The origins of the universe and skeptics

[David_Alexander]

To answer it one way, I’m just here to have discussions with people, because those are often interesting and enlightening.

And yes, it would please me for someone to have their faith shaken by something I put forward. For much the same reason Believers are often pleased to help shepherd those in their conversions from other faiths or unbelief. Of course, it rarely happens in real time, and few people make a life choice of such consequence without really considering their options.

If believing in something, without regard to whether that something actually existed, would make the world better, I’d believe in it myself.

Noted.

Ok just to reply to this first

1. Fair enough, I am enjoying our conversation to be honest.
2. But if someone has their faith shaken by you, what do you have to offer in God’s place? Conversely, a Catholic helping you ‘see the light’ can ‘offer you God’ (though of course God offers Himself to all of us). I think there may be some people browsing these forums, many of whom may not be subscribed, whose faith is in a fragile state and that is the reason they are browsing in the first place. I am not sure that such decisions are made fully consciously. If I may be poetic, I believe faith enters by the front door of the heart, and doubt through the back door of the mind. Meaning you do not necessarily know when doubt has entered, but it can be damaging nonetheless. Your posts are articulate and polite, as I mentioned earlier, yet the evangelical atheist materials elsewhere on the Internet, particularly youtube, could be damaging and I cannot help but question those evangelists’ motivations. See my previous posts in this thread on that, but do they do it for validation? I wonder does their ego surpass their desire even for God? Not tarring you with that brush, but it is food for thought.
3. If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church I challenge you to find any element of it that would lead to anything but a better world. Catholicism is particularly valuable because we are not entirely left to our own devices to decide our own interpretation on how best to deal with ‘sinners’, for example. You may not believe in Santa Claus (or the divinity of Christ or that He was born in December), but isn’t Christmas wonderful?

 

[David_Alexander]

The theistic God concept attempts to explain ‘why,’ and as long as you look at the broad strokes, you can even say it offers a plausible answer. But problems arise whenever one takes an honest look at the details. Believers like to insist that the Universe shows evidence of being designed. But current scientific understanding must lead an objective person to wonder why, if this Universe is designed, is the design so poor? The Problem of Evil, Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People - neither have ever been satisfactorily answered, in my view. And on and on. Every answer seems to beget more questions.

Science might not be able to explain ‘why,’ but science also doesn’t place itself under any burden to answer that question. Not now, and not ever. Perhaps there is an answer, and perhaps it may one day be known through science. But science doesn’t owe it to anyone to necessarily justify our existence here.

Whether I did or not, you seemed to imply that I had no reason to cast my lot with A) over D) - that they were two sides of the same coin. I disagree that they are, and I said as much.

If eternal life is really a separate issue in your view, then you might need to explain what you think makes you so different from me. Say we’re both created - me by accident, you by God. Neither one of us has an inherent moral edge, based on our circumstances. There shouldn’t be anything stopping me from having a life just as meaningful as your own. But all other things being equal, you seem to imply that being a creation of God gives one’s life far more meaning than one who was created by accident. And this is without taking into account the prospect of an eternal life. So the question is, where is this advantage coming from? What does “recognizing God” do for you, to make your life so much more meaningful than mine?

Because the game is rigged. The refs are bought off by the opposition, and they’re all allowed to use their hands, while I’m only permitted to kick with my left foot. Sorry if this isn’t a satisfying answer, but that’s how I look at it. To me, there are only two real options - quit, or defect to the other side, if I think there’s actually some sort of trophy to win. Personally, I don’t believe there is.

1. Is the universe so poorly designed? Perhaps if you had been born on Mars I would be able to begin to sympathise. Move away from the theories for a moment and observe everything around you! If science wants to offer an answer that excludes God, then yes it must be prepared to say ‘why’. There is no burden on God to answer anything, rather the onus is on us to explain why we do what we do, to ourselves before anyone else. May I defer to The Wisdom Of Solomon, Ch. 3? “But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality.”
2. I think you’ve made it clear you consider the proposal ‘A’ to be the more viable option in your opinion. But I feel compelled to draw your attention to your own words: “But ultimately, the difference between A) and D), as a practical matter, isn’t very much.” I personally feel A is a theory grounded on nothing, literally As I said before, at best, it is describing God’s creation of matter but it does not come close to explaining the origin of the creation.
3. Both of us are God’s creations so there is just as much meaning in your life as mine whether you like it or not. If neither of us were the result of God’s creation, then I would find that a very desolate picture, with only a poetic sense of beauty to be found. It would be like a Smiths song. Being created by God, however, means that we have at least the opportunity to recognise Him as the creator who brought us about. By this recogntion, we may offer thanks, we may offer love, we may serve Him. And He may offer us blessings. We may also recognise the gifts He has given us, such as the desire to love each other, even if we are not forced to fulfill this desire. On the other hand, love as the result of physical impulses? The feeling I am feeling for you right now ASimon, is that rational based on physics? The feeling is love, by the way, but don’t worry Even if you could tell me that it were rational from a scientific point of view, would you not be describing the gifts? And if we accept God’s existence and thank Him and love Him, does it not give us also the opportunity to hope He may have some wider plan for us beyond this life. The reason why I distance the argument from eternal life, is that it is wise, in my opinion, to approach God from a position from love, rather than from the position of demanding salvation and/or expecting eternal blessings. There is humility in hope, and in humility there is peace.
4. We are on the same team, no defections allowed. You talk like a human to me. The rewards of recognising the value of that trophy are endless, why deny it?

 

[David_Alexander]

Atheist have a lack of belief in a deity because they do not believe in the super-natural. This is not unreasonable at all in my opinion.

As for the origin of the Universe goes, a lot of scientist, specifically cosmologist, put their eggs in the basket of the Big Bang theory. It was Einstein who first postulated that the Universe was eternal and, in a sense, static. And it was actually a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who concept-ed the idea of the Big Bang, he called it the Primeval Atom.

A lot of evidence suggest the Universe started out from a singularity; ranging from CMB radiation provided by WMAP to the Red/Blue shifting (Hubble’s Law) of galaxies.

Most scientist who work in the fields of Physics and Biology do not believe in God either (I believe 7% of them did). However, other fields, such as those in medicine, had a rate of about 70% or higher of the belief in god. It is a matter of context I suggest.

If God created the Universe, then who created God? Why can’t the energy that sparked the Universe have had always existed in the initiation of time. The origin of the energy that has existed since the beginning of time cannot exactly be explained by science, and instead is led up to Philosophy, but was the separation of the four major forces of the Universe. God adds an extra Paradox to the whole concept and further complicates this matter. This is why science and religion do not belong together.

It is unreasonable at the basic level of creation, and many other levels, but even if it were reasonable, it is not any more so than theism. Ignoring the possibility of the supernatural based on quantum physics etc excludes the possibility of gathering evidence from other reputable sources and vitally from building faith through Christ and the support of the Church.

Describing the universe as it is or was in the past or will be in the future in purely scientific terms is relevant only to a point, when less tangible concepts take over. That applies in a wide range of ways.

Whether the number of ‘believing’ scientists in those fields is 7% or 77%, science does not exclude God, and if it does, then God is being misunderstood or misrepresented.

Science does not belong alongside God as some alternative, but within Him. Who created God? God is. Sorry if that seems simplistic, but it is clear that for all the hours spent working on artificial reproduction in a lab, all fertile beings, regardless of intelligence, can just do it the natural way. Truth is available to all, it is not the reserve of academics cloaked in jargon.

 

[Gaber]

Atheists say that the universe as we know it…

a) arose from nothing
b) arose from an eternal something that isn’t God
c) is eternal

All of these possibilities, which seek to explain the origins of our complex and intelligent universe without a God, point to the current existence of things to be the result of an ‘unintelligent source’, and that the rest was brute chance. The thing is, there is overwhelming evidence that our universe is designed, and design requires a designer. By crossing out God, the eternal, all-knowing and omnipotent being as the first cause you’ll end up with a belief that this universe is the result of an unintelligent something and that everything ‘just happened’ (brute chance) to become what we see today. Now, could you really say that with a straight face? How can intelligence come from non-intelligence?

How do you make the extraordinary and unwarented leap from “intelligence” to “design???”

 

[buffalo]

Atheists say that the universe as we know it…

a) arose from nothing
b) arose from an eternal something that isn’t God
c) is eternal

All of these possibilities, which seek to explain the origins of our complex and intelligent universe without a God, point to the current existence of things to be the result of an ‘unintelligent source’, and that the rest was brute chance. The thing is, there is overwhelming evidence that our universe is designed, and design requires a designer. By crossing out God, the eternal, all-knowing and omnipotent being as the first cause you’ll end up with a belief that this universe is the result of an unintelligent something and that everything ‘just happened’ (brute chance) to become what we see today. Now, could you really say that with a straight face? How can intelligence come from non-intelligence?

They bow to the god of BUC (Blind Unguided Chance).

 

[buffalo]

B) is a bit of a strawman, IMO. The Universe is not well-designed, if it’s designed at all. But for the sake of argument, let’s say it is. A Deistic God (let’s call it D)) fits very neatly into the gap at the head of it all. You no longer have to explain away the poor design of the Universe. You don’t have to assume a God with a plan, or try to make sense of that plan in light of the way the world is.

How do you know the universe is not well designed?

 

[buffalo]

the multi universe would explain everything. the universes and time, space, matter etc are eternal and our universe looks well designed because it accidently was, by chance.

there are billions of universes that weren’t so lucky, or maybe they have even more planets with life on them.

intelligence from non intelligence…have to think on that one

One has to consider the multiverse implies fake universes as well as a universe with a God.

 

[Gaber]

One has to consider the multiverse implies fake universes as well as a universe with a God.

And why wouldn’t the God be one of the Multiverse, that then being the actual “Universe?” Sorry, I don’t see that your distinction has validity, even if we don’t know for sure about other “universes,” save in hypotheses.

 

[inocente]

How do you know the universe is not well designed?

If someone’s making a wish-list for Universe Version 2, I think we should be able to relive the good bits on demand, there should be no bad bits, and I’d very much like to be able to fall at the ground and miss.

Put another way, it might be hard to grade the design of the universe when there are no others around to compare it against.

 

[RaptorJesus88]

How do you know the universe is not well designed?

With the degree of entropy that this Universe has and the amount of space it takes up, I pretty sure we could both agree that it is not a very efficient Universe.

 

[buffalo]

With the degree of entropy that this Universe has and the amount of space it takes up, I pretty sure we could both agree that it is not a very efficient Universe.

One cannot know the efficiency unless they know the purpose.

 

[johnnyjones]

It is he (The Lord) that sitteth upon the globe (circle) of the earth. Isa. 40:22

 

[RaptorJesus88]

It is unreasonable at the basic level of creation, and many other levels, but even if it were reasonable, it is not any more so than theism. Ignoring the possibility of the supernatural based on quantum physics etc excludes the possibility of gathering evidence from other reputable sources and vitally from building faith through Christ and the support of the Church.

Describing the universe as it is or was in the past or will be in the future in purely scientific terms is relevant only to a point, when less tangible concepts take over. That applies in a wide range of ways.

Whether the number of ‘believing’ scientists in those fields is 7% or 77%, science does not exclude God, and if it does, then God is being misunderstood or misrepresented.

Science does not belong alongside God as some alternative, but within Him. Who created God? God is. Sorry if that seems simplistic, but it is clear that for all the hours spent working on artificial reproduction in a lab, all fertile beings, regardless of intelligence, can just do it the natural way. Truth is available to all, it is not the reserve of academics cloaked in jargon.

It is indeed unreasonable in Creationism, but not so much in Cosmology. Science is a matter of observing phenomena and recording it. This statement wasn’t to discount Religious people from science at all. Quite the contrary, the Big Bang theory actually owes its inception to the Catholic Church, more specifically the Catholic Monseigneur/Priest Georges Lemaître (quite personally my favorite unsung hero of modern cosmology).

I’ve also never heard of a science that included God as part of its theory. Unless it was from Intelligent design (ID) and the general consensus among the scientific community about ID is that it: “lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, provisional or progressive”.

I’ve always personally struggled to understand that “God is” as it does not make sense to me. It is simplistic, but fails to answer anything and starts this paradox all over again. I also fail to see the connection of your statement about beings and artificial lab experiments to connections with God. Are you stating that humans are incapable of recreating products of nature? Finally, agreed, truth is available to anyone whom seeks it but is a matter of where you get your truth from.

On a side note, thank you for taking the time to reply to me! And no matter what your beliefs are I do appreciate your thought and (name removed by moderator)ut as it means a lot to me!

 

[RaptorJesus88]

One cannot know the efficiency unless they know the purpose.

Very ambiguous. I imagine the purpose would be an exhibition of nature.

 

[buffalo]

Very ambiguous. I imagine the purpose would be an exhibition of nature.

Someone who live inside a box might think it is poorly designed as a living space, but the designer understands its purpose is to keep that person inside.