al_bundy

[QUOTE=J.J.A. Sabadoz][QUOTE=al_bundy]where did the matter and energy for the big bang come from? this is why the atheists will always remain a minority. they ridicule any mention of God as a flying turtle or some other silly thing and always relate it to organized religion and dismiss it. I have never heard a scientific reason why God can't exist other than some story in some ancient text is impossible scientifically. Everyone including 90% of religious leaders know that they are just stories similar to Aesop's fables

they can't accept the fact that some people believe that some kind of higher power exists that has nothing to do with our organized religions. People who believe that a higher power exists have to prove that one exists just as much as atheists have to prove that no higher power exists since they are so adamant about it and no one knows for sure.

they always have to ridicule it and call it a turtle or something and relate it to some ancient sumerian myths that have very little to do with our modern world. why can't it be something unlike the God in Dante's Inferno or the other poem about how Satan seduces Eve. I keep starting to read it, but never finish.

Same thing with the review of The God Delusion I read in Wired. The author goes on about the evils of organized religion which are just excuses for people's violence, but can't accept the fact that most people in the US believe in God not from a Christian or Muslim or <insert religion here> sense, but just as something as a higher power. most people identify themselves as Christian only from a cultural sense, like my wife who is Jewish but needs my Russian Orthodox mom to remind her when Hannukah is.

kvrdave

Okay, please don't take offense at this, as it isn't meant that way. I use to wonder the same thing. However, that isn't the way it works. Time is a dimension of our universe. Everything happens in order and everything has a cause. The reason you don't see physicists, cosmologists, etc. asking that same question is because we are talking about something outside the universe. While everything in this universe has a cause, it is because temporality is a dimension of this universe that came into being at the same time as the other 3 spacial dimensions (as well as some other dimensions too small for us to perceive). "Prior" to the big bang, you don't have the dimension of time, and thus you don't cause and effect.

Because we are three dimensional temporal beings, we aren't use to thinking this way. Just like we can't physically imagine the shape of the universe, we also are no accustomed to thinking outside of time. Nothing before the big bang requires a cause.

In fact, when you look at those who study the universe (Stephen Hawking, Albert Eistein, Roger Penrose, etc.), you find a bunch of deists. Part of that has to do with the fact that we have an effect that does need a cause, but that is based on the dimensions of this universe, and prior to that, you don't get causes.

Don't know if that makes any sense, but that is why the argument doesn't hold.

kvrdave

I didn't say all evidence points to intelligence and design...I said "IF" all evidence points to intelligence and design, it seems arrogant to say that there is no God because he hasn't autographed my copy the Bible. I wouldn't say that all evidence does point that way, but there is plenty that does, the most obvious of which is that the universe is not eternal.

mgbfan

I think this is the main sticking point. I've seen the arguments that say the universe must be designed because every variable is what it needs to be. But that's an error of observation. Everything we need to live is the way it is because we're living in this universe. If the laws of nature were different, that would not exclude the rise of life. Just our particular brand of it.

You don't need intelligent design to explain it. Merely observational bias.

mgbfan

All excellent questions. But I'll pose one to the God-backers. If "where did the matter and energy come from" is a valid question, then so too is "where did God come from?" And, as evidence suggests the universe is about 14 billion years old, when did God appear? And if the answer is that God is eternal and has always been, then what the fuck was he doing for the eternity before he created the Universe? That's a lot of idle time.

And ... even with a God, you still have to explain where the matter and energy came from. If if you say God snapped his fingers and made it out of devine will, fine. Still have that pesky question of Where Did God Come From?

kvrdave

Actually, it would. If you look at Astrobiology (or even biology), life isn't the thing of Star Trek. Life can only be certain things. And most of the things of the universe are not just about life arising, but even planets, stars, etc.

See the post a few above. You are asking temporal questions about a medium in which temporality doesn't exist. There was no eternity before the universe was created, nor was there any idle time. There was no time at all. So "where did something come from in a medium in which time is not a dimension" is actually not a valid question. Whatever exists outside the universe does not have time as a construct to it, whether it be the Flying Spagetti Monster, or anything else.

kvrdave

This is eating at me and maybe you meant something different by it. This is not logical. I can have an aquarium required for fish to live, but that does not mean that fish will magically appear in my aquarium. You are saying that the universe has taken the form it has because that is what we need. The universe doesn't "know" what we need, nor does it work its way to give us what we need. The next idea is that if it took on different physics, something else would have resulted, but that is unknowable. You can't just change the physics and know that some kind of compatible life would result becuase life simply results from having a universe.

If you are going to argue that strange alien life could take on forms that we can't conceive of, measure, replicate, etc., you are making a leap of faith with no evidence to back up that claim, which would be the same thing you are accusing the theist of. Why is your leap of faith more valid?

J.J.A. Sabadoz

[QUOTE=al_bundy][QUOTE=J.J.A. Sabadoz]Actually over 50% of americans believe the bible to be literally true. If this were just an arguement about the pre-universe, then no one would really care; but it's not. There are large groups around the world, and in america that, for instance, want biblical creationism taught in schools. If those people thought they were just fables, they wouldn't be fighting for them.

J.J.A. Sabadoz

No, it's the opposite. It's religion that say the universe (or god) made the universe for us, but the counter argument is that life just evolved to fit it's environment.

You're starting with the assumption that humans are the most important thing in the universe, and so the odds of everything leading up to us are impossible, but we aren't that important.

If you roll the dice a billion times, you can look back and say that the odds of rolling that exact list of a billion numbers is impossible, but that doesn't mean that the last number is magically significant.

For one thing, we don't know how variable any of the rules are; we only have one universe to check, and one ecosystem.

Jason Bovberg

First of all, I have to say that I'm really enjoying this discussion, and I'm glad we're all talking in even tones, debating the subject maturely. These topics are exactly the material of the books in question, and it's perfectly valid to talk about 'em.

But I must object to the above statement, which I believe to be radically false. If it were true, boy would the world be a more tolerant and peaceful place.

Jason Bovberg

I don't accept this statement either. As I've stated from the beginning, at least from my "atheist" viewpoint, I see nothing wrong with the deist perspective, and I admit that no one can be anything more than agnostic. I do, however, consider myself an atheist toward any man-created religion--particularly the big trio of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I myself do find spirituality in nature and science, and I encourage my children to do the same. I think it's wrong to assume that most atheists adamantly believe "THERE IS NO GOD WHATSOEVER!" It's possible to be an "atheist" toward certain beliefs and gods but open to other notions of higher powers. I know several people who describe themselves the same way. From my point of view, for example, a Muslim is an atheist toward the Christian world view, and vice versa.

I really believe this to be false. I would agree that there are a lot of liberal or moderate Christians, but make no mistake: Our country kneels to the Christian god.

darkside

This is pretty much my view. I'm an atheist of all the man made religions just like Christians are atheists when it comes to every other religion but their own. However, no one can say for sure if there is a God so the deist viewpoint has logic I can understand.

I liked Dawkins' books, but I did not agree with him 100% on the way he lays out his atheist beliefs. I don't think being a pushy atheist does anything to further the cause for rational thinking and secular beliefs.

kvrdave

I think you give humans too much credit and religion not enough. If there were no religion, we'd find other excuses to kill each other, etc.

Jason Bovberg

This is interesting that we have almost polar-opposite views. That's fine. From what I've read in my perusals of ancient texts, the basic tenets of the major faiths encourage and even demand fervent intolerance and violence. Especially Islam. This is not to give credit to Christianity or Judaism, whose texts are also horribly insulated and closed off to differing opinion. This intolerance has resulted in outrageous atrocity throughout recorded history. I do agree that, in the absence of religion, humans would probably have found other ways to kill each other, but I can't imagine much worse than the effect that organized religion has had on humankind. And on top of that, in this age of nuclear and biological weaponry, it could very well still lead to our downfall.

I think you give religion too much credit and humans not enough. I'm just suggesting that we need to evolve into something else. A new mode of spirituality based on reason and empathy and science. It's wishful thinking, I know, but we can all dream of a better world.

kvrdave

This would be a very powerful argument if you could show how life spontaneously forms. Without that, it is just a "we know it must because our model is correct" type thing.

It sounds like you are starting with the assumption that we aren't that important. Why is your assumption more valid than mine?

This is quite true. If it were something like that, it would not be a powerful argument. Some very interesting stuff to read about this is Brandon Carter, who came up with the term "Anthropic Principle" which basically has to do with how the universe seems designed for human life. Before you think I am telling you about the work of some religious zealot, read his bio on IMDB. He isn't religious at all, nor did he like that the religious people hooked onto the idea. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0141497/bio

This is absolutely right. Yet we also make assumptions that life would arise in some way, some time, some other universe with other physics, despite any evidence supporting it. What we do know is that the universe had a begining, there is no way that we know of that life could spontaneously be created, the conditions even necessary for life are improbably to a degree to make them nil, and most of the top cosmologists are deists.

Anyway, I found this thread from boredom while in the Other Forum. I've enjoyed it a lot, but it is probably just all a rehash of the same things we go over in there on a bi-weekly basis. But I have enjoyed it a lot, and am very happy at how civil the discussion has been, because it isn't always that way. Thanks.

BUT I'LL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A BOOK TALK THREAD GOING TO 4 PAGES!!!!

Thanks again.

kvrdave

I would argue that this is what Christianity is when you get rid of the leaders and buildings.

mgbfan

Mmm hmm. You're giving us an awful lot of credit for knowing exactly what it could and couldn't be. Me, I'm inclined to say that in a universe with different physical laws, we can be pretty sure we don't know what would or could happen.
Okay, so we've either got the universe beginning, or we don't. If it began, then when did God show up? Did he spontaniously arise at the instant of the Big Bang? And if you're going to tell me that he created it, then, sorry, but you've got to have a "before." Either/or, my friend--you can't have it both ways.

kvrdave

You don't have to have a "before." Without time, there is nothing created, nor any "before." You can't have it both ways in this universe, you can outside of time. It would be the same for a creator, a train, a piece of wood, or anything else that exists outside of time.

Can something happen before something else when there is no dimension of time? How? That is the point. You are applying the rules and physics of our universe to things outside our universe. Time was created as part of this universe.

It isn't an easy concept, I know.

Jason Bovberg

You're obviously capable of strong thinking. I suggest you free yourself from the mental shackles of Christianity and really set your mind loose.

mgbfan

Actually, it's simple logic. The universe is what we need to live because we live in it. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be living in it. Observational bias.

Look at it in terms of multiple universes. Some physics suggests infinite universes, each with its own set of physical laws. If, as you suggest, life can only take hold under a fantastically narrow set of laws (I don't concede this, but for the sake of argument), the only universes that will ever be observed are the ones that can sustain life. Boom - observational bias.

I most absolutly am not saying that. I'm talking about observational bias, nothing more.

In that, we agree. Which is why I never said anything of the sort.

My "leap of faith," as you describe it, is really a suggestion that we don't know what could happen in a universe with different physical constants. And "we don't know" doesn't really strike me as any sort of faith at all.

mgbfan

As of now, the scientific theories for the spontanious evolution of life are much more sound than the scientific theories for the spontanious evolition of God.

mgbfan

Okay, good. Then where did the universe come from? Time didn't exist until the universe did. You said yourself that it would be the same for a creator as for a piece of wood. If a creator couldn't exist until the universe existed, how could the creator have created it? You can't create something that already exists.

If you want to give God credit for creating the universe, you need a before. And if you admit that a before couldn't have existed, you're all but admitting that a creator couldn't have existed.

kvrdave

kvrdave

It's circular reasoning.

Unfortunately, because of physics, we will only ever be able to observe our own universe. The speculation of multiple universes is more religion than science. It's great Sci-fi, but is terrible science (other than some interesting math). It is something you would have to take completely on faith.

Your leap of faith is that there may even be another universe with different physics. There is no evidence that there is. It is a construct to try to make sense out of the improbability of our universe. Native use "God" to explain lighting. Some us multiverse and 'brane theories to explain the improbability of our universe. But they are both based on the same thing.

kvrdave

Link?

The reason you see the rise of things like Panspermia again is because the field of how life arises has become dimmer, not brighter. One of the most damning newer evidences for the primordial soup theories was the lack of carbonaceous material below the first life.