Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Didn't get a specific/direct answer to my question... Ok but, I'm still confused about it. Like I can to some extent understand atheists but I don't see why they have to claim religion(s) are a complete illusion. To me personally atheism doesn't make sense. (Not asking for anyone to explain or convince me as I strongly believe in my faith) but yeah ok... Thanks for your civil responses.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Man I love this thread.

    Okay. Is the multiverse theory and the theory that the universe came from nothing the only logical theories of the origin of the universe (in non-religious views of course)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    On the contrary, if we all believed that we have a right to kill anyone we meet, for any reason and without warning and without repercussions, the world would be anything but boring.
    In saying that, if it was viewed worldwide that you could kill anyone you met, and every single person accepted it, then it wouldn't be of shock to anyone if you killed someone. So surely then, it would be boring?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magoo18)
    As someone who is intrigued by the complexity of the scientific world but also firmly believes in the existence of a Supreme being, I have always intertwined science and religion. Surely things would start to make a lot more sense when God and science come together, no?
    Take the word 'universe' for example; literally meaning, 'one spoken phrase'. If we relate this to the Bible (God's Word), to bring the universe into existence he spoke, "let there be light" - and there was light. To introduce science, let's look at the Big Bang Theory. Nature doesn't jump. Darwin said this himself. Therefore it would make sense, taking biblical terms into account, that this sudden explosion of light was created by a greater power? Who's to say?
    I love so many aspects of the two, but drawing them together makes everything so much more interesting!
    Feel free to share your thoughts btw, I'm open.
    I don't mean to be rude or anything (I apologise if I am) but my friend, I hope you haven't forgotten what the Supreme book actually says?

    Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"
    Then I believe some stuff about darkness.
    THEN it says in Genesis 1:3 "And God said,*“Let there be light,”*
    Let also forget what this light was said to be ( "day" and "night" ) in Genesis 1:5 and take your interpretation of light

    So the earth came before the "light"?

    The Big Bang was not an explosion (a misleading title), it was more like an expansion from quantum state of singularity. Besides early universe was way too hot for any sort of particles to exist (and in the state that we know today), there was no evidence of photons or anything that could emit light (or EM waves) as far as I'm aware. Furthermore, it is thought that the inflation of space happened faster the speed of light, so it's impossible for it to be literally an explosion of light. "explosion of light" wasn't really an "explosion" nor "light".

    It doesn't make more sense, it raises more questions than it answers. Like who or what is god, why is god god, what makes him god, who created god, how did god create us and why, what process did he use, can god interfere with nature, how can he do that, can we measure his effect (in terms of a force) etc. Occam's razor cuts through all that.

    Why is there one "greater power", could he not create other "greater powers"?

    "Nature doesn't jump" except this is violated in quantum mechanics principles.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I remember a Muslim member called tazarooni89 (I'm not sure if he still posts) argued against the Euthythro dilemma by essentially arguing for I would call psychological egoism. To quote what he said:

    "The events that happen aren't categorically either "good" or "bad". They're just events, or alternative configurations of the atoms in the universe, none of which are any better or worse than another as far as logic is concerned. The only reason you'd label some as "bad" is because you personally find it displeasing. That is, it's not the event that's "bad", rather it's you who dislikes the event. Someone else may not."

    If morality was just merely that which pleases oneself, how would that effect your perception of the God of Islam? If there is no such thing as "good", then wouldn't the concept of "God is good" also collapse?

    I must say I struggle with this concept of morality and I find myself unable to argue against it, but neither do I wish to agree with it.
    You may notice that whilst the concept of "God is good" or "God is omnibenevolent" exists in other religions and their scriptures, it's not found in Islam or the Qur'an. I believe that this is specifically the reason for it; that "good" is a vague and entirely subjective term, which depends upon your own point of view regarding what is pleasing and what is displeasing to you. The descriptions of God in Islam are more objective. For example, rather then being described as "benevolent", he might be described as "merciful". In addition, Islam readily admits that the "evil" elements of the universe are themselves created by God as well, and that he does many things that we will consider to be displeasing.

    The closest we come in Islam to saying that "God is good" is perhaps when we use the phase "Allahu Akbar" which means "God is greater (than anything)". But even then, "great" in this context doesn't mean "very good", rather it's used in the more objective sense of God superseding everything else in terms of power, authority, influence etc.

    I also don't really see a problem with the concept of morality in which "goodness" is simply considered to be that which is pleasing. Isn't that how our sense of morality usually works anyway? If you consider something to be immoral, surely it's because it has some consequences that cause, or risk causing displeasure to someone in some way? I think we generally tend to differentiate between moral and immoral with reference to the circumstances, and the extent to which pleasure or displeasure is likely to be caused, rather than there simply being some universally applicable list of everything that's moral and everything that's immoral.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I always suspect that morality is somehow linked to survival. Software that has evolved and is at its most basic level, common to all. Although some people appear to have the Windows 95 version.

    If we killed at the drop of a hat, there'd be none of us left. If we piss each other off enough, there'll be none of us left.

    Kindness to each other increases chances of survival. Fighting amongst ourselves decreases it. At its most basic level. Although this does seem to contradict the violent primate instincts that we have, but there ya go.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Man I love this thread.

    Okay. Is the multiverse theory and the theory that the universe came from nothing the only logical theories of the origin of the universe (in non-religious views of course)?
    There's always the White Hole stuff. Perhaps that's what happens inside a black hole? It spews out matter into another universe in the form of a big bang/white hole? Or is that covered in your multiverse learnings already?



    .....


    ....


    ....


    I'll get me coat.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Someone one once said to me that they are Atheist but believe God created the Big Bang. Is that still being an Atheist, because I'm sure Atheist don't believe in the existence of God at all.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+atheism
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magoo18)
    So surely then, it would be boring?
    You don't think it would be exciting to encounter someone in the street, then, not knowing if you would survive the encounter?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Why does a god have to be like in the Bible?
    Why does it have to be this all singing and dancing power which constantly watches us all at the same time and answers everything?

    Can't it be more abstract? Less extroverted?
    An omni-present feature which is perhaps influencial upon death. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it created it all but has no influence. Nobody can say for sure, however, just because it doesn't answer prayers for everyone, everytime, does not mean it doesn't exist.
    It doesn't have to be like the one in the Bible, but why is your less abstract conception any more likely than that of the Bible?

    If we use Occam's Razor, in which the hypothesis with the least number of unfounded assumptions is likely to be the correct one, then we can safely come to the conclusion that prayers aren't answered. Why is there no evidence of miraculous prayers being heard?

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    So there was no cause? We just occured (well to the big bang stage or whatever we feel was the 'start'...
    That is just ridiculous. How can there not be a cause!?!
    There may have been a cause, but not a godly one, that's the point. You seem to be flitting between two positions here. From your post it's clear that the only cause you're talking about is one which is intelligent, conscious and magical. So you saying there has to be a cause doesn't actually strengthen your position as you'd have to prove the very specific nature of this cause in the first place. After all, an unthinking, natural cause would destroy your position just as much as there being no cause would.

    Everything we know, our knowledge comes from what we can observe, see, witness etc. We came from sperm and an egg, Before that our parents were born and so on. All the way back to evolution from other animals, then back to the big bang. Something cannot come from nothing.
    1) First of all, no one here is saying something came from nothing so it's probably best if you abandon that assertion as it's a strawman and is getting no one anywhere.

    2) Second, you are trying to extend the logic of the macro, physical world to a singularity, where the laws of nature as we know them don't really apply.

    3) Everything we know does not have a cause. In the realm of quantum physics, virtual particles pop into and out of existence all of the time with no known cause whatsoever.

    4) Also, you didn't answer my question, what do you believe God created the universe from?

    You said even without it, there would STILL be no reason to assume that there was a god. HENCE, why i replied to that hypothetical scenario with why i believed it WOULD give credence to believing there was a god.
    We were created thus if there was no other theory it would be likely that an overwhelming majority would believe in a god/higher power.
    You haven't at all explained how and why these theories not being true would give credence to your claim, you have merely said it would. And your next point is the fallacious argumentum ad populum, but the fact is that the number of people believing something doesn't necessarily make that thing true.

    I've accepted 'god of the gaps' is a fair critique (to some degree) but that doesn't mean there isn't one since we can't solve what caused us.
    I never said there isn't one, but until anyone provides any sort of evidence then it will be dismissed. And again, I don't really understand what you mean by "what caused us". As physical beings we evolved and came from our parents, we weren't fashioned out of clay or appeared out of thin air..

    You claimed the idea of a 'singularity' was a hypothesis and not a theory. Again, read back. I am not commenting really on that, i am simply reacting to your correction and now you have seemingly went back on yourself with this re-correction.... My point still stands. Something must have caused the singularity. If the singularity is a stable state then what changed it? What made it unstable? Etc
    1) I did not say the singularity is a hypothesis, you're either confusing me with someone else or not reading my posts properly.

    2) False. Seeing as the origins of the singularity itself are unknown claiming it had a cause is an assertion that is completely unsubstantiated. For all we know it may have always existed (just like your God) and never actually come into being.

    3) I don't know what made it unstable, but as you're fond of using examples from nature then there are plenty of things that are stable for immense periods of time and gradually break down to other things, diamond being a good example. And once again, even if the cause that made it unstable existed, it need not have been sentient or magical in any way.

    I understand that and you make a valid point. However, i think what is 'likely', what 'seems right' is down to the individual.
    Actually, it's due to the available evidence.

    Either, we don't know, there will be scientific explanation for our beginning and that is it. Black and white. Or, the person leans towards believing that a higher power is more likely to have been responsible.
    People can believe what they like, but if they start making claims about reality then they should be prepared to present their evidence or have no one take them seriously.

    But something must have gone bang for there to have been a bang. It can't come from nothing. Thus, the question is not nonsensical.
    The Big Bang was an expansion, not an explosion and it was actually a silent event given that sound waves have to propagate through space to be heard. And once more, no one is saying the Big Bang came from nothing, the Big Bang came from the singularity whose origins are currently unknown.

    Can't disagree with that. Again, you utterly refute any notion of that being possible (to 99%), whereas other people believe/hope it is much more likely. It is a simple difference in opinion imo, people should be free to judge that for themselves.
    Not at all, like most atheists, I'd be more than happy to believe in a deity if convincing evidence were brought forth. It actually appears to be the theists who generally will never abandon the notion of there being a god regardless of how much evidence is produced to the contrary.

    'Who here has said it arose from nothing!' - well, you repeatedly have said a singularity etc does not need to have a cause. If it has no cause then it can't have come from anything ie nothing.
    No, not having a cause can also mean it's eternal. I presume you say your god has no cause, so does that mean he came from nothing?

    As i'm sure you are aware, i simply do not know what (if there is a god) god created the universe from. However, if a higher power exists then it would be beyond our comprehension. Theists would say it is above everything, it can just create.
    It's probably not a good idea to speak for all theists. There are plenty of them who believe that God is equal to human beings, not above them and that plenty of things about it can be understood.

    Of course this sounds rather ridicuous but ultimately whatever the truth is, it must be infinite. The problem of 'infinite regress' will be answered.
    What exactly do you mean by infinite? How is a God who always exists infinite, what specific characteristic are you attaching that adjective to?

    Either some entity, explained by science which was infinite and changed/evolved etc or an infinite higher being. Highly intelligent and created the conditions for the universe to take place. Both options seem abstract but such is life i suppose...
    What exactly do you mean by an infinite being?

    True, again just a difference in weighting of likelihood between options. Perhaps they view the idea that matter/energy/universe can be infinite as acceptable to them or perhaps they deem that less likely/believable than a higher power being infinite.
    Ahh, you appear to be confusing the words "infinite" and "eternal" when these words have very different meanings.

    Most of what we have been chatting about is pre big-bang or the question of what there anything pre-big bang.
    That is wholly conjecture. What i'm saying about a possible god is also nothing but conjecture based on gut or likelihood etc. It cannot be proven nor tested. Hasn't yet anyway....
    I agree, the God hypothesis is naught but conjecture.

    If you say there is no answer to infinite regress then how can there be a cause?
    I'm not saying there definitely isn't an answer, just asking you how you know there definitely is?

    For me, there must be a cause. Everything else can be traced back... However that cause must be more significant.
    And here we come to the crux of the issue. Why must it be more significant? There is no reason for this whatsoever other than your wishful thinking. As I already explained, in your worldview an unthinking, natural cause would be just as bad for your position as there being no cause.

    It must be infinite due to the nature of the question being asked.
    Actually, how do you know? Many people claim God is eternal, but where is the logic behind this? Why couldn't have God popped into existence from nothing and then existed for billions of years or whatever before creating the universe?

    This thing/being/object/giganticRabbit, started everything and will have existed for ever really.
    A generally accepted property of God, but not one that is necessary.

    You were being facetious about a Gigantic Rabbit but ultimately you just do not accept (at all) that a higher power is involved. Fair enough mate. I am simply stating that people could easily be of a different opinion.
    Well I was being facetious, but what it does is illustrate an important point. There is no reason why your concept of god is any less likely than that of a giant, all-powerful rabbit, or any of the other infinite examples people come up with. You may look at the rabbit example as rather silly, but just know that that is exactly how other people look at your conception of God.

    Accepting 'we don't know' is probably the best option. Surely that would make someone agnostic though...? (I'm being facetious here before you take the bait too hard)
    Most atheists are agnostic atheists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    There's always the White Hole stuff. Perhaps that's what happens inside a black hole? It spews out matter into another universe in the form of a big bang/white hole? Or is that covered in your multiverse learnings already?



    .....


    ....


    ....


    I'll get me coat.
    I wouldn't really call them "multiverse learnings", as I haven't really dwelled deep enough into it lol. But I guess it's similar since one universe is technically giving rise to another, since black holes are essentially 'dead' stars. Which one do you believe in?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magoo18)
    In saying that, if it was viewed worldwide that you could kill anyone you met, and every single person accepted it, then it wouldn't be of shock to anyone if you killed someone. So surely then, it would be boring?
    Well if we were allowed to kill anyone at anytime... there would be more "spur of the moment" type actions rather than cold and calculated ways like now. People would be found witty, ingenious and creative ways to kill (it sounds horrible but hypotheticals) which would've been exciting at the very least...
    As Poirot said "I didn't think the murderer was you, if it was - your character dictates that you would've planned it, and so it would've been dull"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Which one do you believe in?
    Who knows, man. I'm pretty open, as it goes.

    Very interested in black holes though.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I have a question for atheists.

    Its a very common claim from atheists that the universe exists inexplicably - there just is no explanation for why the universe exists.

    However, in every corner of science and philosophy, arguments from explicability are used (or EA's).

    For example, a common argument from physicists regarding the reality of consciousness, is that if it isn't reduced to physical systems it is essentially inexplicable. We argue things are likely false because they are inexplicable.

    Now, suppose we apply an EA to the question: why do things exist? Well that would seem to rule out the common claim by atheists that the universe is a brute fact or the laws of nature are brute facts. Because an EA implicitly entails that these options are false, that an inexplicable options is false.

    Ofcourse, atheists may say: well it's meaningless to apply and Explicability argument to that question. Fair enough.

    But this seems to leave us 3 options with how to use EA'S.

    1) some EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Others - like for why things exist - are not.

    2) no EA'S for a conclusion are legitimate.

    3) all EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Even for why things exist.

    If you are atheist who thinks the universe and/or the laws of nature are brute facts, you cannot take option 3.

    It seem option 2 is ruled out by anyone who uses an EA in other contexts, scientific or philosophical. Almost all atheists?

    So that leaves 1.* The trouble, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be any non-question-begging way of defending option 1.* For why should we believe that EAs are legitimate in other cases, but not when giving some account of the sheer existence of things?* It seems arbitrary to allow the one sort of EA but not the other sort.* The atheist cannot respond by saying that it is just a brute fact that some kinds of EAs are legitimate and others are not, because this would beg the question against 3, which denies that there are any brute facts.

    Interested to know how far explicability arguments go!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Its a very common claim from atheists that the universe exists inexplicably - there just is no explanation for why the universe exists.
    Only because we do not yet understand all the mechanisms (and may never do so). The unexpalined nature of the universe is just a fact, not an argument.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Only because we do not yet understand all the mechanisms (and may never do so). The unexpalined nature of the universe is just a fact, not an argument.
    No, the point of saying that the universe is a brute fact is to say that it has no explanation for why it exists. There is no answer - it's a meaningless question.

    Note this isn't to say that there is an explanation and we don't know it, or there is an explanation and we can't know it - but that there is no explanation.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Note this isn't to say that there is an explanation and we don't know it, or there is an explanation and we can't know it - but that there is no explanation.
    This is nonsense. I have never seen anyone argue that. I have seen theists say we can never understand gods, of course, and that they move in mysterious ways.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This is nonsense. I have never seen anyone argue that. I have seen theists say we can never understand gods, of course, and that they move in mysterious ways.
    Really?! You'd be surprised how common it is. I can't see how atheists won't describe the universe as a brute fact considering materialism doesn't have the ability to answer the question. (I think it's safe to assume most or the majority of atheists are materialists)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Really?! You'd be surprised how common it is.
    I would. I suggest you discuss the matter with intelligent atheists outside your current friendship circle.
 
 
 
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
Which accompaniment is best?
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.