For Those Who Are Skeptical About God's Existence

[RDJ12345]

For anyone who is skeptical about God’s existence, this excerpt from “The Reason For God” might make you rethink what you believe.
books.google.com/books?id=-eUbFMEY49QC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=The+Reason+For+God+contingent&source=bl&ots=n7lv3VYlNK&sig=Hppsu3McHXlNgM6lGg77OdSsfNY&hl=en&ei=oTYXS-ekNZ6ltgeDyeXjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false (start on page 128 with “The Mysterious Bang” and stop at the section titled “The Cosmic Welcome Mat” on page 129)
I would like to hear your thoughts on contingency and if you think it could relate to the possibility of the existence of a god.

 

[bridgeforsale]

For anyone who is skeptical about God’s existence, this excerpt from “The Reason For God” might make you rethink what you believe.
books.google.com/books?id=-eUbFMEY49QC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=The+Reason+For+God+contingent&source=bl&ots=n7lv3VYlNK&sig=Hppsu3McHXlNgM6lGg77OdSsfNY&hl=en&ei=oTYXS-ekNZ6ltgeDyeXjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false (start on page 128 with “The Mysterious Bang” and stop at the section titled “The Cosmic Welcome Mat” on page 129)
I would like to hear your thoughts on contingency and if you think it could relate to the possibility of the existence of a god.

The problem is this book is based on, at this point, antiquated cosmology. The big bang is no longer in vogue among theoretical physicists (who have moved beyond Lemaitre’s theory at this point). Now it’s the “big bounce” (and the associated theory of loop quantum gravity).What’s worse (for theists that is) the idea of infinite regression (once thought impossible by such notable philosophers as Aquinas) is now possible (maybe even likely).

 

[RDJ12345]

The problem is this book is based on, at this point, antiquated cosmology. The big bang is no longer in vogue among theoretical physicists (who have moved beyond Lemaitre’s theory at this point). Now it’s the “big bounce” (and the associated theory of loop quantum gravity).What’s worse (for theists that is) the idea of infinite regression (once thought impossible by such notable philosophers as Aquinas) is now possible (maybe even likely).

I don’t see how the “big bounce” theory could be a problem for theists. What if the collapsed universe mentioned in this theory was also created by a god? Even if it wasn’t, this universe had to be created by something.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I don’t see how the “big bounce” theory could be a problem for theists. What if the collapsed universe mentioned in this theory was also created by a god? Even if it wasn’t, this universe had to be created by something.

The universe didn’t have to be created by something. The “big bounce” (which better corresponds to what we now know to be true, and the laws of both relativity and quantum mechanics) postulates a sort of infinite regression (in other words, this universe is merely another in a series of universes which continually expand until reaching a certain threshold, at which time it implodes or rewinds back to a state “near” a singularity, but not quite a singularity, and bounces back or re-inflates, birthing another universe).

Indeed since the universe never reaches the point of a singularity the laws of physics don’t break down as they do in the event a singularity is reached. Therefore, the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) seems to be retained (this law states energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only transform into different energy states or matter).

Moral of the story, I wouldn’t hang your hat on trying this tact with the average atheist. We tend to know our stuff with regards to science.

 

[DOShea]

Infinite regression is a mathematical concept and as such is inevitably pinned to the same theoretical dilemma that mathematics faces whenever it is used to model the universe (or anything else). That dilemma is, you cannot have any system of math until you have a “1”. Philosophically, I wouldn’t want to have to defend a system where the ultimate perfection within it is only to serve as an eternal springboard to infinite chaos followed by hollow, timed, randomness. It would be entirely possible for such a universe to never form a single star, or a single form of life, making it entirely without purpose. It would be the ultimate icon of the tree that fell in the forest that no one was there to hear. There are many more problems with the newer ideas, lack of data for one, lack of proof of infinite matter/energy for another.

None of it is quite that simple.

 

[Tyuiop411]

To be honest i don’t think you will have much luck convincing Atheists of the existence of God. Atheists are in general pretty dug in for their beliefs, Which are more or less ego worship. i was once one i know how hard it can be to believe
.

 

[Bob4BVM]

To be honest i don’t think you will have much luck convincing Atheists of the existence of God. Atheists are in general pretty dug in for their beliefs, Which are more or less ego worship. i was once one i know how hard it can be to believe
.

To be sure, you are correct.

An athiest is one who defines himself as an accident.​

Hell is Truth Seen Too Late. (Thomas Hobbes)

 

[Reuben_J]

The universe didn’t have to be created by something.

How can something happen without something else to cause it to happen? How can thing that cause something to happen is not initiated by the originator behind it?

We can explain as much how things happen but there is a point where we cannot explain them.

We cannot understand the omnipotence of God because what he does is beyond our understanding of how and why he was, is and will be. But surely he can create the universe.

 

[bridgeforsale]

To be sure, you are correct.

An athiest is one who defines himself as an accident.​

Hell is Truth Seen Too Late. (Thomas Hobbes)

Sounds like a book with a title like, how every sixth grader should respond to atheism.

 

[bridgeforsale]

How can something happen without something else to cause it to happen? How can thing that cause something to happen is not initiated by the originator behind it?

You need to start with religion when considering the merits of religion. You could just as easily be making a metaphysical argument for deism or pantheism rather than religion.

Nevertheless, whether it’s intuitively difficult or not to imagine something existing that can be neither created nor destroyed (i.e. is infinite) it doesn’t matter – energy does exist, and it can be neither created nor destroyed. According to modern theoretical physics and cosmology it appears likely that the energy forming our universe always existed.

No longer do we have to imagine a singularity the size of an atom, and an interceding quantum fluctuation that caused an inflation. It probably didn’t happen that way.

The thing is I know, from the evidence (which is overwhelmingly in favor of atheism), the idea of god is an imaginary idea taken from manmade mythology. Whether it strains our intuition or not to imagine the possibility of a universe that’s an infinite regression of implosion followed by bounce, inflation, expansion, implosion, bounce, inflation, expansion, and so on … that’ exactly what it appears the reality is.

 

[Reuben_J]

Nevertheless, whether it’s intuitively difficult or not to imagine something existing that can be neither created nor destroyed (i.e. is infinite) it doesn’t matter – energy does exist, and it can be neither created nor destroyed.

According to modern theoretical physics and cosmology it appears likely that the energy forming our universe always existed.

No longer do we have to imagine a singularity the size of an atom, and an interceding quantum fluctuation that caused an inflation. It probably didn’t happen that way.

That’s what we know now because that’s as far as the knowledge that we have on it. One thousand years ago we did not know that we could talk on the phone. Before that we thought the world was actually flat – you could fall off at the other end if you sailed following a straight line.

And yet for the things we do know, there is always an explanation why they happen, that is, something cause them to happen. Our meal will not automatically place itself on the dinner table if someone has not put it there.

Science has not come to a point where there is nothing new to discover or to know. Based on that reasoning even the most improbable things that seemingly cannot be created nor destroyed have the possibility that they can – it only takes a matter of time of discovery when the mystery is made known.

The thing is I know, from the evidence (which is overwhelmingly in favor of atheism), the idea of god is an imaginary idea taken from manmade mythology.

It might be the case as much as saying that energy cannot be created nor destroyed – simply because we do not know the answer explicitly.

 

[ralphinal]

Is it the evidence that is “overwhelmingly in favor of atheism” or is it a lack of evidence that the atheist wants to see that is “overwhelmingly in favor of atheism?”

 

[rick43235]

How can something happen without something else to cause it to happen? How can thing that cause something to happen is not initiated by the originator behind it?

What caused “the originator?”

I’m not a scientist or a philosopher, so a lot of this is going right over my head. However, even I can figure out that just because we don’t know how something happened, it doesn’t necessarily mean that a god did it.

Atheists are in general pretty dug in for their beliefs, Which are more or less ego worship.
.

You mean like theists in general, and Catholics in particular, are pretty dug in where their beliefs are concerned? Ego worship??? Puh-lease. Get over yourself.

 

[bridgeforsale]

That’s what we know now because that’s as far as the knowledge that we have on it. One thousand years ago we did not know that we could talk on the phone. Before that we thought the world was actually flat – you could fall off at the other end if you sailed following a straight line.

And yet for the things we do know, there is always an explanation why they happen, that is, something cause them to happen. Our meal will not automatically place itself on the dinner table if someone has not put it there.

Science has not come to a point where there is nothing new to discover or to know. Based on that reasoning even the most improbable things that seemingly cannot be created nor destroyed have the possibility that they can – it only takes a matter of time of discovery when the mystery is made known.

nothing I disagree with, except your inferred conclusion (that we should fill in the gaps with ancient mythology).

It might be the case as much as saying that energy cannot be created nor destroyed – simply because we do not know the answer explicitly.

??? The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy (that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed).

 

[bridgeforsale]

You mean like theists in general, and Catholics in particular, are pretty dug in where their beliefs are concerned? Ego worship??? Puh-lease. Get over yourself.

I actually find Catholics far more willing to engage in intelligent dialog on this issue, as compared to evangelical protestants (probably because the latter group bodes from regions ignored by the enlightenment, and everything that’s happened since ).

Rude on CAF is the norm on some of the protestant sites I’ve seen. I’d put other religious groups like Episcopalians, Methodists, certain groups of Lutherans & Presbyterians (the liberal northern branches) in this more “enlightened” group (who have long ago departed from the absurdities of biblical literalism).

 

[rick43235]

I actually find Catholics far more willing to engage in intelligent dialog on this issue, as compared to evangelical protestants (probably because the latter group bodes from regions ignored by the enlightenment, and everything that’s happened since ).

Rude on CAF is the norm on some of the protestant sites I’ve seen. I’d put other religious groups like Episcopalians, Methodists, certain groups of Lutherans & Presbyterians (the liberal northern branches) in this more “enlightened” group (who have long ago departed from the absurdities of biblical literalism).

I have to agree with your Catholics vs. evangelical protestants comparison. I’ve met some pretty zealous evangelicals who just get red in the face and start screaming when someone questions their beliefs. It’s kind of hard to have an intelligent exchange of ideas with folks like that. The real life (as opposed to CAF) Catholics I’ve talked to about the existance of God are usually willing to talk about the topic in an intelligent manner. Mostly we just agree to disagree and let it go at that. It seems that most folks on CAF, however, simply cannot conceive of the idea that, just maybe, not even the Church is in possession of all the facts.

 

[stenlis]

For anyone who is skeptical about God’s existence, this excerpt from “The Reason For God” might make you rethink what you believe.
books.google.com/books?id=-eUbFMEY49QC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=The+Reason+For+God+contingent&source=bl&ots=n7lv3VYlNK&sig=Hppsu3McHXlNgM6lGg77OdSsfNY&hl=en&ei=oTYXS-ekNZ6ltgeDyeXjBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false (start on page 128 with “The Mysterious Bang” and stop at the section titled “The Cosmic Welcome Mat” on page 129)
I would like to hear your thoughts on contingency and if you think it could relate to the possibility of the existence of a god.

Here’s my problem with that line of reasoning:

The premise is that ‘everything that has a beginning has a cause’. I’m fine with that. But what does it mean ‘to have a beginning’? Does it mean ‘to come into existence out of nothing’? Clearly, all the things that we observe around us came to existence by radical changes to other things that were already around - the lumberjack cut the tree and the carpenter made the table out of it etc.

In the book the author tries to give an impression that during the Big Bang the universe came to be out of nothing. This is not what theoretical physics says about the Big Bang. As physicist use theoretical models of the behavior of particles to try to reconstruct what happend in the first stages of the Big Bang, the farther they go back in time, the harder it gets for our theoretical tools to cope with the situation at hand, unti,l when we get to point of time called the “Planck era”, our understaning of physics can tell us nothing at all anymore. That does not mean there was nothing, it’s just that currently we cannot capture it with our theoretical knowledge.

That’s where the apologist like to jump in and say - that’s the point where an eternal god created everything out of nothing, but that’s just a wild assertion unsupported by evidence.

 

[ralphinal]

I have to agree with your Catholics vs. evangelical protestants comparison. I’ve met some pretty zealous evangelicals who just get red in the face and start screaming when someone questions their beliefs. It’s kind of hard to have an intelligent exchange of ideas with folks like that. The real life (as opposed to CAF) Catholics I’ve talked to about the existance of God are usually willing to talk about the topic in an intelligent manner. Mostly we just agree to disagree and let it go at that. It seems that most folks on CAF, however, simply cannot conceive of the idea that, just maybe, not even the Church is in possession of all the facts.

The Catholic Church does not claim to have all of the facts, only the Fullness of Truth related to God here on earth

 

[ricmat]

The problem is this book is based on, at this point, antiquated cosmology. The big bang is no longer in vogue among theoretical physicists (who have moved beyond Lemaitre’s theory at this point). Now it’s the “big bounce” (and the associated theory of loop quantum gravity).What’s worse (for theists that is) the idea of infinite regression (once thought impossible by such notable philosophers as Aquinas) is now possible (maybe even likely).

The big bang is not antiquated, it has a lot of data to back it up. The fact that it is no longer in vogue amongst a few “theoretical” physicists means absolutely nothing. The big bounce is an idea, nothing more. Multi-verses is also just an idea, nothing more. No data, no facts, no evidence. No doubt you dislike the big bang because of Lemaitre, and desperately search for evidence that “it aint so.” If it is so, does it put you in hot water?

 

[ricmat]

Moral of the story, I wouldn’t hang your hat on trying this tact with the average atheist. We tend to know our stuff with regards to science.

We theists don’t hang our religious hats on science at all. That’s what atheists do, since science seems to be their “god” (although they call it something else).

I’m an engineer so I used science for many years to design stuff that actually worked, but no, I don’t worship science.

You should check out “heat death.” Eventually everything comes to a stop, unless there is an external source of power.

BTW - before the big bang, everyone thought that the universe was eternal. There were still a lot of theists in those days. Perhaps you didn’t notice