Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thaladan)
    A question for the atheists here: would you agree with following line of reasoning?

    1) The universe is, by definition, the totality of all physical substance.
    2) Because the universe is the totality of all physical substance, before the universe existed there was no physical substance.
    3) Therefore, whatever existed before the universe existed was not physical.
    4) Therefore, whatever existed before the universe and caused the universe to exist was not physical.
    No, there was no 'before' the BB as time did not exist, being a property of the universe itself.

    To extrapolate, God could not have caused the BB because there existed no time for him do so in.

    Therefore the BB did not need a cause, because there did not exist time in which the cause could have existed.

    Cause and effect only exist in time.

    Prior to our universe there was no time.

    God as a cause would have had to precede the effect he was responsible for, in time.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    lool how can you objectively point the finger and call me immoral when morality without God is relative? If you call me immoral from your relative point of view then fine, means as much the same to me as if you had called me moral. Anyway i am not saying I'm only 'good' because God exists, I'm saying because God exists in my opinion then good and bad can have intrinsic value.

    Otherwise where do you get your morals from? Society? That means your only good because society conditioned you in a certain way to believe 'x' is good and 'y' is bad.

    Again, you're making the assumption that just because humans feel happy and that they have improved their lives then thats good. That's a purely emotive way of looking at things. You've just commited the is ought fallacy.

    And i never said I didnt see any value in it. Im just saying that because I believe in God the good that i see in it has some intrinsic value and will remain the same no matter what culture/society i live in
    This solves nothing as you have, perhaps unwittingly invoked the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God chooses what is right and wrong based on his wishes and whims then his morality is just as subjective as ours. Ascribing objectivity to God's subjectively chosen morals is absurd as it's implying that a being's nature dictates the nature of its morals which has no basis in logic.

    And if you pick the other horn of the dilemma, that right and wrong are right and wrong regardless of what God thinks then there must be a moral code over which he has no control and sovereignty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    Well, is Sirius Black a necessary being for example?
    I see no reason to think that Sirius Black could not have been really short or really tall, or that he could have had a really long beard. Is there any reason to think that Sirius Black had to exist within the Harry Potter novels? Or that he happened to have the exact characteristics he had? Can you not think of a possible variation? There seems nothing logically or metaphysically impossible in saying he could have been Ginger.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Onde)
    I said that if you are only good because you believe god exists, then you are immoral. I thought it was fairly clear what I meant: regardless of whether or not I am an objective being, I aspire to be good by doing things because they are good, or at least, because I think they are good.

    You have admitted you are a subjective being. So not only do you only act good because you believe god exists (rather than because something is good), you only do things because other people tell you to do them, regardless of whether they are good or not.

    In regards my morals, I am somewhat informed by society (including the laws and ethics), although I have also rejected the 'morals' of organised religions for example. I generally wish to treat others as I consider optimal, based partly on how I would wish to be treated, but also somewhat on how they would wish to be treated, if their tastes are different (there are some 'tastes' I will not indulge in however).

    If it is a fallacy to believe that humans have objectively improved their lives in most areas, then it is a marvelous fallacy. If humans did not wish for such aspirations, and forever continue to work for them, and achieve more and more, we would still be hitting each other with clubs or starting at our navels. I know that those who believe in the afterlife may wish to voice the view that this mortal life has little or no value, but I think it is very important to value life and make the world a better place.
    Firstly, if I had to agree with you that I am good only because I believe in God (i disagree with this, but for the sake of argument) then please elaborate in what way does this make me immoral? And to what standard are you comparing me to?

    Erm...i don't do things because people tell me...when did I ever state that?

    Dig a little deeper please. Take a step back. The whole treat people how you would like to be treated. Like i said before, your committing Hume's is-ought fallacy once again. Why do you take the descriptive element and then out of nowhere prescribe it as a moral code to yourself. Just because treating people like you would like to be treated makes you or others feel good, when does this become morally good?!

    You've misunderstood the fallacy completely. The fallacy isnt that humans have bettered their lives, of course they have! The fallacy is when you jump from that fact and then prescribe it as a moral good. How on earth did you make that move? Theirs a clear distinction between a factual statement and a moral statement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    It doesn't take astounding intellect to realise what kind of consequences your actions will have, what causes another person to suffer for example.

    Being an atheist, I am free to realise the downfalls of the morality or doctrine presented to me in religious texts by taking a look at the bigger picture. I am not weighed down by the fear of being eternally tortured or loosing the opportunity of an afterlife.

    Reality isn't black and white and a list of assertions on what is bad and what is good, just doesn't cut it. It very much depends on context, as to how a person responds.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Whether or not people posses the innate qualities required to do the right thing, is another question. (The right thing meaning to strive for the most positive outcome, whilst being empathetic & conscientious of others).
    This applies to any human, regardless of their beliefs.
    Would you argue that there actually is a right action? Could you explain why that is the right action?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    No, there was no 'before' the BB as time did not exist, being a property of the universe itself.

    To extrapolate, God could not have caused the BB because there existed no time for him do so in.

    Therefore the BB did not need a cause, because there did not exist time in which the cause could have existed.

    Cause and effect only exist in time.

    Prior to our universe there was no time.

    God as a cause would have had to precede the effect he was responsible for, in time.
    Although these conditions don't eradicate any possibility for a cause of the universe, for you could have simultaneous causation. Examples of simultaneous causation would be a bowling bowl that is pushing down on a cushion or a chain which is simultaneously holding up a chandelier


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    1) I do not believe that the definition of universe necessarily means all physical substance, because that would assume there has essentially only been one universe, and that only one exists at a time. I could loosely accept this point however.
    2) I do not believe there needs to be a time before the existence of this universe.
    3) I do not accept 2), so certainly do not accept this. I do not believe there is any merit in believing in the non-physical, and do not believe that it could be observed.
    4) I do not believe the universe necessarily had a cause, and also, there will never be any evidence of the "non-physical".
    There was quite categorically no time before the universe, as time is a property of the universe itself, inseparable from space, the fourth dimension of 'space', three dimensions being spatial and one being time.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Lol I was referring to the other dude's answer, calling it slightly vague. I never heard of this theory. Could you tell me more about it?
    It explores the early conditions of Earth and explores how small organic molecules such as nucleosides could have undergone three-component domino reactions to make nucleosides. These can be phosphorylated to form nucleotides which are the building blocks of RNA and DNA, allowing the first life forms to code genetic information.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    This solves nothing as you have, perhaps unwittingly invoked the Euthyphro Dilemma. If God chooses what is right and wrong based on his wishes and whims then his morality is just as subjective as ours. Ascribing objectivity to God's subjectively chosen morals is absurd as it's implying that a being's nature dictates the nature of its morals which has no basis in logic.

    And if you pick the other horn of the dilemma, that right and wrong are right and wrong regardless of what God thinks then there must be a moral code over which he has no control and sovereignty.
    Oh my...Again not understanding what I was arguing at all. I'm not using the moral argument to prove the existence of God or that atheists don't have morality. He said I was 'immoral' for saying that God makes my morals have intrinsic meaning. If he believes in subjective morals, then him calling me immoral means absolutely nothing!

    Plus you don't have to ascribe objectivity to God's morality. Saying that God has chosen morals for us is fine. In our point of view we will have an illusion of objective morality (just as we have an illusion of free will) as their is a consequence for our actions. The consequences have remained fixed and the morals have remained fixed for all time. Unline the consequences and morals of societal conditioning.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Although these conditions don't eradicate any possibility for a cause of the universe, for you could have simultaneous causation. Examples of simultaneous causation would be a bowling bowl that is pushing down on a cushion or a chain which is simultaneously holding up a chandelier


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is not the same thing. Logically it sounds like it's the same thing, but as I have said, time is a property of our universe. It cannot exist outside of our universe. Cause and effect have only ever been observed sequentially within spac-time. There is no reason to extrapolate that cause would exist outside of our universe. More than that it makes no sense to do so. It is most likely that the universe is the one thing without cause. How that is, we are working on discovering that, the key is in understanding time itself.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    No, there was no 'before' the BB as time did not exist, being a property of the universe itself.

    To extrapolate, God could not have caused the BB because there existed no time for him do so in.

    Therefore the BB did not need a cause, because there did not exist time in which the cause could have existed.

    Cause and effect only exist in time.

    Prior to our universe there was no time.

    God as a cause would have had to precede the effect he was responsible for, in time.
    Ok... I get your point about the existence of time being dependent on the universe existing. But I think that just leads us to deducing another aspect of whatever caused the existence of the universe: it must be beyond the bounds of time.

    I see no reason why we should therefore assume that the Big Bang did not have a cause. If the Big Bang had no cause, then essentially we're claiming that nothing produced something (i.e. the Big Bang) which seems illogical.

    I think there has to be something that exists beyond the realms of time and space that could have caused the existence of time and space. What that something is - 'God' or an abstract being or something else entirely - is a separate question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumzaAsad97)
    Oh my...Again not understanding what I was arguing at all. I'm not using the moral argument to prove the existence of God or that atheists don't have morality. He said I was 'immoral' for saying that God makes my morals have intrinsic meaning. If he believes in subjective morals, then him calling me immoral means absolutely nothing!

    Plus you don't have to ascribe objectivity to God's morality. Saying that God has chosen morals for us is fine. In our point of view we will have an illusion of objective morality (just as we have an illusion of free will) as their is a consequence for our actions. The consequences have remained fixed and the morals have remained fixed for all time. Unline the consequences and morals of societal conditioning.
    Not true as what you're in essence saying is that subjective things have no meaning when they do for many people. We can still consider things immoral while admitting they're subjective, basing it on our own personal morality or that of society in general.

    And the Euthyphro Dilemma is perfectly relevant for the point that saying something is immoral according to God's law would mean nothing either, as his morals were chosen by him and thus just as subjective.

    But morals don't remain fixed for all time though, how can you even say that? Plenty of things were immoral in the past which are now not considered as such and even in certain religions like Christianity there were things in he OT that were immoral which God no longer considers immoral.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    I disagree, agnosticism generally has the view that a position cannot be resolved and maybe even be irresolvable. This is usually something that most people would only conclude of matters on a different plain to them: Only people who are uncertain of their own existence would use the term "agnostic" in such a widespread fashion. Or perhaps theists need to remind themselves they are certain?
    I'm not sure you've changed much. If you start from the premise that the vast majority of our beliefs will never be verified with certainty, then there's no difference between switching from agnostic which just means we aren't certain, to agnostic which means something is irresolvable. They're just synonymous for saying we hold a belief based on probability and by extension of not being certain of its truth means that's the negation of a belief we hold is still possible.

    Maybe, you just wanted to ask the rhetorical question about theists?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Why is it used only in reference to God's existence? When you reflect on the epistemology of our knowledge, you soon realise that agnostic applies to either everything we know or almost everything we know. Yet there seems to be a need to be precise with saying we aren't certain when it comes to God's existence. Put it this way, if we are to be consistent, we should put agnostic in front of almost every word that represents a belief. But we don't need to qualify the lack of certainty - it's obvious. Why does there seem to be the need to qualify that with God's existence? Do atheists need to remind themselves that they aren't certain?

    I think the only time someone should qualify their view on God is when they put gnostic in front. Perhaps they think they can prove God exists and so know with certainty or that they can show the impossibility of God and so he doesn't exist with certainty.


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    I get your point now.

    Well it's not that atheists have to declare themselves to be agnostic atheists as it goes without saying that most (informed) atheists are agnostic atheists (that is someone that isn't 100% certain)
    It's only really used in discussions like this where someone is confused about the definitions and we need to be precise.

    I agree with the last paragraph
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thaladan)
    Ok... I get your point about the existence of time being dependent on the universe existing. But I think that just leads us to deducing another aspect of whatever caused the existence of the universe: it must be beyond the bounds of time.

    I see no reason why we should therefore assume that the Big Bang did not have a cause. If the Big Bang had no cause, then essentially we're claiming that nothing produced something (i.e. the Big Bang) which seems illogical.

    I think there has to be something that exists beyond the realms of time and space that could have caused the existence of time and space. What that something is - 'God' or an abstract being or something else entirely - is a separate question.
    You misunderstand. Cause and effect, the idea that we are so used to observing in everyday life that leads us to make the assumption that all things must have been caused, only exists WITHIN time, which only exists WITHIN our universe. Cause and effect you will agree are sequential, that's the whole point! You cannot have a sequential happening in the absence of time.

    From our everyday observations we have every reason to believe that cause and effect happen within time, and we have not observed anything other than this.

    We have no reason to assume that cause and effect could play out without the existence of time.

    It's a bit like asking WHAT the universe is expanding into....nothing! Expansion is a property of space-time itself, it's the increase in distance between two points in space. We are so used to seeing things within things within things that this is admittedly hard to wrap ones head around.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Kind of flipping the subject of the thread here. I am an athiest and would like to know from a theist what it is that causes them to believe and what aspects of their religion do they beleive. Do you believe it is the way you have been raised that has led you to believe?
    Offline

    15
    How does it feel to be constantly convincing yourself that God doesn't exist?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EricPiphany)
    How does it feel to be constantly convincing yourself that God doesn't exist?
    It doesn't feel like anything because I put no effort into it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    It explores the early conditions of Earth and explores how small organic molecules such as nucleosides could have undergone three-component domino reactions to make nucleosides. These can be phosphorylated to form nucleotides which are the building blocks of RNA and DNA, allowing the first life forms to code genetic information.
    Hmmmm... seems plausible. Although the chances of individual molecules to react and form just one nucleotide seems tiny let alone a whole strand of DNA (or a cell). But thanks.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Not true as what you're in essence saying is that subjective things have no meaning when they do for many people. We can still consider things immoral while admitting they're subjective, basing it on our own personal morality or that of society in general.

    And the Euthyphro Dilemma is perfectly relevant for the point that saying something is immoral according to God's law would mean nothing either, as his morals were chosen by him and thus just as subjective.

    But morals don't remain fixed for all time though, how can you even say that? Plenty of things were immoral in the past which are now not considered as such and even in certain religions like Christianity there were things in he OT that were immoral which God no longer considers immoral.
    Subjective things have no intrinsic meaning for humanity, of course they will have meaning for the individual.

    I agree with your last paragraph, morals given by God aren't always the same - my mistake. But with a God, complete justice and consequences are given to the people he applied the moral code for. So in that sense the people of the time will have the illusion that this morality cannot change and is then objective. People cannot manipulate morality - something transcendent of the individual is controlling morality. Plus anything which is made 'good' will always have a positive impact on the individual in this life and the next, and vice versa.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.