Something can come from nothing.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.

Do you reject the Qu'ran, the Torah, the Hindi scriptures?

I reject all of those books, as well as the New Testament, as infallible sources of truth.  I accept all of those books as expressions of individuals who have had experiences with God.  For me, my experience is with Jesus, so I don't have any personal experience of God outside that context.

[xSilverPhinx]

A couple of issues.
1. People have a preconcieved idea of what nothing is. It seems that nothing is the answer to infinite regress. This is a platform from which something begins to exist and it is impossible to stop this process. You can never just find nothing without something popping in and out of existence.
2. Theists just pose a lazy and high level position that god is infinite regress and hence all existence originates from god. With this approach they don't have to prove anything and they don't have to state what it is that god actually creates. They say god created the Universe, but then science says that the Universe comes from the Big Bang, so they say god created the big bang, but then science says that matter/energy comes from nothing via quantum fluctuations so they say god created the conditions of quantum fluctuations. There is no level of effort on the theists, they just keep differing scientific advancement, without having to give any detail of what it is that a creator god did.

My thoughts exactly. You hardly ever come across a theist who says that this universe was created, but by something that was itself created? No, it's much simpler and easier to believe that infinite regress doesn't go beyond whatever came before us, even though it's just as plausible as the hypothesis they give for an intelligence creating our existence. There's no proof for either, just interpretations and paradigms. 

Path of least mental resistance: thinking about infinite regress is uncomfortable so god becomes a logical argument that doesn't seem so absurd to them.  Also is a great way to cease questions on where god might have come from, and if god exists and was created, then is he perfect? If he isn't perfect, then that complicates things for believers because then he ceases to be what they want him to be for their own psychological reasons (comfort blanket, sense of some control over the universe, sense of purpose, etc.)...

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Path of least mental resistance: thinking about infinite regress is uncomfortable so god becomes a logical argument that doesn't seem so absurd to them.  Also is a great way to cease questions on where god might have come from, and if god exists and was created, then is he perfect? If he isn't perfect, then that complicates things for believers because then he ceases to be what they want him to be for their own psychological reasons (comfort blanket, sense of some control over the universe, sense of purpose, etc.)...

If you have a universe that didn't have to be created, then why can't you have a God that didn't have to be created?  Works both ways.  You're not philosophically stuck with infinite regression whether you are an atheist or a theist.  Furthermore, "perfect" is a human standard that may not have any meaning when applied to God, any more than it would have meaning if applied to the universe. If God exists, he is what he is, just like the universe is what it is.

[Stevil]

If you have a universe that didn't have to be created, then why can't you have a God that didn't have to be created?  Works both ways.  You're not philosophically stuck with infinite regression whether you are an atheist or a theist.  Furthermore, "perfect" is a human standard that may not have any meaning when applied to God, any more than it would have meaning if applied to the universe. If God exists, he is what he is, just like the universe is what it is.

The problem with your god not being created and having been around before existence, is that people attribute that your god is intelligent and all knowing.
Without existence, where did your god get knowledge from? Without knowledge where did your god get intelligence from?

The scientific theory is how energy and matter comes from nothing. It is over simplifying to simply say the universe comes from nothing.
BTW It is possible that there are many, many universes throughout space. The conditions that created our Universe will likely have created many, many others, and being an ongoing condition, universes are being created all the time.
So science does not claim that our universe is eternal, or uncaused. The beginnings of our universe if we only go back to the start of the big bang (no doubt in my mind that there were many events prior to the big bang), shows us that the universe was incredibly simple, just made up of energy, possibly no particles, or only simple particles. No life, no intelligence, no knowledge.

[Tank]

Path of least mental resistance: thinking about infinite regress is uncomfortable so god becomes a logical argument that doesn't seem so absurd to them.  Also is a great way to cease questions on where god might have come from, and if god exists and was created, then is he perfect? If he isn't perfect, then that complicates things for believers because then he ceases to be what they want him to be for their own psychological reasons (comfort blanket, sense of some control over the universe, sense of purpose, etc.)...

If you have a universe that didn't have to be created, then why can't you have a God that didn't have to be created?  Works both ways.  You're not philosophically stuck with infinite regression whether you are an atheist or a theist.  Furthermore, "perfect" is a human standard that may not have any meaning when applied to God, any more than it would have meaning if applied to the universe. If God exists, he is what he is, just like the universe is what it is.

God = infinitly complex
Universe = initial conditions remarkably simple

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Universe = initial conditions remarkably simple

I don't think you can say that. Are you saying quantum theory is remarkably simple?  We don't even know how it all works yet.  How the laws of physics operated together to give rise to a universe seems to me to be a thing of infinite complexity.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The problem with your god not being created and having been around before existence, is that people attribute that your god is intelligent and all knowing.
Without existence, where did your god get knowledge from? Without knowledge where did your god get intelligence from?

I see nothing that would prevent knowledge and intelligence from being the fundamental conditions from which this highly complex universe arose. The laws of nature that we observe today are infinitely complex, yet they have existed from the beginning. The universe came into being already infintely complex. I think it would not take much of a leap to theorize that the nature of the universe arose from a priori knowledge and intelligence, giving rise to the complex universe that we see today in which conscious, intelligent life is capable of evolving.

[Tank]

Universe = initial conditions remarkably simple

I don't think you can say that. Are you saying quantum theory is remarkably simple?  We don't even know how it all works yet.  How the laws of physics operated together to give rise to a universe seems to me to be a thing of infinite complexity.

The start conditions of this universe were very simple, basically a load of hyper-hot particles and energy. Almost infinitly simpler than an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The start conditions of this universe were very simple, basically a load of hyper-hot particles and energy. Almost infinitly simpler than an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity.

I'll make one more post, then you get the last word. There was a lot more than just hyper-hot particles and energy. There were laws of physics and quantum realities that, in very complex fashion, led to rapidly expanding space/time and self-organization, ultimately leading to conscious life. Gravity, the strong & weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, multiple dimensions. How can you call this simple?

[Asmodean]

Nothing can stop you from describing faith in God as a personal fantasy,

True, because until demonstrated otherwise, a fantasy it is.

and nothing can stop you from deciding to limit reality to those things that you can repeatably test.

No, there are also things we have not thought of yet out there. And some we have thought of but failed to explain. Flying unicorns, however..? Not on this planet, no.

But there are others who have different experiences than you do, and who have concluded that those personal experiences point toward another aspect of reality that folks such as yourself reject a priori.

I believe that there is what Tank called "living in a fantasy" - or something similar.

Their attributing of personal and highly subjective experiences to your particular variety of "other aspect" points more towards crappy imagination, mediocre-at-best education and/or intelligence and a tendency to jump to very weak conclusions, quite possibly in an attempt not to overstrain that little gray lump between their ears.

I see no need to reject science or the empirical findings of those who work in the realm of objective, repeatable testing of hypotheses.

Which means you are wiser than many.

But I also see no need to reject other sources of information about reality that are not subject to the scientific method, and that may lead to faith as opposed to knowledge. Our difference is epistemological.

Knowledge is power. Faith is a dog collar.

[Tank]

The start conditions of this universe were very simple, basically a load of hyper-hot particles and energy. Almost infinitly simpler than an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity.

I'll make one more post, then you get the last word. There was a lot more than just hyper-hot particles and energy. There were laws of physics and quantum realities that, in very complex fashion, led to rapidly expanding space/time and self-organization, ultimately leading to conscious life. Gravity, the strong & weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, multiple dimensions. How can you call this simple?

It is simple when compared to the conjecture of the existance of an entity capable of creating said conditions and in full knowledge of how things would come out in the end. There is also no confirmed evidence for additional dimensions beyond the 4 we can currently percieve. It is also expected that when the Standard Model is 'fixed' the resulting model will be simpler than it is now.

[Stevil]

...and in full knowledge of how things would come out in the end.

This bit is key to me. If the god entity already knows the result then nothing was learned, nothing achieved, just an incredibly boring 14 billion years worth of events that it knew would happen. There would be absolutely no point or purpose for an all powerful, all knowing, perfect god to create existence.

There is also no confirmed evidence for additional dimensions beyond the 4 we can currently percieve.

I assume you are including time as the forth dimension. Yeah, I don't think there are more dimensions than this, for this reason I am highly skeptical of string theory with its insistence on 11 dimensions and a 1 dimensional vibrating string.

It is also expected that when the Standard Model is 'fixed' the resulting model will be simpler than it is now.

With regards to the laws of physics, these aren't really laws. People have made mathematical models based on observations of reality and called these laws because they expect everything to behave consistent to these models.
But the cosmos does not know about these laws, it does not obey through fear of breaking a law. These are natural characteristics/attributes of reality, they aren't rules or laws. I think many people often get confused with semantics, this is why acceptance of symbolism is often a human trait.

[Tank]

It is also expected that when the Standard Model is 'fixed' the resulting model will be simpler than it is now.

With regards to the laws of physics, these aren't really laws. People have made mathematical models based on observations of reality and called these laws because they expect everything to behave consistent to these models.
But the cosmos does not know about these laws, it does not obey through fear of breaking a law. These are natural characteristics/attributes of reality, they aren't rules or laws. I think many people often get confused with semantics, this is why acceptance of symbolism is often a human trait.

That's why it's called a 'Model' 

[Stevil]

It is also expected that when the Standard Model is 'fixed' the resulting model will be simpler than it is now.

With regards to the laws of physics, these aren't really laws. People have made mathematical models based on observations of reality and called these laws because they expect everything to behave consistent to these models.
But the cosmos does not know about these laws, it does not obey through fear of breaking a law. These are natural characteristics/attributes of reality, they aren't rules or laws. I think many people often get confused with semantics, this is why acceptance of symbolism is often a human trait.

That's why it's called a 'Model' 

Yes, probably a bit confussing since I didn't quote Ecurb's post, I was responding to Ecurbs reference of laws, but was using your post as I agreed with it and thought it went along with the same correct theme of modelling.

[xSilverPhinx]

Path of least mental resistance: thinking about infinite regress is uncomfortable so god becomes a logical argument that doesn't seem so absurd to them.  Also is a great way to cease questions on where god might have come from, and if god exists and was created, then is he perfect? If he isn't perfect, then that complicates things for believers because then he ceases to be what they want him to be for their own psychological reasons (comfort blanket, sense of some control over the universe, sense of purpose, etc.)...

If you have a universe that didn't have to be created, then why can't you have a God that didn't have to be created?  Works both ways.  You're not philosophically stuck with infinite regression whether you are an atheist or a theist.  Furthermore, "perfect" is a human standard that may not have any meaning when applied to God, any more than it would have meaning if applied to the universe. If God exists, he is what he is, just like the universe is what it is.

As an atheist, I would ask, why even posit the existence of a god that wasn't created in the first place? Until further evidence comes along, I would stick with saying that the universe, which I know exists, was always there is some form.

Also, about infinite regress, people who believe that some being created our existence generally assume that it itself wasn't created. You hardly ever come across someone who says that whatever created us was also created.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'perfect'...what I meant was god being something other than what people want him to be. We could be to god as ants are to us, but people don't ever want to believe that. Theists want to believe in something that cares about them.