If there's no God, how did the Universe form?

[Al_Moritz]

Everyone bow down to Pieman, here is the philosopher that will lead us to eternal salvation and has answered the biggest question plaguing all mankind in 2 minutes by the use of his enormous intellect.

There’s not even anything here in this post even worth bothering it, your propositions have been in debate for the last few millenia and before anyone can provide irrefutable proof to counter those propositions you must first prove your first two premises before the conclusion is accepted.

I agree. it’s not worth bothering, and I say that as a Catholic – sorry Pieman. I’d rather go with the much more developed philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, which at least makes obsolete the simple question of “who created God?”, a question immediately provoked from Pieman’s musings. Also, Aquinas’ philosophy does not require that the world had a beginning – he only assumed that it did because of divine revelation, making it a theological issue, but his philosophy was neutral to the question.

So yeah, no “irrefutable proof for a Creator’s existence” from Pieman here. Pieman, I suggest you study a bit more philosophy before you venture into an elaborate but futile defense of your charming “proof”, a defense which I probably will not feel the urge to respond to.

 

[sharptiger999]

If there’s no God, how is the snowflake so intricately designed? Please…
If at a given point we don’t know the answer to a question, then the answer is, we don’t know the answer, not fill in the blank with the definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing being so it fills the gap until we can accurately answer the question.

 

[Pieman333272]

I agree. it’s not worth bothering, and I say that as a Catholic – sorry Pieman. I’d rather go with the much more developed philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, which at least makes obsolete the simple question of “who created God?”, a question immediately provoked from Pieman’s musings. Also, Aquinas’ philosophy does not require that the world had a beginning – he only assumed that it did because of divine revelation, making it a theological issue, but his philosophy was neutral to the question.

So yeah, no “irrefutable proof for a Creator’s existence” from Pieman here. Pieman, I suggest you study a bit more philosophy before you venture into an elaborate but futile defense of your charming “proof”, a defense which I probably will not feel the urge to respond to.

If the only reason you are not convinced by my argument is the failure to address the nature of God, I hope you understand that very few of the cosmological arguments actually address this (even the Kalam leaves it at a generic personal God, not God Himself), and many philosophers point out that God’s traits can be deduced from the point of proving a divine creator separatism from the argument.

I admit it was egotistic to call it “irrefutable proof”; but the fact is these 2 metaphysical ideas can be used alone to argue for a divine creator, and that both of them are well-defended propositions.

 

[exnihilo]

That all depends on which strand of it you subscribe to, and I’m not going to have an argument over “if” scenarios constructed by the wildest imaginations of people so they can render an argument to a way they want not having a basis in reality.

You brought up the Big Bounce. That is the biggest ‘if’ scenario constructed by the wildest imaginations I can imagine. That goes against all that we know about the universe and postulates we are just part of some eternal oscillation.

Any discussion of the universe at the initial point is based on imagination and speculation because none of us was there. I wasn’t and you weren’t. The idea that mathematical models can tell us exactly what occurred is incredible. Assuming that they can there is absolutely no way to truly verify that they say happened did in fact happen. Let me be more clear I laugh at scientists, who reject religion, on pop TV shows talking about what happened in the early universe. The pride that drives such beliefs is incredible. I dont mind discussing the ideas but the notion that they can reject religion when they are talking about something they believe was 13 billion years ago and involves and explains all that is is sad.

Not really, because if you looked at what I said, I did mention the Big Bounce to which you also replied to, so it’s clear I didn’t imply time existing uncaused if it has always existed.

If time is eternal than it exists uncaused.

I’m quite familiar with the majority view of the theistic idea of creation, as is most people.

I disagree. There are wide differences in understanding. The average person is really not that intelligent and might understand a very mythical and simple creation. The average person who denies creation very often when arguing against creation will take from that simple mythical creation to make points. Either the denier does not really understand creation as meant by the great thinkers or is not playing fair.

Why is it problematic? OK, you say it is possible but you think it unlikely, I do not mean to be rude at all, and that is not my intention, but just because you think it unlikely does not mean it is not so, and I am no expert or some proponent of The Big Bounce theory but based on what I’ve read and seen some documentaries on, it doesn’t seem unfeasible to me especially with the developing theoretical physics around it.

I understand because I say something does not make it true. Nor does you saying anything make it true. I expressed my opinion and that shared by many philosophers. Like any issue there are people on both sides. If you are interested go study actual infinities. There is lots of information out there about them and it is at the very least an interesting mind exercise. I would suggest at least investigating Hilbert’s Grand Hotel.

The point is if time is eternal in the Big Bounce then there are an actual infinite number of seconds in the past. That seems rather absurd. It is hard to imagine a possible infinite number of seconds in the future but that seems to me far more likely. But remember that means there are still a discrete number of seconds that have actually elapsed.

Furthermore, if actual infinities are problematic; isn’t God infinite?

No, not in the sense of an actual infinite time. Time has the specific measure of a second. An actual infinite of time means that in the past an infinite amount of seconds have elapsed. When we speak of God we do not mean he has discrete measurements that go on forever.

The eternality of God is not like the absolute infinite of time. If this question troubles you there are many philosophers that do not believe in an actual infinite but believe in an eternal God whose work would explain this position.

I’m not saying that this is actually how the world was created, for all anyone knows, time could have been indeed created at the moment of the Big Bang, but this does not mean you can allow people to let loose and talk of “prior” events completely ignoring what the meaning of time implies. “Prior” to time would imply that there is another axis of time to which our time is currently operating in and seems redundant, and is not proven nor have any kind of theoretical backing to it.

You are stubbornly refusing to understand the difference in causally prior and time. It might be that no one advocating that has sufficiently explained that. I could do what would be a rather poor job of covering the topic, but again there are great resources available that explain the thinking. William Lane Craig does a great job explaining this issue. If you are truly interested I suggest going to his website and investigating. He has both Questions and Answers and podcasts that deal with this issue. Even if you come away not believing in anything prior to the physical universe you’ll understand how philosophers think about something existing prior to time itself.

 

[exnihilo]

If at a given point we don’t know the answer to a question, then the answer is, we don’t know the answer, not fill in the blank with the definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing being so it fills the gap until we can accurately answer the question.

And just what is the Big Bound that you mentioned? I dont disagree that men grasp for answers as to the true ultimate reality. But please dont pretend for a minute that the answers they come up with are only religious. And please dont be so ignorant as to not know that very excellent arguments for God have been made. Whether they convince you is not the question. But the thinking has to at least be admired by any honest person.

By the way I do admire the thinking of some atheists. I admire it when they are consistent. I admire it when they admit that no God leaves no morality. I dont agree with their conclusion of no God. But I do agree when they take the next logical step and say that leaves us with no morality. The sloppy thinking of any person, theist or atheist, bothers me.

 

[Pieman333272]

If the only reason you are not convinced by my argument is the failure to address the nature of God, I hope you understand that very few of the cosmological arguments actually address this (even the Kalam leaves it at a generic personal God, not God Himself), and many philosophers point out that God’s traits can be deduced from the point of proving a divine creator separatism from the argument.

I admit it was egotistic to call it “irrefutable proof”; but the fact is these 2 metaphysical ideas can be used alone to argue for a divine creator, and that both of them are well-defended propositions.

EDIT: I thought the question created was “who IS God” as in the nature of God, not “who CREATED God” as was actually the question! :doh2:

As I point out in my argument, God being non-temporal, and always existing, follows from him being outside of the Universe: if the Universe encompasses all time, and something is outside of the universe, that thing is effectively beyond time, neither requiring nor possessing a start point.

 

[Spock]

Axiomatic systems are simply mind-games? So the entire field of maths is a mind-game, perpetuated by crazy pure mathematicians for the sake of keeping themselves interested on hot summer days.

Apart from the sarcastic language and the reference to “hot summer days”, that is precisely the case. I should know, I was one. Mathematicians could not care less, if their brain-child will ever be useful for anyone. But, of course many times they are. That has nothing to do with the “aim of the game” - which is sheer fun. What “use” has the proof of Fermat’s last theorem? Or pursuing the Goldbach’s conjecture?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I gather you seem to think that science and mathematics is diametrically opposed because one uses induction, and the other deduction.

Again, why the bombastic language: “diametrically opposed”? Chill off. They are two different disciplines. Mathematics is not based on observation, it is based on some axioms. The physical sciences use certain parts of mathematics as tools, because they are useful. But they are not “based on” mathematics. The usefulness of mathematics for physical sciences does not “validate” the axioms in any sense. Axioms do not have to be validated.

 

[Spock]

I’m not sure what you are asking with regard to a situation in which our senses deceive us. I don’t think they do, but then, I have no reason to think that - I have good reason to think they don’t.

Excellent. Now what are those good reasons you are talking about? My reasons are that they allow me to make predictions based upon them, and those predictions are borne out by the experiments. They are constantly validated a-posteriori.

It isn’t back to the Matrix - it’s back to Descartes, who you brought up, not me. But Decaretes was of course not an empiricist.

But it is the Matrix, all right. You said that our senses can be “fooled”. I say that if all of our senses would be fed consistent information (from some outside agency) then that would become reality.

Suppose that I feed you all the necessary information that you sit on sunny bench, holding a rose and feeling the smell of it, while seeing a creek next to your bench and hearing the sound of the waves and licking a lollipop. That is your visual, tactile, auditory, etc… senses report some consistent information to you. On what grounds would you doubt that that is precisely where you are and what you feel?

It all boils down to the fundamental question: “is there any way to differentiate between a ‘real McCoy’ and a ‘simulation’?”. Not surprisingly, the answer is “no”. The universe is WYSIWIG. What you see is what you get.

But I’ve been sitting and thinking about your post for a few days here, and I’m not sure how to respond - this is why I don’t venture into apologetics often. You make an a priori assumption that only sense information is real, and won’t accept anything else as possible or valid.

Well, I did not say that. First I am only talking about physical reality. Many people around here “criticize” the empirical approch to physical reality, yet they never even offer any alternative. I am open to the possibility that there is an alternate epistemological method, but I would like to see just “what is that method supposed to be?”.

So what could I say to convince you otherwise? By necessity, any rational argument without empirical evidence is nonsense to you, so why make one. Any rational argument with empirical evidence is also going to be nonsense.

Are you serious? You really think that I will reject any and all rational arguments both with and without empirical evidence? You sure seem to have a very low opinion about me, if that is correct. Maybe you did not really think through what you wanted to say. Rational argument is all I accept. Not hearsay, not pure speculation.

You dismiss questions of how we know at all (which you seem to think we do, empirically) as useless and impossible to make. What more could I say - all of your basic assumptions preclude any rational argument?

I am curious: “what you mean by rational argument”? To me it means both logically valid argument, based upon valid premises. In other words: “logically sound” argument, as opposed to merely “logically valid”.

The questions are:

1. what is that basis of the process? Where do you start from - if not empiricism?
2. what is the method of the argument?
3. how do you find out if the result corresponds reality - if not empirically?

 

[sharptiger999]

And just what is the Big Bound that you mentioned? I dont disagree that men grasp for answers as to the true ultimate reality. But please dont pretend for a minute that the answers they come up with are only religious. And please dont be so ignorant as to not know that very excellent arguments for God have been made. Whether they convince you is not the question. But the thinking has to at least be admired by any honest person.

By the way I do admire the thinking of some atheists. I admire it when they are consistent. I admire it when they admit that no God leaves no morality. I dont agree with their conclusion of no God. But I do agree when they take the next logical step and say that leaves us with no morality. The sloppy thinking of any person, theist or atheist, bothers me.

There is no objective morality in the way you imagine. Morality has been and always will be a matter of reason that only humans can develop for themselves. Question: In your view, can an atheist potentially be 100% moral but yet not believe in your God? Admitting yes shows, that our idea of perfect morality can be developed and evolved by ourselves through reason. I am always willing to change my mind based on reason. Are you?

 

[exnihilo]

There is no objective morality in the way you imagine. Morality has been and always will be a matter of reason that only humans can develop for themselves. Question: In your view, can an atheist potentially be 100% moral but yet not believe in your God? Admitting yes shows, that our idea of perfect morality can be developed and evolved by ourselves through reason. I am always willing to change my mind based on reason. Are you?

An atheist can not be perfectly moral because part of being good involves recognizing and worshiping your creator. The fact that man can understand morality to some extent apart from God is just evidence that morality is objectively real. Yes, I am open to changing my mind. I have also thought deeply about many subjects and thus have a strong belief in what I hold to be true.

 

[Spock]

An atheist can not be perfectly moral because part of being good involves recognizing and worshiping your creator.

This is another perfect example of why it is next to impossible to have a meaningful conversation between theists and atheists. Your definition of “moral” is not mine, and vice-versa. So how could we have a conversation, if even such simple concepts are defined in a different manner?

If you would like an atheist to accept your definition of “moral”, you need to do a few things: 1) prove beyond any doubt whatsoever (not just beyond reasonable doubt) that a creator (God) exists, 2) make an argument for the idea that this creator is worthy of “worship”, and 3) make an argument that moral behavior requires the “worship” of this creator. I think you have your work cut out for you.

 

[exnihilo]

This is another perfect example of why it is next to impossible to have a meaningful conversation between theists and atheists. Your definition of “moral” is not mine, and vice-versa. So how could we have a conversation, if even such simple concepts are defined in a different manner?

I disagree. We can learn about how the other person understands morality even if we disagree. I understand relative morality. I understand that it is not morality but merely democracy. We could both agree that their is objective morality and yet disagree on specific acts being right or wrong. I believe in God and objective morality but I dont mean by that that any who are like me will believe in the same moral application. In fact I clearly state that man’s limitations ensures we are always morally imperfect.

If you would like an atheist to accept your definition of “moral”, you need to do a few things: 1) prove beyond any doubt whatsoever (not just beyond reasonable doubt) that a creator (God) exists, 2) make an argument for the idea that this creator is worthy of “worship”, and 3) make an argument that moral behavior requires the “worship” of this creator. I think you have your work cut out for you.

If there is a God it would seem to me to not be very controversial that He was worthy of worship and that a person should do His will. It might be the times we live in, where man claims to be supremely independent while really having no area of his life free from the dominion of the state allegedly acting in the will of man in aggregate, that makes that concept seem foreign to so many. Older generations at least understood the idea of respect for those who earned authority.

I think the bigger problem is convincing an atheist of God. If properly understood the rest will follow.

 

[Spock]

I disagree. We can learn about how the other person understands morality even if we disagree.

Yes, that is possible, but what is the point? We are still talking “past each other”.

I understand relative morality. I understand that it is not morality but merely democracy. We could both agree that their is objective morality and yet disagree on specific acts being right or wrong.

Oh, I agree that morality is objective, but I do not agree that it is absolute. What is morally acceptable behavior in one society could be unacceptable in another. Just one example: public nudity is considered immoral (and maybe even illegal) in many Western societies. It is perfectly fine in simple societies.

If there is a God it would seem to me to not be very controversial that He was worthy of worship and that a person should do His will.

It sure is highly controversial for me. When I look at the world, I see no reason to think “good” about its hypothetical creator. The only reason we are supposed to do his will is his power, and the idea that he can inflict unspeakable torture on us. Apart from that I see no reason why to worship that hypothetical being.

It might be the times we live in, where man claims to be supremely independent while really having no area of his life free from the dominion of the state allegedly acting in the will of man in aggregate, that makes that concept seem foreign to so many. Older generations at least understood the idea of respect for those who earned authority.

If someone earns respect, then there is no problem giving respect. But that authority cannot come from sheer power.

I think the bigger problem is convincing an atheist of God. If properly understood the rest will follow.

Convincing, how? As far as I am concerned, I have never seen a proper definition of God, where the attributes are clear and unambiguous. A bunch of hazy words are used, most of them ill-defined, some well-defined and mutually contradictory.

 

[exnihilo]

Oh, I agree that morality is objective, but I do not agree that it is absolute. What is morally acceptable behavior in one society could be unacceptable in another. Just one example: public nudity is considered immoral (and maybe even illegal) in many Western societies. It is perfectly fine in simple societies.

I’ve never said, at least I hope, that morality is absolute. Objective morality is different from absolute morality. I agree that culture plays a role. But that role can and often is overstated.

If someone earns respect, then there is no problem giving respect. But that authority cannot come from sheer power.

Why cant it come from power? What do you mean by power? Most authorities by their nature have power. Having power alone would not disqualify someone from being respected. The reason you worship God is because he created you. It is thankfulness for the gift of life you have been given.

Convincing, how? As far as I am concerned, I have never seen a proper definition of God, where the attributes are clear and unambiguous. A bunch of hazy words are used, most of them ill-defined, some well-defined and mutually contradictory.

There are schools of thought that God can only truly be described by what he is not. I dont think any philosopher is claiming God is completely comprehensible. in fact good ones make sure to point that out. But that does not mean we can not have some knowledge. We didn’t have perfect knowledge of the physical world when we knew of only atoms and yet we could do chemistry. At a certain point I just dont understand how a person who is honest with their self and intellectually capable can not understand what philosophers mean by God.

 

[Spock]

I’ve never said, at least I hope, that morality is absolute.

Well, then you are unique. Most believers I met assert that morality is defined by God, and as such it is absolute and unchanging.

Objective morality is different from absolute morality. I agree that culture plays a role. But that role can and often is overstated.

How is it overstated? I will offer a definition for morality, which you may or may not agree with. Here comes: “morality is the set of written and unwritten rules, which describe the socially acceptable behavior in a given society at a given time”

Why cant it come from power? What do you mean by power? Most authorities by their nature have power. Having power alone would not disqualify someone from being respected.

Indeed it would not. Nor would it be the basis for respect.

The reason you worship God is because he created you. It is thankfulness for the gift of life you have been given.

Such argument would gain a lot of power if it would be substantiated. But even granting that God created us (which I do not accept, of course), it assumes that mere existence is always and under all circumstances is preferable to nonexistence - and that is plainly false. As a matter of fact, if someone does not exist, then you cannot do anything for him, or against him. A value system already presupposes existence. And no one can make that value judgment for someone else.

There are schools of thought that God can only truly be described by what he is not.

Yes, indeed. Of course those who adhere to that line of thought should realize that God is the equivalent of nonexistence, if defined in a fully negative way.

I dont think any philosopher is claiming God is completely comprehensible. in fact good ones make sure to point that out. But that does not mean we can not have some knowledge.

And, pray tell, how do we acquire that “imperfect” knowledge? This is one of the questions I keep on asking, and getting no answer: “how can a proposition concerning God be decided if it is true or false?”. In other words, what is the proposed epistemology of the supernatural?

We didn’t have perfect knowledge of the physical world when we knew of only atoms and yet we could do chemistry. At a certain point I just dont understand how a person who is honest with their self and intellectually capable can not understand what philosophers mean by God.

Since there is no officially agreed upon positive definition of God (negative definition does not count) it is obvious that there can be no concensus on the matter.

 

[lemondiesel]

But who put the law of gravity there in the first place?

The law of gravity is based on the amount of matter and energy in this universe, it exists because matter exists.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, then you are unique. Most believers I met assert that morality is defined by God, and as such it is absolute and unchanging.

Not as unique as you thought! I think I’m avoiding the word absolute just as they should. Absolute suggests that a rule is always in place like you should never kill under any circumstances. Objective morality would allow you to kill in self defense.

I think morality comes from God’s very nature and is itself not a creation of God. He does not define it rather it is part of Him. It is unchanging. It is absolute, but not in the sense that a specific act is always wrong. The better term is objective and that means that the rules are set but in a different way than absolute implies.

How is it overstated? I will offer a definition for morality, which you may or may not agree with. Here comes: “morality is the set of written and unwritten rules, which describe the socially acceptable behavior in a given society at a given time”

I would call what you describe popular morality. But cultural mores do factor into what is moral. If we are to not repay an insult with an insult then what constitutes an insult is culturally dependent.

Since there is no officially agreed upon positive definition of God (negative definition does not count) it is obvious that there can be no concensus on the matter.

That seems dangerous. What makes consensus the rule?

And if so do you know that their is not consensus on what defines life? Does that mean there is no life? Does that mean we are not alive?

One of the challenges in defining death is in distinguishing it from life. Death would seem to refer to either the moment at which life ends, or when the state that follows life begins.[83] However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic, however, because there is little consensus over how to define life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Death

 

[louis91766]

"
Something Stephen Hawking said recently:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,”
I don’t see how it would make any sense to talk about gravity if there were no matter present in the first place.

 

[Spock]

Not as unique as you thought! I think I’m avoiding the word absolute just as they should. Absolute suggests that a rule is always in place like you should never kill under any circumstances. Objective morality would allow you to kill in self defense.

We could play the word game. If you say that “murder” - the premeditated killing of a human being is always, under any and all circumstances “wrong”, then you posit an absolute moral rule. Is that what you say?

I think morality comes from God’s very nature and is itself not a creation of God. He does not define it rather it is part of Him. It is unchanging. It is absolute, but not in the sense that a specific act is always wrong. The better term is objective and that means that the rules are set but in a different way than absolute implies.

Objective simply means that something is independent from the whim of the individual - which would render is subjective. Absolute means that something is always right (or wrong), without exceptions - the opposite being relative - which means that an act is sometimes right, other times wrong - depending on the circumstances. These are the meanings I use. Your milage may vary, but if it is, we shall just talk past each other.

I would call what you describe popular morality. But cultural mores do factor into what is moral. If we are to not repay an insult with an insult then what constitutes an insult is culturally dependent.

And it is. What is an insult today: “he is gay” or “he is a fag” was not an insult a hundred years ago.

That seems dangerous. What makes consensus the rule?

The acceptance of it. If most people would agree today that the exposition of you “private parts” is fine, but exposing your hair is wrong, then that would become the prevailing custom, and that would be the accepted moral code. In a Jewish society to expose your hair in the temple or during taking a meal is very rude and morally unacceptable.

And if so do you know that their is not consensus on what defines life? Does that mean there is no life? Does that mean we are not alive?

Ah, that is interesting. Of course it does not mean that there is no life, it just means that there is a difference in opinion, what constitues life. Some biologists consider viruses “alive”, other biologists consider them as crystalline srtuctures, which exhibit some “life-like” properties, but lack others. What it means that life - just like morality - is subject to definition. The best definition of life that I ever heard is: “the ability to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment” or “to respond in a complex fashion to complex stimuli”, which are somewhat hazy, but both get down to the basics.

 

[razredge]

Morality is not objective under atheism - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I don’t see why so many modern atheists object to that, I’d have thought they would take a different stance and say (“Yeah, our morality is subjective, but yours is too!”)