientist, I therefore have no reason to doubt that you are correct, then, in claiming that the case for the universe coming from nothing is poor. I surrender. So, now that we’ve agreed that current knowledge suggests that the universe probably didn’t come from nothing, don’t you think we can also dispense with the whole “God made the universe out of nothing” argument as well?

 

[MerryAtheist]

Anyways, I know you’re getting bombarded with several different theories at once which can make it difficult to respond with any sort of purpose, but I hope maybe this can help shed some light on my process. If you have any questions please feel free to send me a PM or keep on posting here. I’ll monitor the thread.

Respectfully,
Mark

Thanks, Mark.
I appreciate your response. Incidentally, this feeding frenzy is not nearly as bad as some I have been in (some in which I was the main course).

To avoid covering the same ground, you can look back in this thread to get a general impression of my position starting at Post #49 and running to #72 roughly (not all the posts relate to me, but mine are sprinkled in there a bit). The only real change of my beliefs relates to what I said in post #60. The sad truth is that I no longer believe Felix Hernandez will win the Cy Young award soon.

 

[tm30]

Technically, it’s not my case. My atheism does not rest upon either side being true.

Not being a scientist, I therefore have no reason to doubt that you are correct, then, in claiming that the case for the universe coming from nothing is poor. I surrender. So, now that we’ve agreed that current knowledge suggests that the universe probably didn’t come from nothing, don’t you think we can also dispense with the whole “God made the universe out of nothing” argument as well?

Matter is not eternal. If it exists, it must have been created. If it was created, at some point, it didn’t exist. Only God is eternal (no beginnning, no end), so when the first elements of the universe were created, it had to have been from nothing preceding it, since matter cannot be its own origin.

 

[anthony022071]

Here is a little challenge for the atheists and agnostics:

Is the universe and life on Earth rationally structured,or is it not?

 

[MerryAtheist]

Matter is not eternal.

Sez who?

 

[MerryAtheist]

Here is a little challenge for the atheists and agnostics:

Is the universe and life on Earth rationally structured or is it not?

To my eye, there appears to be a lot of randomness with small pockets of relative order.

 

[anthony022071]

To my eye, there appears to be a lot of randomness with small pockets of relative order.

Randomness can,of course,be contained within a rational structure,as with a house filled with unruly children.

But the question is whether or not there is rational structure to the universe,so that there is organization,functionality,and laws of nature in it.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Randomness can,of course,be contained within a rational structure,as with a house filled with unruly children.

But the question is whether or not there is rational structure to the universe,so that there is organization,functionality,and laws of nature in it.

The reverse can also be true: Rationality (meaning the appearance of order) can also be contained within a random structure - which is how I see things.

As to the question of a rational structure to the universe, it would appear to not be rationally structured, although there are governing parameters of physics which we call laws of nature.

Have I fallen into your trap yet?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Here is a little challenge for the atheists and agnostics:

Is the universe and life on Earth rationally structured,or is it not?

Here’s a challenge for a puddle of water lying in a pothole: Is the shape of the pothole rationally structured? You fit in that pothole so perfectly, don’t you have to conclude that the pothole was designed for you?

 

[I_Leatherman]

Is it rational to argue against the existance of the tooth fairy?
I don’t know. I like the theory about sound waves resonating with different materials, like how your windows will start to vibrate at the sound of a trucks engine. Every material, it seems, has its own resonance frequency.
I’ve personally, never seen a resonance frequency for the tooth fairy, but some things resonate with everyone.

 

[Nepenthe]

Such as the universal constants are, everything that exists must conform to them and does.* Is that rational or orderly? I guess so, by default. Now, I’m assuming you mean laws of nature in the sense of gravity and electromagnetism, not ‘Natural Law’ as in “masturbation and homosexuality are wrong.”

There has been some interesting work done in recent years concerning the actual possibility of making ‘universes’ ourselves, which, while it wouldn’t make us omnibenevolent or omnipotent, or even all knowing (could we actually observe anything in this homebrew universe on any level? hm…) it would make us Creators in a very real sense.

I presume you are talking about the occasional pockets of higher levels of orderliness that apparently do crop up very infrequently (life, mind and so forth). Chaos is a strange thing, and every now and then, if there’s enough energy to keep powering an upswell of order, it can keep on building upon itself for quite a long time. The mathematical and phenomenal study of chaos is also a fairly new field and just now coming into its own.

By the way, thanks Dispector. Really nice post, and very understanding of those of us who either cannot make such a leap of faith, or do not need to in order to be happy, moral, fulfilled people. I have no idea what it feels like to be religious or even what a ‘leap of faith’ entails (though of course I have a sense of awe and wonder), and am indeed neutral, like most of the nontheists around here, on the topic of deity ('strong agnostic/‘weak’ atheist – as in I don’t find the existence of gods to be a very interesting question). ‘Belief’ simply sounds alien to me, though I am trying to better understand people who do have this ability, since I am not their enemy and hope they don’t feel they have to be mine.

*There has, of course, been some rather upsetting speculation that in fact, physical constants might just be changing! Very slowly and minutely, of course, but if the weight of a proton, the rate of radioactive decay, and so forth aren’t quite as unchanging as we thought…well, who knows? Nobody knows yet, and even if so, the constants we are accustomed to will work just fine for most needs, as Newtonian physics and Euclidean geometry do for even more quotidian purposes. Again though, I haven’t heard that anything like this has been conclusively proven.

Fascinating, isn’t it?

 

[Dispector]

To my eye, there appears to be a lot of randomness with small pockets of relative order.

Randomness can,of course,be contained within a rational structure,as with a house filled with unruly children.

But the question is whether or not there is rational structure to the universe,so that there is organization,functionality,and laws of nature in it.

anthony022071,

I think it’s difficult for us to claim what is actually random. Actually, I think Thomas Paine said it right when he said:
Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason 1794:

Mankind have conceived to themselves certain laws, by which what they call nature is supposed to act; and that a miracle is something contrary to the operation and effect of those laws, But unless we know the whole extent of those laws, and of what are commonly called, the powers of nature, we are not able to judge whether any thing that may appear to us wonderful or miraculous, be within, or be beyone, or be contrary to her natural power of acting...

While this applies to miracles it can apply to the idea of “randomness” as well. We do not know the full extent of the laws of nature. Therefore, how are we to claim something is random or miraculous if we don’t know how the laws of nature completely work in the first place?

Respectfully,
Mark

 

[anthony022071]

The reverse can also be true: Rationality (meaning the appearance of order) can also be contained within a random structure - which is how I see things.

A structure could not be by nature random.

As to the question of a rational structure to the universe, it would appear to not be rationally structured, although there are governing parameters of physics which we call laws of nature.

If there is to be a science of physics at all,there must be a rational structure to the universe to work with.

Have I fallen into your trap yet?

It’s a good trap to fall into,because if these questions are not faced up to honestly and reasonably,
we’re left with logically absurd chaos or chance theories,whereby
irrationality begets rationality.

 

[anthony022071]

anthony022071,

I think it’s difficult for us to claim what is actually random. Actually, I think Thomas Paine said it right when he said:

While this applies to miracles it can apply to the idea of “randomness” as well. We do not know the full extent of the laws of nature. Therefore, how are we to claim something is random or miraculous if we don’t know how the laws of nature completely work in the first place?

Respectfully,
Mark

Through our sense perception and our reason.
I’m well aware that the definition of “random” is relative,just as hot and cold are relative. We use the word “random” in contradistinction with things we perceive to be the opposite of random. We have to go on the definitions of words and the knowledge that we have at hand. There’s no point in keeping ourselves in a state of befuddlement.