Questioning My Atheism Some recent thoughts...

[dangerdan 0]

I have always considered myself an atheist and believe absolutely in the theory of the big bang as the creation of the universe as well as the theory of evolution. However, I have recently began feeling that there are flaws with an atheistic viewpoint. I recently heard a quote (I can't remember who it was by and can't find it on the internet) that "The atheists biggest problem is knowing who to thank when things go well" and this got me thinking. I frequently use what I would consider idioms such as "Oh my god", "For Christ's sake" and simply "God" but to me they have no meaning. This lead me to issues such as free will, predetermination, fate, the infinite possibilities of the universe and human's pyschological prediposition to religion and ultimately left me with the feeling that atheism leaves me unfulfilled. However I really can not identify with any of the major religions and their concept of God, judgement and rules. I mean I accept basic societal rules and norms but don't want to starting living my life by the unprovable, apparent word of God. This leaves me with the conclusion that I need to forge my own personal religion or philosophy on the universe and how things work. I don't believe in any kind of afterlife either. So what I come up with will likely consist solely of science, plus some of kind of view of a greater sense of the universe.

[rob86 2]

Atheism doesn't really give people happiness or comfort and I'll agree with you on the lack of fulfillment. I'm not a religious person, and I don't feel overly happy with my lack of belief, it's more of a an acceptance. Inside, I often envy the very spiritual people. They seem so happy, so comfortable with life, they always have hope in dark times. They feel they have purpose, like they were hand created with love and there's someone who cares. Me, on the other hand, find no comfort in atheism. I believe that we don't have a purpose in life, that there's no God looking over us, that when we pass away, our once meaningful and unique life becomes nothing but as irrelevant dirt we walk on. These are frankly, quite depressing beliefs, yet it's what I've come to believe. I think it would be healthy and good to become spiritual, me, or you, or anyone, but not in the sense of believing in things that are unprovable and improbable, but just ways of life that make sense. I've done some research on religions, trying to find one that fit me, but I'm always put off when the intelligent philosophies and ideas on how to live life become outrageous stories, if you know what I mean. Most religions have good points, for example, a religion will often say something like, you shouldn't hurt someone and you should be kind. I can live with that kind of thing, but when it starts getting out of this world, with a hundred stories that are impossible to believe, I lose interest in that religion. I'm a believer in science, definitely, and all the stuff about things having to be proven to make sense, but I'm also very interested in finding a more fulfilling philosophy or "religion" to live by, something a bit more rewarding to believe than being an Atheist. I want some kind of religion that doesn't give me fancy stories to suck me in, I want a religion that's nothing but facts and guidelines on ways to live life happily.I don't believe any of us can know or prove what's going on in the supernatural world, like if there's truly a Heaven, a God or a Hell, but I don't really find myself wanting to believe all of that just because there were a few stories written about it. There are a lot of great fantasy stories past and present, and they are so well written, it's hard to seperate history from fiction, but I don't think it'd be wise to believe in something just because it sounds good and it's been around for thousands of years. So I think we should find some kind of philosophy or "religion" to live by, or create your own religion, but I'm personally not going to make my own! I may be a dangerdanism follower in the future though, you never know!What about scientology? Ahhh! I'm not rich and famous enough!

[dangerdan 0]

I may be a dangerdanism follower in the future though, you never know!

Aha, I wouldn't dare be so conceited! I think its very interesting the points you raise about religions have good morals or values attached them. To an extent I believe that these are either already covered by basic human rights or that they should be the law of a country. I don't believe it is for religion to dictate how to lead ones life, just give a greater sense of the universe. Perhaps my bible is not too far away from science textbook, with a little bit of philosophy thrown in.

[truefusion 3]

However, I have recently began feeling that there are flaws with an atheistic viewpoint.

Here are some points that you can have fun pondering about:

Is the atheistic viewpoint truly exempt from the burden of proof (like many atheists like to believe)?

What is "evidence"?

What is "not enough evidence" or "lack of evidence"?

What is a "conscious"? What is a "thought"?

Unfortunately, i am having trouble thinking up more at the moment, but i may recall them later on.

 

So what I come up with will likely consist solely of science, plus some of kind of view of a greater sense of the universe.

Out of the things that you've mentioned, with the exception of perhaps predetermination and perhaps a few other unmentioned things, this position doesn't seem like it is any different from the position you started questioning. But i say this with the assumption that you don't believe we have free will—as freewill is impossible in a purely materialistic world. But i'm not really sure of your methods for questioning things.

[dangerdan 0]

Nor am I really if truth be told TrueFusion! Like the thread title says I've just been questioning my atheism recently and certainly don't claim to have come up with the answer! The questions you raise are interesting, particularly the one regarding the atheistic viewpoint being beyond the need proof. This quickly leads me to the conclusion that atheism is as unprovable as any of the major religions. I think it is extremely interesting the extent to which even atheism is based on faith or belief. Especially given that many atheists turn to atheism because they can not put their "faith" in an unprovable religion. This brings me back to the point Rob made about atheism being quite depressing. It seems to me that atheism is believing in something equally unlikely as the stories of mainstream religion, without being given any kind of reconcilitory advice or messages and ultimately leaves me with a feeling of emptiness.

[kobra500 1]

Here are some points that you can have fun pondering about:

I had a quick ponder

* Is the atheistic viewpoint truly exempt from the burden of proof (like many atheists like to believe)?

Well it wouldn't be exempt if it proclaimed to be more than just a word to label someone who "does not believe in God", atheism is not a faith, it's not a way of life, it says nothing of anything, it doesn't assume to be any more than a description. the burden of proof cannot lie with the one disagree with you, it relies with the one making the claim, otherwise if that wern't true, all sorts of claims could be said to be true because you can't disprove them, Russel's teapot arguements etc. Since there is no proof that God exists, you could say the bible, but the only thing the bible is evidence is for is for what people thought, and what people use to think is not evidence for anything because people used to think all kinds of things which are known to be untrue. which leads nicely on to

What is "evidence"?

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

Less broadly on scientific evidence

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis

Scientific evidence is emperical based on observations, and must usually be recreatable, otherwise it could have been misrepresented. There are other things that count as evidence.

* What is "not enough evidence" or "lack of evidence"?

Well rather than speak broadly, in the case of God, or more specific to Christianity, not enough evidence, doesn't come into it because of Christianities complete lack of evidence, however, evidence must fulfil the burden of proof before you can say there is sufficient evidence, as you approach that mark however, it can be said that this is likely.

* What is a "conscious"? What is a "thought"?

Conscious can be said to mean "aware". Humans are said to be conscious as we are aware of ourselves and our surroundings, it allows for rational thought.
as for thought, strictly speaking thought is an electric impulse in the brain or something to that effect, based on an observation that we have made.
Edited September 15, 2009 by kobra500 (see edit history)

[rpgsearcherz 5]

I could never be atheist because it just doesn't make sense to me. I understand the theory that we all came from a one-celled organism ("evolution") but that still does not state where this cell came from. To me, even if evolution is correct, God is the one who put that cell here.To take it even farther, the Bible never states a year people were added to the planet. It in no way claims there were no dinosaurs before us, meaning sure, the earth could really be billions of years old.In terms of the ice age, again, the Bible never states it as being false.The issue with history is it can only give so many details, and the Bible also gives so many details. Between the two of these you have to form your own faith, and I feel neither one of the two is really contradicting each other. They could both be talking about two different times.Because, let's face it. Who's to say God didn't create dinosaurs and then decide later to wipe them and create humans as well?(Note : I'm not saying religion is right, nor that science is right. These are my *beliefs* and you are free to have your own.)

[rayzoredge 2]

There is no need to associate yourself with any religious party, considering the fact that no one knows for sure what's right. There are a lot of good arguments from all sides and a lot of good philosophy, but in the end, no one can actually prove that they are right in their beliefs. Why else would we have all these different religions?

 

I love how atheists have jumped onto the Epicurean fan boat... because the quotes themselves provoke thought and make you wonder if there is reality in this sort of thinking:

 

Either God wants to

abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot

and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he

can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants

to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?

-- Epicurus (attributed: source unknown)Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

-- David Hume, echoing the logical formulation that we have dubbed the "Epicurean Riddle"; quoted from William Hart, Evil: A Primer (2004), pages 28-29

At the same time, I'm sure religious buffs are loving the likes of Descartes and his proof that a God exists:

Ideas are either innate (inborn or known from one's own nature),

adventitious (come from outside me) or made by me.

 

Formal reality is characteristic of things.

 

Some things have more formal reality than others.

 

To exist is to be good.

 

Greater goodness or perfection therefore implies that some things have

more existence than others.

 

Substances have a greater amount of formal reality than modes or accidents.

 

Infinite substances have more formal reality than finite substances.

 

Objective reality is the reality characteristic of ideas in virtue of

the fact that the idea represents some reality.

 

Some ideas have more objective reality than others, depending on the

formal reality of the things which they represent.

 

There is at least as much reality in an efficient cause as in its effect.

(This is revealed by the natural light.)

 

The ideas in me are like images that may well fall short of the things

from which they derive but cannot contain anything greater or more perfect.

(This is revealed by the natural light.)

 

If I can be sure that the objective reality of one of my ideas is so great

that it isn't in me either formally or eminently and hence that I cannot be the

cause of that idea, I can infer that I am not alone in the world--that there exists

something else that is the cause of the idea.

 

I have the ideas of myself, of God, of angels, of animals, of physical objects

and of other men like me.

 

I could have composed my ideas of animals, other men and angels.

(There is a brief argument on behalf of this premise.)

 

I could have composed my ideas of physical objects without these existing.

(There is an argument to show that this premise is true.)

 

There is more reality in an infinite than in a finite substance.

 

The more perfect serves as a standard to judge the less perfect.

 

I use God as the standard to judge that I am imperfect.

 

My grasp of the infinite must be prior to my grasp of the finite.

 

The idea of God is completely clear and distinct and contains more objective

reality than any other idea.

 

But perhaps I am greater than I have assumed and so could be the cause of the

idea of a being with all perfections.

 

The gradual increase in my knowledge shows that I am imperfect.

(All of these things are revealed by the light of nature)

Philosophy is such a fun class.

 

I wouldn't really see this moment as negative, but positive. You're opening yourself to more possibilities to a lot of unanswered questions... but of course, you're also going to cloud your mind with a lot of possibilities to those unanswered questions. Maybe that's why I'm personally the way I am: I'm not a true atheist because there COULD be a God out there, but I'm not too keen on that idea because the word of the Bible is pretty much thrown out with the theory of evolution. So what should we believe? I would think that almost everything in the Bible DID happen... with a twist of fiction to help either fathom the idea of supernatural and magical existence to support the idea of God and what God can do, creating a basis for fear and to recruit more members into the belief by intimidation, or just because people saw things differently and put a twist on history to explain the unexplainable (at the time). Then again, what the heck is up with the Big Bang? We talk all about matter and energy only able to convert into one another and never created, everything being constant... and now we're supposed to believe that a Big Bang with the potential energy that encompasses all that we know in our current universe came from something that decided to spontaneously go "BOOM!?"

[rpgsearcherz 5]

I won't even rule out the theory of the Big Bang. A scientific theory is much different than that we come up with. Theories are proven to the best of their ability and are scientifically tested many times by hundreds of scientists who *all* come up with the same exact results every time.Now, my view of the theory is that it could in fact be possible. Does that rule out God? No, to me it still doesn't. Even if there was one mass of land and it exploded, there had to be something that put the mass there *and* exploded it. Again, this to me is God's doing.There are so many theories out there and people keep taking things completely out of context.For the record, the theory of evolution never stated that we came from monkeys. This is something others who disagree with the theory made up so they could put it down as being inaccurate. Darwin never said anything about monkeys. All he stated is that we are evolving.Look at what evolution is. It's the act of growing and/or changing. As you sit here reading this you are growing (your hair is growing, nails are growing, etc.) therefore even in the 2 minutes it took to read all of this you have in fact evolved.The only people who write science off as being "anti-God" are those who are unable to think for themselves and/or read what was actually said.In fact, some of the scientists who confirmed the theory of Evolution makes sense are... Christian. Yes, there are many scientists who are religious.

[rayzoredge 2]

Just from reading your post, rpgsearcherz, I procured that your beliefs include an open mindset to entertain the possibilities that others come up with, yet you attribute everything to one thing that still leaves the unexplainable unexplained: God. If the Big Bang theory were true because scientific method and theory proposes it to be true, and if God made the Big Bang catalyst, then why? Why did God put it there? Obviously, there were some things that came out of it imperfect, but as Descartes says, they have to be imperfect as they are not God. This whole "good" and "evil" that stems out of imperfection begs the questions that I brought up with Epicurean thought: If he is able and willing, and if he doesn't stop "evil," he can't be all good, can he? Wouldn't that be imperfect? Then again, we have a certain understanding of our concept of perfection... and maybe God isn't good or evil. He just is, which is probably perfect in itself: perfectly neutral. Maybe he's autonomous. I don't know. If he is perfectly neutral, then that would explain and be a perfect argument against Epicurean though on God as it becomes a whole different animal, since now, with this thought process, God is actually neutral instead of being "good."

 

Also, to put a twist on your Christian scientist... not all Christians devoutly follow their own principals or even follow with their own religion. Think about all the Christians in the world and within history. I'm no theologist, but I do remember something about "Thou shalt not kill." So how does it make it right that anyone during the Crusades killed anyone else? Christians were killing Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and anyone else that stood in the way of religious dominance. This continued for almost 200 years! If God was truly good, I think he would have at least said something! Even a Monty Python: The Holy Grail-esque appearance would have probably done some good! I just wanted to point out that even though someone claims to be Christian doesn't necessarily mean that they will follow their own religion or religious principals. I don't think there's a Christian-Lite (unless you're talking to Robin Williams, who's Episcopal, or "Catholic-Lite:" same religion, half the guilt!). That's basically like saying that I'm a Christian, yet I'm enjoying my ale and sleeping around, killing those I don't like and exposing myself, then on the following Sunday, I confess and "wash away" my sins... only to do it all over again Monday morning. (Not saying that Christians or anyone really does that kind of thing, but some do... you get my point.)

[Baniboy 3]

To me, even if evolution is correct, God is the one who put that cell here.

I suggest you get familiar with ABIOGENESIS. It doesn't have as much evidence as evolution because it's not as easy to prove/disprove or even test properly. Few success', on the other hand, speak for themselvesActually you don't need any magic to but up an RNA chain. It has been done artificially and without any supernatural being put there. As for the lipid, RNA chains attract certain materials around themselves. This forms a lipid. When the percentage of something(for example, sugar) with small molecule size is more on the other side of the cell, the lipid lets stuff go through to make it even. There you have it, a primitive cell. And no it doesn't mean there was only one live cell, why not many in different locations?

As for the Big Bang(I hate this name, as it wasn't an explosion).

Even if there was one mass of land and it exploded, there had to be something that put the mass there *and* exploded it.

It was energy at first, not mass of land or matter. And it didn't explode, big bang is a horrible name for space-time expansion. We don't know what caused it or does it even need a cause or if there was anything before it. If we don't know it and it needs a cause, that doesn't prove anything. It means it needs a cause. When you don't know anything about the universe before it(or that if there even was a universe). It doesn't mean a supernatural being made it happen. That would be assuming things without evidence. We don't know if you even need a supernatural being to create the universe, we have no idea. Of course it's a possibility, but it's as likely as any other one. It's like "because I don't know who made my dishwasher, I'm gonna assume it's made by Siemens, even tho there is not evidence else than a siemens instruction manual. And let's not even talk about how the dishwasher differs from the one in the picture on the manual's cover"
If everything needs a cause, so does the one that caused it's existence. I'm sorry to bring this up, but yeah... Many religious people walk around this by saying that god(s) exist outside our universe. This is just a rationalization. I can say my lil' bro created the universe and you can't deny that. Hah! So, something either exists or it doesn't, if it needs a cause, then everything does. You can't say this needs a cause but this doesn't.

You also mentioned that somebody put the mass "there". No. Because there was no space&time&energy, it's safe to assume that there wasn't a specific location where the big bang took place, since space and time came after it. If you are having a hard time understanding that, then that just shows how little we can know from something that doesn't include space or time. There are also some problems with time if everything is eternal. This argument was written my KansukeKojima in another thread where we debated if universe needs a cause or not. I left that topic and continued with another one because I don't know much about space-time, yet to debate of anything existing outside their influence.

Because bible or any other "holy book" doesn't match up with modern science, it's safe to assume that we shouldn't bet all our money on one option. Let's convert to all the religions at the same time! + Scientific method and logical thinking. It's optimization, guys!

PS. If you can ever see the entire earth from a top of a mountain, I swear I'll convert to christianity!

Keep an open mind, and you'll confuse yourself all the time and debate with yourself to death! I think this is why people choose religion, because it's so simple. You just believe in it and that's it. If you want to keep an open mind, on the other hand...
Edited September 16, 2009 by Baniboy (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Well it wouldn't be exempt if it proclaimed to be more than just a word to label someone who "does not believe in God", atheism is not a faith, it's not a way of life, it says nothing of anything, it doesn't assume to be any more than a description. the burden of proof cannot lie with the one disagree with you, it relies with the one making the claim, otherwise if that wern't true, all sorts of claims could be said to be true because you can't disprove them, Russel's teapot arguements etc. Since there is no proof that God exists, you could say the bible, but the only thing the bible is evidence is for is for what people thought, and what people use to think is not evidence for anything because people used to think all kinds of things which are known to be untrue.

Indeed, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts. However, given that fact, would you not agree that it is not safe to enter a discussion assuming that the believing side automatically has the burden of proof? I mean, if a believer says, "God exists," does that mean that all believers who have yet to make such a statement now bear the burden of proof? Isn't that the same as saying that because one atheist said, "God does not exist," all atheists now are burdened with the burden of proof? You say that those who disagree do not bear the burden of proof, but what if those who disagree their statement is itself a claim? Does the burden of proof still not lie on them? If a believer says, "God exists," and an unbeliever follows immediately after and says, "God does not exist," since they both made an assertion, does not both carry the burden of proof? Or does only one still? Switch them around, where the unbeliever made the statement first, who has the burden of proof then: both or one? Have we not already concluded and agreed upon that the one who bears the burden of proof is the one who states an assertion? Yet, you can see it, that not all who bear the burden provide evidence for their position, and instead insist that they don't have the burden because, apparently, they weren't the ones who said it first.

 

You say atheism doesn't try to make itself more than what it is—a description—and therefore it is exempt from the burden of proof. How you avoid the words that make up the description, and state that atheism isn't a faith and so forth, is beyond me. The description itself is what makes it go beyond that which you call a "label." Atheism doesn't have to be a faith or a way of life, or what-have-you, to bear the burden of proof, otherwise you could say the same thing concerning many things of science—that because many things in science aren't those things, they are therefore exempt. Indeed, atheism bears the burden as well. Are believers the only ones who will actually attempt to provide proof for their position? Will atheists always hide behind their words that try to shift the burden of proof when they themselves have it too? Or will they continue unjustly believing that they are justified?

 

Russel's teapot, is that still being used? We can find an object on Mars that looks like a mask, but for some reason we would have trouble finding a teapot hiding in the ring of Saturn? You should already know about what can be labeled "unreasonable denial." God's existence has mostly been argued through cosmological arguments—from the knowledge that we have about this universe. While many may not want to believe it or even allow it, the Big Bang theory is just another step towards another cosmological argument.

 

Well rather than speak broadly, in the case of God, or more specific to Christianity, not enough evidence, doesn't come into it because of Christianities complete lack of evidence, however, evidence must fulfil the burden of proof before you can say there is sufficient evidence, as you approach that mark however, it can be said that this is likely.

By this, are you saying that i will never catch you saying "not enough evidence"? That would be interesting. If what little evidence one has cannot be called sufficient, then there is no evidence to begin with. Therefore words like "sufficient" or "not enough" are irrelevant. It's either you have evidence, or you don't—you can't have it both ways; there is no middle man.

 

The first definition you gave states that evidence is anything that is presumed to be true. If you think it says more than that, then you'll only run into a paradox. Yet, if you consider the one you provided for "scientific evidence," you'll still run into a paradox. To say that it is presumed to be true is to say that evidence relies merely on consensus. If you still don't see the paradox, then answer this question: What is the evidence for evidence? But i wouldn't expect you to be satisfied with this, as it degrades what truth is. But that, i would say, is why we have standards. One could say that logic is itself a standard, but not many use it properly—and how did it become a standard in the first place?

 

Conscious can be said to mean "aware". Humans are said to be conscious as we are aware of ourselves and our surroundings, it allows for rational thought.

as for thought, strictly speaking thought is an electric impulse in the brain or something to that effect, based on an observation that we have made.

Interesting, you left open for the possibility for the lack of free will. But observation that we have made? Wouldn't "our observation" be merely yet another electrical impulse in the brain? Can you really then claim it to be "ours"? What does it mean when something is "ours" (in this case)?

 

This whole "good" and "evil" that stems out of imperfection begs the questions that I brought up with Epicurean thought: If he is able and willing, and if he doesn't stop "evil," he can't be all good, can he? Wouldn't that be imperfect? Then again, we have a certain understanding of our concept of perfection... and maybe God isn't good or evil. He just is, which is probably perfect in itself: perfectly neutral. Maybe he's autonomous. I don't know. If he is perfectly neutral, then that would explain and be a perfect argument against Epicurean though on God as it becomes a whole different animal, since now, with this thought process, God is actually neutral instead of being "good."

Not to fully direct your attention away from your discussion with rpgsearcherz, but being this an open debate i have something to say about the age-old statement of the so-called Epicurus. But first, being neutral is not a case against the argument, for you are nevertheless taking away God's position of being God, therefore agreeing with "Why call Him God?" Epicurus's argument (if it is truly Epicurus who said it) only touches on two things concerning God: God's omnipotence and the assumed definition of "good" that people attribute to God. Is God capable of saving? No doubt. But since when is it necessary for Him to do so? Because He is called good? Since when is God the one at fault for people's choosing? The assumed "good" from the argument is that one can only be good if they stop evil when they are capable. But tell me something, what is good: to stop evil or give evil a chance to repent and change their ways? To stop evil is to end the life of the one causing evil. Ironically, what happens when God does end one's life? Do you not then hear many cursing God? "Why did you take them away from me?" they say. Humans are too ignorant and foolish to be making decisions for God—yet many still try. People pray for the end of days, but God rhetorically asks them, "Why do you ask for it?" (Amos 5:18) It is easy to say, "i do not like this," but what is good?

 

I suggest you get familiar with ABIOGENESIS. It doesn't have as much evidence as evolution because it's not as easy to prove/disprove or even test properly. Few success', on the other hand, speak for themselves

Actually you don't need any magic to but up an RNA chain. It has been done artificially and without any supernatural being put there. As for the lipid, RNA chains attract certain materials around themselves. This forms a lipid. When the percentage of something(for example, sugar) with small molecule size is more on the other side of the cell, the lipid lets stuff go through to make it even. There you have it, a primitive cell. And no it doesn't mean there was only one live cell, why not many in different locations?

You do realize that "from dust to man" is abiogenesis, right?—though divinely caused. But you do realize what you're saying, right? Even if you don't need "magic" (apparently one of atheists' favorite words), you still need a conscious. Done in a lab, right? Who works in a lab? Conscious beings. You can't escape this fact. Even if it was done in the lab, in a lab you can have things work to your advantage. This is not so where you lack control. You see, even if it was done in a lab, you cannot conclude anything concerning the beginning of life just from that—for there still remains a large margin of error.

 

As for the Big Bang(I hate this name, as it wasn't an explosion).

 

It was energy at first, not mass of land or matter. And it didn't explode, big bang is a horrible name for space-time expansion. We don't know what caused it or does it even need a cause or if there was anything before it. If we don't know it and it needs a cause, that doesn't prove anything. It means it needs a cause. When you don't know anything about the universe before it(or that if there even was a universe). It doesn't mean a supernatural being made it happen. That would be assuming things without evidence. We don't know if you even need a supernatural being to create the universe, we have no idea. Of course it's a possibility, but it's as likely as any other one. It's like "because I don't know who made my dishwasher, I'm gonna assume it's made by Siemens, even tho there is not evidence else than a siemens instruction manual. And let's not even talk about how the dishwasher differs from the one in the picture on the manual's cover"

Everything that bears mass is itself energy. You cannot say that the energy at first was not matter. As you should agree, if there is no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang, then the only position to take would be that there was nothing before it, no? If that is the case, then isn't it inevitable to ask, "How did something come from nothing?" Whenever we try to make something from nothing we fail to do so. Is this not repeatable and observable? Therefore does it not fit the scientific method? Therefore can it not in turn be considered scientific evidence? So anything against this would require evidence that overpowers this. Therefore we can declare that, no, it was not from nothing, this universe came from something. However, our knowledge of this universe tells us that anything physical cannot last forever. Therefore whatever it came from cannot itself be physical but at least metaphysical. But something metaphysical cannot cause anything without a desire to do so, but a desire requires a conscious. Anything metaphysical can last forever.

 

If everything needs a cause, so does the one that caused it's existence. I'm sorry to bring this up, but yeah... Many religious people walk around this by saying that god(s) exist outside our universe. This is just a rationalization. I can say my lil' bro created the universe and you can't deny that. Hah! So, something either exists or it doesn't, if it needs a cause, then everything does. You can't say this needs a cause but this doesn't.

This is why those who know better would never say that everything, both physical and metaphysical, requires a cause. To say that those who know better would say such a thing would be a straw man. Nevertheless, "everything" is generally intended to be limited to matter alone.

 

You also mentioned that somebody put the mass "there". No. Because there was no space&time&energy, it's safe to assume that there wasn't a specific location where the big bang took place, since space and time came after it. If you are having a hard time understanding that, then that just shows how little we can know from something that doesn't include space or time. There are also some problems with time if everything is eternal. This argument was written my KansukeKojima in another thread where we debated if universe needs a cause or not. I left that topic and continued with another one because I don't know much about space-time, yet to debate of anything existing outside their influence.

Space could not have come after the Big Bang event; space is necessary in order for the Big Bang to even occur. As for time, it depends on whether one says that time can be stopped. But if you consider time as merely a point from a certain event, then time is not required. While "there" is normally used to specify a location between two points, you can still say "there" as in "in there within space."

 

Because bible or any other "holy book" doesn't match up with modern science, it's safe to assume that we shouldn't bet all our money on one option. Let's convert to all the religions at the same time! + Scientific method and logical thinking. It's optimization, guys!

One's understanding of the sciences does not mean that science is ruler over religion. Science is merely an understanding of what is observable, therefore it is not better than religion. Likewise, for that reason, you can't bet all your money on science either, since "truth" in science isn't necessarily true.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Just from reading your post, rpgsearcherz, I procured that your beliefs include an open mindset to entertain the possibilities that others come up with, yet you attribute everything to one thing that still leaves the unexplainable unexplained: God. If the Big Bang theory were true because scientific method and theory proposes it to be true, and if God made the Big Bang catalyst, then why? Why did God put it there? Obviously, there were some things that came out of it imperfect, but as Descartes says, they have to be imperfect as they are not God. This whole "good" and "evil" that stems out of imperfection begs the questions that I brought up with Epicurean thought: If he is able and willing, and if he doesn't stop "evil," he can't be all good, can he? Wouldn't that be imperfect? Then again, we have a certain understanding of our concept of perfection... and maybe God isn't good or evil. He just is, which is probably perfect in itself: perfectly neutral. Maybe he's autonomous. I don't know. If he is perfectly neutral, then that would explain and be a perfect argument against Epicurean though on God as it becomes a whole different animal, since now, with this thought process, God is actually neutral instead of being "good."

 

Also, to put a twist on your Christian scientist... not all Christians devoutly follow their own principals or even follow with their own religion. Think about all the Christians in the world and within history. I'm no theologist, but I do remember something about "Thou shalt not kill." So how does it make it right that anyone during the Crusades killed anyone else? Christians were killing Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and anyone else that stood in the way of religious dominance. This continued for almost 200 years! If God was truly good, I think he would have at least said something! Even a Monty Python: The Holy Grail-esque appearance would have probably done some good! I just wanted to point out that even though someone claims to be Christian doesn't necessarily mean that they will follow their own religion or religious principals. I don't think there's a Christian-Lite (unless you're talking to Robin Williams, who's Episcopal, or "Catholic-Lite:" same religion, half the guilt!). That's basically like saying that I'm a Christian, yet I'm enjoying my ale and sleeping around, killing those I don't like and exposing myself, then on the following Sunday, I confess and "wash away" my sins... only to do it all over again Monday morning. (Not saying that Christians or anyone really does that kind of thing, but some do... you get my point.)

There are many times in the Christian Bible where even God told people to fight back. To make it a shorter story, it goes like this: You can't keep letting people walk over you because at some point you have to say enough is enough and stand up for yourself. At those points in the Bible, God gave the weaker people (the ones he wanted to protect themselves) the power to dominate their opponents.

 

Kind of like the kid always being bullied at school and one day he stands up and beats the hell out of everyone.

 

The "evil" is being attributed to "Satan." This is why there is, has been, and always will be a battle between good and evil. Where there is good there is also evil.

 

Those who say "there can't be anything evil in Heaven though!" need to re-look at how Satan became the "devil" in the first place.

[Baniboy 3]

1. You do realize that "from dust to man" is abiogenesis, right?though divinely caused. But you do realize what you're saying, right?

2. Even if you don't need "magic" (apparently one of atheists' favorite words),

3. you still need a conscious. Done in a lab, right? Who works in a lab? Conscious beings. You can't escape this fact. Even if it was done in the lab, in a lab you can have things work to your advantage. This is not so where you lack control. You see, even if it was done in a lab, you cannot conclude anything concerning the beginning of life just from thatfor there still remains a large margin of error.

1. Since you were kind enough to notify me about abiogenesis "stuff" and asking me if I realize what I'm saying, could you also be kind enough to point out where I said that it wasn't dust? Well, now I'm gonna say it, NO IT WASN'T DUST. If you consider montmorillonite, perfect temperature, free nucleotides and many more materials mixed up dust, then you have no scientific credibility. And no, abiogenesis isn't from dust to man. If you read some books, you may realize that the process to get from a chemical mix into a cell is abiogenesis. Getting from living cells into other multi-celled living organisms and evolving into new species, is evolution.

 

2. Yes, magic is one of my favorite words because it describes creation fantasies so ironically, yet so accurately.

 

3. And your point is? Because we can't test this with an underwater volcano and we create multiple possible conditions for life to occur, it can't happen?

montmorillonite can't possibly be anywhere near a volcano? Could you give me some proof? If I burn a wooden stick in lab condition, I can't prove it can happen without help? You've watched way too much mythbusters, since they change their testing conditions if nothing happens. Real science isn't like that, you test, test and test and gather results for 3 years. Then you publish your report, it's peer-reviewed and then if other scientists can duplicate your results, it's accepted as a theory. A theory also has to fit in with the other theories. Everything doesn't have to happen in nature and be observable there to be accepted as a theory, for example quantum theory. So get over it and stop arguing on something that has already been proved. RNA chains can form by themselves, and that's it.

 

 

1. Everything that bears mass is itself energy. You cannot say that the energy at first was not matter.

2. As you should agree, if there is no evidence that there was anything before the Big Bang, then the only position to take would be that there was nothing before it, no? If that is the case, then isn't it inevitable to ask, "How did something come from nothing?"

1. Where I said that it isn't? Matter is compressed energy. Matter is formed energy, energy isn't matter. So I was right.

2. I should agree?! I've been saying that all the time, because we don't have any evidence from the time before(obviously because it didn't exist..), we CAN'T KNOW.

And now you're telling me I should agree?

 

1. Whenever we try to make something from nothing we fail to do so. Is this not repeatable and observable? Therefore does it not fit the scientific method? Therefore can it not in turn be considered scientific evidence? So anything against this would require evidence that overpowers this.

2. Therefore we can declare that, no, it was not from nothing, this universe came from something. However, our knowledge of this universe tells us that anything physical cannot last forever. Therefore whatever it came from cannot itself be physical but at least metaphysical.

3. But something metaphysical cannot cause anything without a desire to do so, but a desire requires a conscious. Anything metaphysical can last forever.

1. You fail to see what differs a fact, a theory and what is the scientific method used for.

2. No, science tells us the exact opposite. It tells us that energy exists forever.

3. Show me the evidence that metaphysical realm exists, only conscious things can cause things and that desire is needed. Or at least justify it by logic of some kind. You should agree that we have no evidence of anything "metaphysical", do we? How do you know metaphysical things last forever? You said it like it was an obvious thing. Like you've been on a lunch date with metaphysical beings and asked them if they last forever or not.

 

This is why those who know better would never say that everything, both physical and metaphysical, requires a cause. To say that those who know better would say such a thing would be a straw man. Nevertheless, "everything" is generally intended to be limited to matter alone.

So you've DECIDED that god must exist(without any empirical evidence, as usual). Now when you don't find god in the physical world, you make up something you call "metaphysical" and place your god in there. And your god is 100% protected against all evidence, logic and everything. Why? Because we can't observe the metaphysical world(because it doesn't exist, perhaps?), therefore we can't disprove god.

1. Space could not have come after the Big Bang event; space is necessary in order for the Big Bang to even occur. As for time, it depends on whether one says that time can be stopped. But if you consider time as merely a point from a certain event, then time is not required. While "there" is normally used to specify a location between two points, you can still say "there" as in "in there within space."

 

2. One's understanding of the sciences does not mean that science is ruler over religion. Science is merely an understanding of what is observable, therefore it is not better than religion. Likewise, for that reason, you can't bet all your money on science either, since "truth" in science isn't necessarily true.

1. Well I don't know how people are being taught physics at school there but I assume you never studied about the big bang? If space exists, time does too, and if time exists(forever)... *Houston, we have a problem...*

 

2. I'm not saying science is a rules over religion, I'm saying religion isn't ruler over anything, because at least all religions I know can't match up with science. And by matching up with science I mean the info is incorrect, and the content is full of fantasy worlds and beings. That's what I'm saying

 

You rationalized again. Because there is no evidence of god and GOD MUST EXIST, it must in somewhere else, but we obviously have no evidence of that somewhere else.

[rayzoredge 2]

There are many times in the Christian Bible where even God told people to fight back. To make it a shorter story, it goes like this: You can't keep letting people walk over you because at some point you have to say enough is enough and stand up for yourself. At those points in the Bible, God gave the weaker people (the ones he wanted to protect themselves) the power to dominate their opponents.
Kind of like the kid always being bullied at school and one day he stands up and beats the hell out of everyone.

I understand the "don't tread on me" bit... but doesn't it violate one of the Ten Commandments to do so, though? Why does God say to be the better person and to have mercy on others, much like how he had Jesus do even with all of the heinous crimes committed upon him? Jesus was "tread" on. Does God make exceptions, or is he absolute? Obviously, according to the Bible, he isn't absolute... which makes him inconsistent... not to mention that the Bible apparently has some contradictions to it too. And we all know that Man wrote the Bible, because apparently these contradictions have answers and wrote it in such a way that it is misinterpreted. Would the "word of God" be misinterpreted? You could say that there is no way, since God is perfect, or you can say that there is way, because Man is imperfect.

This still doesn't explain why God let the Crusades endure for as long as it did, since, simply put, it was a conflict of interest and disagreement... which ended in years of bloodshed, which is hard to believe that God simply observed.

The "evil" is being attributed to "Satan." This is why there is, has been, and always will be a battle between good and evil. Where there is good there is also evil.
Those who say "there can't be anything evil in Heaven though!" need to re-look at how Satan became the "devil" in the first place.

But first, being neutral is not a case against the argument, for you are nevertheless taking away God's position of being God, therefore agreeing with "Why call Him God?" Epicurus's argument (if it is truly Epicurus who said it) only touches on two things concerning God: God's omnipotence and the assumed definition of "good" that people attribute to God. Is God capable of saving? No doubt. But since when is it necessary for Him to do so? Because He is called good? Since when is God the one at fault for people's choosing? The assumed "good" from the argument is that one can only be good if they stop evil when they are capable. But tell me something, what is good: to stop evil or give evil a chance to repent and change their ways? To stop evil is to end the life of the one causing evil. Ironically, what happens when God does end one's life? Do you not then hear many cursing God? "Why did you take them away from me?" they say. Humans are too ignorant and foolish to be making decisions for Godyet many still try. People pray for the end of days, but God rhetorically asks them, "Why do you ask for it?" (Amos 5:18) It is easy to say, "i do not like this," but what is good?

This is exactly why I came up with absolute neutrality as a concept, though. I know that Epicurus didn't do much in touching base on what God really is with just two philosophical statements, but it makes you wonder what Good really is. God is capable of saving, yes... because he's all-powerful and yada yada, and I see your point with it not being necessarily to make up for the fallacies of Man, but at the same time, if I was a good person, and if I witnessed a murder happen but did nothing to prevent a serial killer from slaying an innocent woman and child, would I still be good as I did not myself commit the slaying? It's the same concept with God. Is he still good by just letting things take its course? It's one thing for nature and the food chain, but it's another when baby Brianna is violently abused AND RAPED by her guardians until she finally died and God simply sits on his high cloud and is still regarded as "good." The monsters attributed to her treatment are going to jail for a little over a decade. Can we so easily do such monstrous acts and then ask for repentance later? Can God actually simply just watch as these sorts of things happen down below? If there is a Heaven, why be born of this world only to be potentially tortured as a mortal just to have the hopes to enter the gates of Heaven if you were good? How do we even know if baby Brianna even got the chance to be good?

God commenced a flooding to cleanse the world (killing wicked people as well as everyone else except for Noah and his family... are we playing favorites now? Was Noah and his family the ONLY sane family on Earth?) and start anew. Where's the flood now? He did it once... might as well do it again.

To end evil, you have to take lives or change them, apparently. If you kill, you're probably evil yourself for killing... or righteous because God gives you that exception to kill. If God kills, it's all right, of course, even though it's a bit hypocritical. (I'm sure some of you are like, "Yeah... go ahead and tell God that he's hypocritical.") If you try to rehabilitate people, maybe you can, maybe you can't. Just look at all the "rehabilitated" criminals we have that are habitual offenders. How about repentance? Like I said, anyone can say they're sorry. There are a special few that could really be sorry. But if God really was our concept of "good," he wouldn't let this kind of stuff slide... or have started anew a while ago. Again. And again. And again, until he would be tired of getting one lucky winning family to gather two of every animal in the world and hitting that reset button.

That's why I think that God is absolutely neutral. He's just up there, watching, waiting, maybe making some weird stuff from time to time like the platypus just to screw with our obsession for science and logic. He doesn't have a reason for the Big Bang, or a reason for life, or a reason for anything. He just is.

Or he doesn't exist at all... and we're left back to square one.