Gods are only a figment of mans imagination. God(s) (all of them) were created by man to explain what was not understood. There is no god or gods, never have been. The old argument "prove god or no god" is a waste of time and since neither case is provable it's a waste of time and effort.
I am so tired of the philosophical arguments for and against an un-provable or provable possibility of something that doesn't exist that I want to puke. We are so inculcated with religion especially Christianity that we don't seem to be able to think outside the box. Even those who find God(s) ridiculous still grant the theists tha the possibility of some sort of supernatural being created the universe and all in it. It's bullshit, there is no such being/thing.
I have no problem with the idea that life is random, just as random as the universe itself. Those of you who feel/think the universe is not random, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change reality. That the universe may not be random is something we have no indication of, but what caused (a term I have real problems with) it is a question for which we have no answer.
Why is it so important to prove or dis-prove the existence of something that supposedly created reality? What a waste of time, we can argue for centuries without ever reaching a definitive answer that anyone will be able to accept.
The Christian god exists in the same dimension as the Greek, Egyptian or other gods, i.e. some other dimension, but none of them exist. I cannot see why, or any reason that, the Christian God can be any realer than those others. The Christian God is as much myth as any other historical god.
If people want to believe the universe has some meaning, direction, reason for being or what ever; have at it. If it makes you feel better and you need to believe go ahead, but if you think you are a candidate for "heaven" you'd better re-think your beliefs.
If anyone wants me to "prove" my thesis they can go straight to Hell (if you will pardon the expression). Just because I make a categorical statement it doesn't mean it is not correct. I admit I do not like to make categorical statements since they are often faulty; in this case I make an acceptation. You want to argue with me? Go ahead but if you expect me to acquiesce to your demands you can go jump in a lake or preferably an erupting volcano.
Anyone who believes there is a god is terribly terribly misinformed.
End of rant.
Yes, We are all well aware of the science. However none of it needs a God. Can you please explain what you mean by “God” first so we know what you are talking about?
Your Cosmological argument is not science. It is just a repetition of the Kalam argument beloved of W.L Craig.
Why have you left out Evolution? It is a universal scientific truth that is true in Brunswick is also true in Miami, and is also true in India. We are evolved from other species and therefore not “created” by any god.
Something outside of nature must have created the universe. Why? Who says so?
Again please define what you mean by “God”.
A spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, intelligent, powerful Being - God.
I recognize that I introduced myself here via lecture. Rude to be sure, but I didn't see another way in. In presenting the scientific evidence listed, I think it is more reasonable to believe an intelligent being created our universe than it is to believe our universe happened randomly. Can anyone present evidence for the natural cause of the universe? I see only 2 possible causes: natural or supernatural.
As for evolution, you can lead that part of the conversation.
Your God is a “personal” god? Are you able to communicate with this god?
We both know where this line of questioning is leading. I don't want to sound flippant, but I will offer that I feel saved, secure, and full of peace.
So believe that you are able to talk with this immaterial Creator of the Universe and because you believe this you will become immortal??
You have come to the conclusion that this is "reasonable to believe"??
With your understanding of Entropy and the 2LOT due you accept or reject the idea of Human Evolution? In other words are we an evolved species or do you contend that we were "created" by your God in form we are in now?
You asked that I not invoke the Bible in any of my comments. By extension, I understand that your request includes biblical ideas and thought. I have abided by that. It was never my intention anyway.
In return I ask that you not draw my conclusions for me. I have made no statements in this conversation regarding the reasonableness of immortality or communication with God. You introduced those topics. I'm not going there in this conversation. Bringing this up seems to be a diversionary tactic.
So far I have presented scientific evidence that points to the beginning of the universe, and using the Law of Causality offered that there are probably only 2 possible causes. I offered what I think is a reasonable conclusion.
I came here hoping to learn what the atheist community thinks about these topics, and to hear any presentation of evidence that supports an atheistic worldview. Nothing more, nothing less.
With regard to evolution - it's a fine topic of conversation. Start a new thread topic and I will participate.
You are claiming that the Universe could not have come from nothing but its Creator did. You claim your uncaused Creator, who always existed outside of space and time is in communication with you.
You are claiming that you are saved and therefore are going to become an immortal.
There is no “atheistic worldview”. No two atheists need to look at the world the same way.
Have you asked these questions on a science website? What makes you think atheists are experts?
I am asking you whether or not you accept the Theory of Evolution to be a scientific fact so that we will understand your knowledge of scientific theory. If you think the Creation story in Genesis is the literal truth then we will know you do not understand scientific theory. I am not going to discuss the 2LOT with someone who then tries to use it to “disprove” Evolution, which is a scientific fact.
I have asked you some relevant questions about de Sitter Spacetime and also about Inflationary theory. I am trying to ascertain what level of scientific understanding you have. Most Evangelical theists use the same arguments you use but have no understanding of them, except what they read about them in the “Watchtower” or some other rubbish publication that disallows cult members from ever having an original thought between them.
Could you explain your understanding of Inflation with regard to the Big Bang? Did it happen before or after it? You mentioned General Relativity. Do you think it properly explains the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe or is that not a problem for it? When you talk of the 2LOT are you making allowances for closed systems?
Once we know the level of understanding you have of these questions we can delve deeper into them and then look to discuss the more recent papers on Big Bang Cosmology or theories of the Multiverse that are being considered regarding (say) the coldest but entirely empty (as in “nothing” there) regions of the CMBR.
No time for me now but, when referring to the universe having a beginning you should note that this refers to our universe and not the fact that our universe may be a branch from another universe ad infinitum.
I am open to hearing any evidence you present to support that theory.
Oh no. The Cosmological proof is almost as bad as the ontological one. This proof has been discredited independently by philosophers multiple times for centuries. There are several glaring problems with it, mostly terrible assumptions that require an enormous output of increasingly improbably arguments and more assumptions, in order to defend it.
1. Everything had a beginning and cause.
Critique: How do you know that? You are applying you own limited experience to an enormous cosmos. There is no logical reason to believe that the universe had a beginning. It can be eternal moving forward and can be the same moving backwards. The big bang is one event and we have no evidence or reasonable argument to assume our universe is but one of many or was born from a previous one or some other difficult to comprehend answer. We simply lack too much data and possibly the ability to unerstand it.
2.The Universe Had a beginning
If you limit the universe to the known universe, then you MIGHT have a decent argument, but then, you might not. However the universe, as defined, is not limited to what we can observe and understand. The universe is absolutely everything regardless of space and time constraints. Our observable universe had a beginning of sorts, but the fact that our observable universe has a sort of beginning doesn't mean EVERYTHING had a beginning. How do you know that'
3. Therefore the universe had a cause:
Oh dear. Assuming the first two are true (and we don't have enough evidence to defend them being true) it doesn't mean the conclusion is turre. This is a non-sequitur. In a literal sense, we have examples of phenomena that have no clear cause. Quantum mechanics (elementary particles popping into and out of existence). However, Descartes areguments use a loaded term "cause" not in the sense of raindrop landing on a pond causeing ripples, but a purposeful cause, like say, a human being starting a fire (rathing than one starting naturally on a hot day). Even if there were a first cause (and that is still an assumption) doesn't mean the first cause wasn't a random one or a meaningless one or a lifeless indifferent one.
For anyone familiar with Aristotles metaphysics (or Aquinas's terrible rip off of Aristotle's metaphysics" will understand where Descartes is going with this. He's set up an argument about a first cause and then fills that blank with God. Even if his arguments were right up until now, the biggest assumption of all is that the first cause was conscious or grand or mighty or anthropic or designed or divine. As for the next arguments, they aren't really arguments. It's just a description of the known universe. However you did get one thing very very wrong, and it is, in fact, the strongest part of your overall argument (which is a fatal error).
@Mark; the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation
No no no. You've worded it in a way that totally misprepresents what these theoriests have said. I highly recommend you take a look at the original text and ask yourself if you have paraphrased them correctly. One little "tweak" of a work or adjective or term, can radically change an argument and you have done that twice (quite possibly without realising).a
There is no logical reason to believe that the universe had a beginning. It can be eternal moving forward and can be the same moving backwards.
Just one thought here. An infinite number of days has no end (forward or backward). Today is the end of history (history being the collection of all days). If there is an infinite number of days looking back, you will never get to today. There has to be a beginning to time in order for you to reach today.
That moment when the universe exploded into being from nothing is the moment when time, space, and matter was created.
What about Inflation? Do you think Inflation happened before the Big Bang or after it? Do you think matter was created then or at a much later stage?