Happy Atheist Forum

I hope I remain alive to see the day evolution and natural selection is widely accepted as "the answer" for "where do we come from?" Scientist are always making new discoveries that support this, but people still fail to accept the truth. The amount of evidence that evolution and natural selection are facts is so much that I equate religious people to trying to block the sun with one finger.

I think we're almost there, but it's gonna take one last push to break this wide open. Like discovering life or evidence that life once existed in an other part of our solar system. Do you guys think this is our only chance? At this point I don't see how any other form of evidence could convince the rest of the world. I don't even know if life in space would be enough. These people are really stubborn.

I don't think evolution really answers where we came from, at least not in the sense of why the universe exists; which is God's last hiding place.  I think within our lifetimes we will find more and more religious people accepting evolution as many already do....but I don't think religion well ever dissapear due to scientific discoveries because those who believe can simply to continue pushing God further into the unknown.  God use to live up in the clouds now he lives outside of time.

What will it take to squash religion?

- A really big shoe.

Well I didn't mean where we come from in the first place. I was thinking more in the geological short term. Like that all the apes, including us, shared a common ancestor at some point in history. But let's say scientist one day find some microbes living in the ice caps of Mars. Do you think that would have big impact on religion?

Never underestimate the power of the devoutly religious to rationalize away any evidence no matter how overwhelming.

The continuing evolution of the human mind is all it takes. Also, the continued, mindless wars carried out in the name of god could help.

Quote from: "Brakefade"Well I didn't mean where we come from in the first place. I was thinking more in the geological short term. Like that all the apes, including us, shared a common ancestor at some point in history. But let's say scientist one day find some microbes living in the ice caps of Mars. Do you think that would have big impact on religion?

They already have an excuse for that...The Bible (or insert other religious text) is meant for humans and that is why it doesn't bother mentioning life that exists somewhere else.  Such a discovery may cause some people to leave their religion (such as those who think that if the Bible doesn't mention something so important that it must not be true...though, I'm not sure why aliens would be the last straw for them rather than all the other things it doesn't mention) but there are also religions where the existence of alien life would not conflict or even may support their religion (yes, there are alien  based religions).

If you look to Europe it is clear that religion is losing more and more ground everyday. Whether we can hope this trend can carry over to the US remains to be seen.

Aren't people without religion the largest gainers in recent census results?  So, hopefully, just more of the same?

I think that eventually most people will depart from religion.  But, I honestly find it hard to envision a future where religion is completely gone.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"God use to live up in the clouds now he lives outside of time.

Kudos - you "touch it with a needle"!  This sentence is dead-on (IMHO, of course  :wink:  ).

if we found extrateresrial life. i think that would crumble peoples thoughts sooooooo much.

laetusatheos, i thought your first post here was very good - that the possibility of God's existence will always be speculative, neither yes nor no. the more important question then is why is this the case. if God exists, why doesn't he show himself? dispel all doubt? what do you think?

If we can get religion seperated from politics then religion will become marginalised.  It has little relevence now; without a powerbase it will peter out all together.

It will take a little longer with the Muslims however.

Huxley: excellent point (religion & politics).  Agreed.

easytrak:

Quote from: "easytrak"if God exists, why doesn't he show himself? dispel all doubt? what do you think?

I know you directed this question to laetusatheos, but I'd like to point out a problem with the question.  You are asking to work within the framework of god existing, and then to speculate on why god doesn't show himself.  But, god is such an ill-defined concept.  What is god, anyway?  Without defining god, how can anyone answer this question?  And how can anyone define god; certainly not empirically since he doesn't show himself to be measured or studied.  So, isn't any definition just a guess, and a non-factual ill-informed guess at that?

Without the basic assumption that god exists, this problem becomes a whole lot easier.  God doesn't show himself (and dispel all doubt) because god isn't real  :wink:  .

Quote from: "easytrak"laetusatheos, i thought your first post here was very good - that the possibility of God's existence will always be speculative, neither yes nor no. the more important question then is why is this the case. if God exists, why doesn't he show himself? dispel all doubt? what do you think?

I think it is because she doesn't care about if we believe or not...or more likely is simply imaginary.

I think the idea of a deity emerged to provide strength to face a life where death is inevitable, hope when there appears to be none, and answers to currently unanswerable questions.  One day, probably not my life time, we will progress past the need to rely on stories for emotional support after realizing that all we really need is the support of each other.  Maybe people will also eventually realize that it is okay to say there are some things we don't know...right now they are okay to say that about god; why not just get rid of the gap filler and say the same of the universe.

nevertheless you can't say with absolute certainty that God IS NOT there, just as I cannot say with absolute certainty that God IS there.

yes, we could consider that people dreamt up God because they wanted to fill in the blanks. but there is more to it than that. the possibility of God's existence from an intellectual perspective is not difficult. what frightens people the most is perhaps the fact that they think that they will lose their freedom by believing in God.

A non-visible god is for me just as futile as a non-existing god, because both have the same effect on me (namely: none).

Quote from: "Brakefade"I hope I remain alive to see the day evolution and natural selection is widely accepted as "the answer" for "where do we come from?" Scientist are always making new discoveries that support this, but people still fail to accept the truth. The amount of evidence that evolution and natural selection are facts is so much that I equate religious people to trying to block the sun with one finger.

I think we're almost there, but it's gonna take one last push to break this wide open. Like discovering life or evidence that life once existed in an other part of our solar system. Do you guys think this is our only chance? At this point I don't see how any other form of evidence could convince the rest of the world. I don't even know if life in space would be enough. These people are really stubborn.

Conversely, what if it was intellegent design after all.  No, I don't mean a god doing all the dirty work, I'm talking aliens dude!   What if little green men from an advanced race genetically minipulated DNA and made a bunch of animals, some of them smarter than others and what if they're still out there screwing with us?  The discovery of another creator besides a god pretty much end religion.  

I know that statement begs the question, well who created the aliens, well maybe it was other aliens and other aliens created those aliens and so on.  Not much different from the god arguement except that the little green guys aren't holy or spiritual, they're just real smart.  Smart green guys probably won't be worshipped as god so I figure though we'll be left with the same questions we would have hammered those Christian Theists into oblivion.

tom62, why not go looking for God?

No matter what we learn, and what we know, there will always be people who fill in the yet unknown with god, a god, or little green men. And I really wish people would stop equating Big Bang Cosmology (or anything describing the "beginning" of the Universe) with Evolutionary Theory. Also, they don't belong in the same book, let alone chapter, verse, or sentence, for purposes of learning where "we" came from.

Quote from: "easytrak"tom62, why not go looking for God?

Been there, done that (got the T-Shirt  :lol:). I looked for him when I was young. Even as a child I quickly found out that the God of the Bible was nothing more than a very nasty, nitpicking, imaginary creature, with morals that were similar like that of the boogeyman or the evil giants from the fairytales. When I grew older I came to the conclusion that the whole concept of the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes that wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery is absolutely preposterous.

Would you consider the idea that there may be a creator that lives outside our universe that has its own set up laws that govern its own existence? Its existence may or may not be finite and that "God" may have its own creator. The god that created our universe or set it into motion may or may not have the ability to intervene in the universe's evolution. Science has pointed out that the laws of physics break down in a black hole and at the beginning of the universe, so maybe there is a different set of laws that allow other words outside of our universe. These laws might govern a creator. By saying that the universe has always existed with out a creator is the same argument that many religion folks use to describe the existence of God.

Hi jcm - I've indeed considered the idea of a creator that lives outside our universe. Although I find the idea very interesting, it is a bit too abstract  and philosophical  for me; and like similar creator ideas it is not based on any thread of evidence. From a logical point of view we cannot conclude that a different law of physics has anything to do with a creator that lives outside our universe. Making a creator more abstract creates problems for theists as well, because it becomes impossible for them to relate such an abstract creature with the deity they'd described in their "holy books".

Quote from: "Tom62"Hi jcm - I've indeed considered the idea of a creator that lives outside our universe. Although I find the idea very interesting, it is a bit too abstract  and philosophical  for me; and like similar creator ideas it is not based on any thread of evidence. From a logical point of view we cannot conclude that a different law of physics has anything to do with a creator that lives outside our universe. Making a creator more abstract creates problems for theists as well, because it becomes impossible for them to relate such an abstract creature with the deity they'd described in their "holy books".

Gotta agree with that... which is why I'm an Agnostic...

Quote from: "Tom62"Hi jcm - I've indeed considered the idea of a creator that lives outside our universe. Although I find the idea very interesting, it is a bit too abstract and philosophical for me; and like similar creator ideas it is not based on any thread of evidence.

Yup - you've hit the nail on the head with this one.  In point of fact, we have no knowledge of anything outside our universe.  If it's possible to exist outside the universe, then anything that does exist there is at best completely unknown.

Holy books are man made and I am not arguing for them. What I am saying is that we still do not know how the universe came to be. Most atheists believe that the universe was created by nothing or it has always been there. Where is the logic in that? How can something be without a creator? Wouldn’t all the particles in the universe need to be the product of some outside influence? The universe may very well be a curved surface with no edge, but logics tells me that the universe would need to be supported be something. It would need a corridor to expand into. Something else must have existed to create all the particles and forces in the universe. How do you go from absolutely nothing to trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of particles without a creator? For that creator to be worship and feared is different story.

Quote from: "jcm"Holy books are man made and I am not arguing for them. What I am saying is that we still do not know how the universe came to be. Most atheists believe that the universe was created by nothing or it has always been there. Where is the logic in that? How can something be without a creator? Wouldn’t all the particles in the universe need to be the product of some outside influence? The universe may very well be a curved surface with no edge, but logics tells me that the universe would need to be supported be something. It would need a corridor to expand into. Something else must have existed to create all the particles and forces in the universe. How do you go from absolutely nothing to trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of particles without a creator? For that creator to be worship and feared is different story.

jcm, the short answers to a couple of your questions and points:

Where is the logic in that? How can something be without a creator?  
 
To which type of logic are you referring? The mathematics and physics of the very very large and the very very small aren't intuitive or "logical" in the common sense of cause and effect or in many other ways. So do you really mean to say that it doesn't make sense to you? Or do you mean it isn't logical as in deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, inference, demonstration, etc.? The universe doesn't owe humans any explanation or need to make sense at all.

Wouldn’t all the particles in the universe need to be the product of some outside influence?  

No.

The universe may very well be a curved surface with no edge, but logics tells me that the universe would need to be supported be something. It would need a corridor to expand into. Something else must have existed to create all the particles and forces in the universe.

Nope. Doesn't need to be supported by anything. Didn't need a corridor or space to expand into either. The universe did not expand in to anything. That's one of the fundamental problems that people don't understand about cosmology. Part of it is due to having it taught via analogies such as the universe being represented by a balloon with dots all over it being inflated. As the balloon inflates, the dots on it move farther and farther apart, like galaxies within our universe. It's not a good analogy to use, at least when you go no further than using it and adding some more complex information to it. The balloon expands into existing space. The universe did not. It created space via its expansion.

How do you go from absolutely nothing to trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of particles without a creator?

You don't. You go from the change of energy to matter. And it doesn't require the services of a creator to necessarily happen.

OK, in a bit of a hurry so I'll leave it at that. Gotta go celebrate my wedding anniversary.

 

“The universe doesn't owe humans any explanation or need to make sense at all. “

Neither does god.

“Nope. Doesn't need to be supported by anything. Didn't need a corridor or space to expand into either. The universe did not expand in to anything. That's one of the fundamental problems that people don't understand about cosmology. Part of it is due to having it taught via analogies such as the universe being represented by a balloon with dots all over it being inflated. As the balloon inflates, the dots on it move farther and farther apart, like galaxies within our universe. It's not a good analogy to use, at least when you go no further than using it and adding some more complex information to it. The balloon expands into existing space. The universe did not. It created space via its expansion. “

Hmm, no the universe does need to be supported by something. Take MY word for it.

Yes the universe is a closed system that expands and contracts over time. So what. What is outside of it? Nothing? Ok then I guess there would be an infinite amount of time before nothing created everything. Oh that makes sense to me.  

“You don't. You go from the change of energy to matter. And it doesn't require the services of a creator to necessarily happen.”

I am talking about particles of energy. Waves and particles are interchangeable. What you are talking about is how the “stuff” in the universe changes. The production of the “stuff” would need to be created from an outside source.

BTW congrats

Quote from: "jcm"“The universe doesn't owe humans any explanation or need to make sense at all. “

Neither does god.

“Nope. Doesn't need to be supported by anything. Didn't need a corridor or space to expand into either. The universe did not expand in to anything. That's one of the fundamental problems that people don't understand about cosmology. Part of it is due to having it taught via analogies such as the universe being represented by a balloon with dots all over it being inflated. As the balloon inflates, the dots on it move farther and farther apart, like galaxies within our universe. It's not a good analogy to use, at least when you go no further than using it and adding some more complex information to it. The balloon expands into existing space. The universe did not. It created space via its expansion. “

Hmm, no the universe does need to be supported by something. Take MY word for it.

Yes the universe is a closed system that expands and contracts over time. So what. What is outside of it? Nothing? Ok then I guess there would be an infinite amount of time before nothing created everything. Oh that makes sense to me.  

“You don't. You go from the change of energy to matter. And it doesn't require the services of a creator to necessarily happen.”

I am talking about particles of energy. Waves and particles are interchangeable. What you are talking about is how the “stuff” in the universe changes. The production of the “stuff” would need to be created from an outside source.

BTW congrats

OK, your sarcasm is noted, but don't you think you are being unduly pedantic, jcm? This is a discussion forum and you initiated this current direction that it has taken by trying to bring up logic in the face of a theory that is counterintuitive. What is your point? Also, why is it that I should take your word for something? Present some facts. Tell us what your position or argument is. Let's get on the same page before we start jumping all around this subject. And try to keep the unnecessary sarcasm out of it.

Just like another recent new poster here, you have not done us the courtesy of an introduction. Maybe one is in order, so that we may know where you are coming from. It would certainly go far in eliminating confusion. While you're at it, feel free to look over the other introductions and see who all is here and what we think.

When you're finished, perhaps you can address the things I pointed out directly, without the sarcasm, and possibly with some scientific basis (since it is science that is at the heart of Big Bang Cosmology). Let's find some common ground upon which to start and see where it goes.

The Creationism argument is largely irrelevant to the existance of religion.  If it was proved 100% that evolution was fact with irrefutable evidence then religion would just evolve, the same way it did when we proved that the Earth was round rather than flat.  Genesis would be subtely changed over time:

1:14 And on the fourth geological era God created amino acids.  And he looked upon the amino acids and saw that they were good.  And he did say 'ya amino acids, go forth and combine to make proteins' and the amino acids went forth in the knowledge and love of God.

Religion exists because lots of people can't cope with the idea that this life is all there is.  Especially people who have a crappy life.  And like all commodities, if there is enough demand someone will step up and provide it, probably making a lot of profit in the process.  Religion isn't going anywhere until all the gullible people and all the people prepared to take advantage of gullible people are gone.  

And that isnt happening any time soon.

Quote from: "Piemaster"1:14 And on the fourth geological era God created amino acids.  And he looked upon the amino acids and saw that they were good.  And he did say 'ya amino acids, go forth and combine to make proteins' and the amino acids went forth in the knowledge and love of God.

Bahahahahahahaha!!!  :lol:

Quote from: "Piemaster"If it was proved 100% that evolution was fact with irrefutable evidence then religion would just evolve, the same way it did when we proved that the Earth was round rather than flat.

Ah - cheers!  :cheers:  A point very near and dear to my own heart.  I can't count the number of times I've likened the current evolution debate to the good old historical flat/round earth or heliocentric debates of the past.  And we know how those worked out  :wink:  .  Honestly, I think evolution is proved, beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, by irrefutable evidence.  I think most people who "don't believe evolution" are either just blind to the facts, suffering from misinformation, or confusing evolution with abiogenesis.  Not that I'm saying not to continue studying evolution - I can't think of a field that suffers when it's subjected to valid scientific skepticism.

McQ - solid points in the above discussion, especially:

Quote from: "McQ"The mathematics and physics of the very very large and the very very small aren't intuitive or "logical" in the common sense of cause and effect or in many other ways.

jcm - the problem with the "origin of existence" is that it is very hard to understand, and even very hard to think about.  It is counterintuitive.  It does not make normal sense by human standards because it is so exotically removed from our everyday experience.

One of the "crux" issues you are facing is "how did anything come to exist at all?".  I would propose the thought "why do you think there ever was a nothing?".  Point of fact - we have no evidence or knowledge suggesting that there ever was a nothing.  In fact, the limit of our knowledge and our physics currently (or so it seems to me) is the big bang singularity.

So, what was the "cause" of the singularity?  The word "cause" doesn't even make sense to me in this regard, so it's hard for me to even know what this question means.  But, let's go with it anyway - we are now beyond knowledge and into belief.  Did god do it?  Was it natural?  Is there physical existence "outside" the singularity?  This is all philosophical speculation.  So how do you choose between one explanation and another?  Well, presumably, we all have our reasons.  One thing that I (and most of the other atheists) have in common is that the reasons for believing "god did it" are unsatisfactory --- they seems insufficiently justified based on what we do know.  The god answer just doesn't seem likely to me - and it doesn't seem to be a complete answer - it raises as many questions as it allegedly answers.  For it to work a person requires faith.  And I don't have any faith  :wink:  .

Some more comments:

Quote from: "jcm"What is outside of it? Nothing?

I remember trying to puzzle this one out myself.  Here's my way of looking at it: what does "nothing" mean?  There is a big difference between nothing and empty space.  Nothing has come to me to mean that the statement "outside the universe" is meaningless - as in there is no "outside" to the universe.  What is inside a Klein bottle?  What is on the other side of a Mobius strip?  These, to me, are on par with asking "what's outside the universe", or "what happened before the big bang".

Quote from: "jcm"Most atheists believe that the universe was created by nothing or it has always been there. Where is the logic in that?

First off, I don't think "created by nothing" is logically possible.  But, why is god exempt from this same problem?  Was god created from nothing, or did he always exist?  If this doesn't bother your logic, why does applying this question to the universe bother your logic?  This is one thing about theistic thought, that there is a distinction here when it comes to god, that I just flat-out don't get.

I don't know if you will see the day religion (Christianity particularly) gets squashed like the fly on my monitor is about to be. (Ah... there... much better). But my best bet is that it will continue to evolve much like it has ever since the man Jesus died. I mean, it evolved to except the correct understanding of the moon. And last I checked 78 percent of evangelicals believe that the earth is round now even. Next Evolution, then the big bang? I don't know. Maybe.

Smart people, who were at birth snatched and taught (brainwashed?) by religious parents and societies, will learn to depend on God and Divine Path for security and immortality. So when the time comes when they realize that there is conclusive evidence that seemingly erases God from the whole shebang, they will find some new way to mix science and religion instead of putting the two at war within their mind and letting the more logical choice win.

They will find verses that will make Darwin seem alright.  They will use those verses and some big "God led me to believe" act to move their concept from being liberal Christian theology to conservative Christian theology in a matter of decades. (but I am sure they will find sciences other than biology and geology to disagree with by that time).

Mostly Christians will just continue to use John Calvin's famous "baby talk" quote on every scientifically proven fact that goes against the Bibles literal meaning.

But I am not saying that that is how it will happen. Maybe they will go against each other head on in till an obvious winner arises. Uniting and setting humanity on a definite track. So don't let my little rant keep you from oiling your guns.

Edit: I am sorry If I repeated anything anyone else has said. I was more intending to reply to the author than keep the conversation going. Sorry... late comers are such a pain huh?

It's going to be a long time before humankind outgrows religion. But I'm happy to be in the advanced group.

Quote from: "skeptigirl"It's going to be a long time before humankind outgrows religion. But I'm happy to be in the advanced group.

Exactly. Why don't we just let everyone evolve out of the need for "spiritual" comfort? We seemed to evolve into needing answers to things we couldn't understand. So thousands of conflicting mythologys were created. If the answers we created are false, then I suppose we will evolve right back out of them when they becomes useless and obviously false to everyone.

Maybe the religious people are so guilty, and have such low self esteem that they couldn't make it a day without believing God had a plan for them? Or maybe they just don't want to carry any weight? They want God to take the blame. Maybe they don't believe in themselves, like agnostics and atheists are forced to, so they create a God to believe in?

Almost makes ya feel sorry for the little guys...

Quote from: "SteveS"jcm - the problem with the "origin of existence" is that it is very hard to understand, and even very hard to think about.  It is counterintuitive.  It does not make normal sense by human standards because it is so exotically removed from our everyday experience.

That is the same argument for god. There is nothing counterintuitive about wondering what happened before the universe. I’m sorry that mathematics fall apart when dealing with that point, but that does not suggest that there is nothing beyond the measurable universe and that there is no creating force.  

Quote from: "SteveS"One of the "crux" issues you are facing is "how did anything come to exist at all?".  I would propose the thought "why do you think there ever was a nothing?".  Point of fact - we have no evidence or knowledge suggesting that there ever was a nothing.  In fact, the limit of our knowledge and our physics currently (or so it seems to me) is the big bang singularity.

Another argument for god. You have too much “faith” in science. The universe is finite, not infinite, so how can something that is finite in extent, be infinite? The universe is some 15 billion light years across. Well there is a lot more zeros that can be added to that figure. There is nothing south of the south pole, so with that analogy am I trying to say that there is nothing beyond the earth?

Quote from: "SteveS"First off, I don't think "created by nothing" is logically possible.  But, why is god exempt from this same problem?  Was god created from nothing, or did he always exist?  If this doesn't bother your logic, why does applying this question to the universe bother your logic?  This is one thing about theistic thought, that there is a distinction here when it comes to god, that I just flat-out don't get.

God and the universe are not exempt? I never said what created the universe has no creator. Everything is created. Don’t you want to know how the universe came in to existence? Don’t you want to dig deeper and not just accept that the universe has always been here with no creator? Shouldn’t you be open to the idea that science may be in its infancy at this point in human history? Science at one point believed that atoms were the smallest units of matter so maybe it is the limitations science that leads us to believe that there is no creator of the universe.

Quote from: "skeptigirl"It's going to be a long time before humankind outgrows religion. But I'm happy to be in the advanced group.

Me too! I loved that aspect of Arthur C. Clarke's "3001". No theology. I hope we don't have to wait 1000 years though.

jcm (I love your avatar by the way), a few things to continue this discussion,

Quote from: "jcm"That is the same argument for god. There is nothing counterintuitive about wondering what happened before the universe. I’m sorry that mathematics fall apart when dealing with that point, but that does not suggest that there is nothing beyond the measurable universe and that there is no creating force.

If it suggests anything at all, then what it does suggest is that we have no knowledge of an existence beyond the universe or of a creating force.  You are completely correct to say that it doesn't prove these things are impossible, but why believe in them without a reason to?  If all our knowledge falls apart, then all it means is that we have no knowledge.  We're shooting in the dark.  Sure, we can conceptualize a "creating force", but why believe it's real without any knowledge of it?

Quote from: "jcm"Another argument for god.

These are only arguments for god if you take god as the null hypothesis, which I can see no reason for doing.  Please see the bottom of my post for all these "arguments for god" response.

Quote from: "jcm"You have too much “faith” in science.

Fine, be that way - you have too much "faith" in god (blows raspberry)  :wink:  

Quote from: "jcm"There is nothing south of the south pole, so with that analogy am I trying to say that there is nothing beyond the earth?

Of course not, but consider what you've done with this statement.  You've taken one dimension and applied to a multi-dimensional answer.  In other words, there is something outside of the earth.  But there is still nothing south of the south pole.  To consider how this applies to the universe, wouldn't you have to take all the dimensions at once?

Quote from: "jcm"God and the universe are not exempt? I never said what created the universe has no creator. Everything is created.

Okay - you did not.  Which is interesting because it appears to me, personally, that the "ultimate origin" or whatever we want to call it, is currently a paradox.  If everyting is created, even god, then we end up with an infinite regress.  So, at some level, either something must be eternal, or something must arise from nothing.  I agree, neither answer seems very good.  So why jam god in there?  What does he solve?  That was my point in this section.  Used this way, god seems to be an irrelevant concept.

Quote from: "jcm"Don’t you want to know how the universe came in to existence? Don’t you want to dig deeper and not just accept that the universe has always been here with no creator? Shouldn’t you be open to the idea that science may be in its infancy at this point in human history?

To answer all your questions, "yes".  I don't propose halting all science because the answer we've got now are good enough for me.

Quote from: "jcm"Science at one point believed that atoms were the smallest units of matter so maybe it is the limitations science that leads us to believe that there is no creator of the universe.

Well, this is certainly possible.  But look - science has always had limitations.  There is nothing new about this.  One thing I think it's really hard for people to do is to realize that the mysteries that confront us now are fundamentally no different than the mysteries that have confronted us in the past.  In other words, they're equally mysterious.  How could ancient people understand lightning?  Could they even have conceptualized the answer?  What we're dealing with now is a different mystery, but it's the same from a human perspective.  We can't imagine the answer.

I propose to you that over history people have been quick to fill in these unknowns with gods.  Then, as the mysteries have been solved, these gods vanish and new gods are created.  And so on and so on.  My point is that gods are human ideas, created when we have a lack of knowledge.  They aren't proposed as solutions because of evidence, but rather because of lack of evidence.  So what's the chance these thoughts are correct?  Seems really, really minimal to me.

I'm not arguing that god is impossible, or has been demonstrated to be a false concept.  I am, however, arguing that the reason for believing in god is not factual, not empirical, not based on any evidence.  It is, if anything, what I regard as a flawed human thought process.  When we're stuck, we seem to invoke gods.

It seems to me that us trying to understand the origin of the universe (beyond the big bang), is like ancient people trying to understand the lightning.  They couldn't understand lightning, so they came up with a thunder god.  We can't understand the "cause of the big bang" (if there is/was such a thing), so we come up with a creator god.  What the heck is the difference?  In neither case is the idea of god arrived at from any evidence.

Since you felt that all my arguments about lack of knowledge constitute arguments in favor of god, do mind explaining to me why?  Is god really the null hypothesis?  If so, how did you determine that to be true?  Is there any evidence in favor of a god besides simple lack of knowledge?

Quote from: "SteveS"jcm (I love your avatar by the way)

Thanks…your avatar makes me hungry for steak and potatoes.

Quote from: " SteveS"Fine, be that way - you have too much "faith" in god (blows raspberry)  :wink:  

Now you have hurt my feelings…I don’t wanna play anymore.

Quote from: " SteveS"Of course not, but consider what you've done with this statement.  You've taken one dimension and applied to a multi-dimensional answer.  In other words, there is something outside of the earth.  But there is still nothing south of the south pole.  To consider how this applies to the universe, wouldn't you have to take all the dimensions at once?

2-shay…but I think what you are saying is that a four dimensional space-time is all that there is. This may be true, however would you consider that a four dimensional space-time may be only a part of a bigger equation? It is also too convenient that gravity is so weak and always attractive. The speed of light is also fixed. It seems a little too much like rules to me. If anything could exist, then why doesn’t anything exist? Why would there need to be rules and constants at all. Wouldn’t a force outside a closed system need to govern what is possible and what is not for it to even exist?

Quote from: " SteveS"Okay - you did not.  Which is interesting because it appears to me, personally, that the "ultimate origin" or whatever we want to call it, is currently a paradox.  If everyting is created, even god, then we end up with an infinite regress.  So, at some level, either something must be eternal, or something must arise from nothing.  I agree, neither answer seems very good.  So why jam god in there?  What does he solve?  That was my point in this section.  Used this way, god seems to be an irrelevant concept.

The chicken or the egg. Which one came first? Well I have the answer for you. It was the egg and the egg was not laid by a chicken. The egg was laid by some other animal. We could continue this idea backwards forever like you said, but who’s to say that our universe is even a large part of the equation. As insignificant as our planet is, our universe may be just as insignificant. And yes I have no evidence for this, but why do you think the universe just happened? It could just as easily been created.

Quote from: " SteveS"To answer all your questions, "yes".  I don't propose halting all science because the answer we've got now are good enough for me.

I never said to halt science at all. We should use science as a tool to confirm the existence of god.

Quote from: " SteveS"I propose to you that over history people have been quick to fill in these unknowns with gods.  Then, as the mysteries have been solved, these gods vanish and new gods are created.  And so on and so on.  My point is that gods are human ideas, created when we have a lack of knowledge.  They aren't proposed as solutions because of evidence, but rather because of lack of evidence.  So what's the chance these thoughts are correct?  Seems really, really minimal to me.

Have you ever seen a graviton? No? That term is used for something that can not be directly detected. Why is god exempt from this way of thinking? The universe exists and what ever is first cause we call god.

Quote from: " SteveS"I'm not arguing that god is impossible, or has been demonstrated to be a false concept.  I am, however, arguing that the reason for believing in god is not factual, not empirical, not based on any evidence.  It is, if anything, what I regard as a flawed human thought process.  When we're stuck, we seem to invoke gods.

The evidence is that we exist. What more do you want? What evidence do you have to the contrary?  

Quote from: " SteveS"Since you felt that all my arguments about lack of knowledge constitute arguments in favor of god, do mind explaining to me why?  Is god really the null hypothesis?  If so, how did you determine that to be true?  Is there any evidence in favor of a god besides simple lack of knowledge?

God is real your jerk  :lol:  Honestly, I enjoy talking about this stuff so much because it is truly the most important problem mankind has ever hoped to answer. Religion does not have all the answers and neither does science. As an agnostic, I believe that there is a chance that god may be real. I do not believe that either side is 100% correct. However, science may be able to come up with many more real answers over religion. One of the best quotes I have ever heard was by Carl Sagan: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." I believe that says a lot about who we are and what the universe has become through us. That being said, I am not convinced us simple humans will ever be able to grasp the complexity of what we truly are and where we came from. Sagan’s quote shows that there is no true self. We are simply a micro evolution of the universe. I believe the answer to where we came from will always be out of our reach, because we will never be able to see further than ourselves. However, if there is no god and no purpose, then one can dream can’t they?

Thanks for the response jcm.  My thoughts,

Quote from: "jcm"2-shay…but I think what you are saying is that a four dimensional space-time is all that there is. This may be true, however would you consider that a four dimensional space-time may be only a part of a bigger equation?

Yes, I would definitely consider this.  If the string theory guys are right, I think there's supposed to be 11 dimensions, and possibly an infinite number of universes.  But it seems that some of their conclusions are subject to some reasonable doubts right now, and this theory appears far from established.   But it is definitely worthy of consideration --- the other side of this is there are plenty of good reasons to believe string theory may be correct.

Quote from: "jcm"It is also too convenient that gravity is so weak and always attractive. The speed of light is also fixed. It seems a little too much like rules to me. If anything could exist, then why doesn’t anything exist? Why would there need to be rules and constants at all. Wouldn’t a force outside a closed system need to govern what is possible and what is not for it to even exist?

Eh, you call 'em rules, I call 'em natural law.  A lot of natural laws are the way they are for good reasons -- the nature of things constrains their properties and determines their behavior.

I can't make logical sense out of appealing to an outside force, though.  It seems to me like we end up with our infinite regress again --- wouldn't some force have to govern what the other force is doing?  Otherwise same question: if the "governing force" could have done anything, why didn't it do anything?

Ultimately, there is an excellent point in here, which is that to completely understand this problem we will need to find an explanation for exactly why things are the way they are (the constants of the universe, for example).

Quote from: "jcm"The chicken or the egg. Which one came first? Well I have the answer for you. It was the egg and the egg was not laid by a chicken. The egg was laid by some other animal. We could continue this idea backwards forever like you said, but who’s to say that our universe is even a large part of the equation. As insignificant as our planet is, our universe may be just as insignificant.

I don't know that our universe is a large part of the equation.  It would actually help understand a lot of cosmological puzzles if it weren't.  Again, if the string guys are right and there's an infinite number of universes, then ours is an immeasurably small part.  If they have different constants and laws of physics, we can explain our particular universe through the anthropic principle.  But at this time I don't find the evidence for an infinite number of universes to be terribly compelling (although I'm sure a string guy would take me to task for saying this).

Quote from: "jcm"And yes I have no evidence for this, but why do you think the universe just happened? It could just as easily been created.

I don't really think the universe "just happened".  All I claim is that I don't know why it's here if you go beyond the big bang.  Could it just as easily have been created?  I don't know, nothing within it appears to have been created.  So we don't seem to have any evidence so far of things being created, any more than we have of things "just happening".  If it could just as easily have been created, could it not just as easily be eternal - without a beginning?

Quote from: "jcm"I never said to halt science at all. We should use science as a tool to confirm the existence of god.

I know you didn't, I was being facetious.  As for using science to find god, I agree that if there is a god I think science should eventually be able to determine that.  That puts the two of us in a serious minority --- the vast majority of people are theists, and the vast majority of theists define god as "outside of science".

Quote from: "jcm"Have you ever seen a graviton? No? That term is used for something that can not be directly detected. Why is god exempt from this way of thinking?

I think gravitons are still considered hypothetical, and are used as a "modeling" concept right now --- I think they are steeped in controversy.  But putting that aside for now, the idea of a graviton has a very specific meaning, and a very precise definition.  If we can infer the presence of a graviton without directly observing it, we can do so because of non-ambiguous effects that are observable.  Contrast this with the idea of god --- what are the specific properties of god?  What effects are unambiguously caused by god?  Nobody knows, nobody agrees.  That is why I think god is exempt from this way of thinking.

Quote from: "jcm"The universe exists and what ever is first cause we call god.

Thank you Mr. Aquinas  :wink:  But, why not just call it "first cause"?  If god is the first cause, is the first cause god?  Or is god more than just the first cause?  How can anyone claim to have an answer to this question?

Quote from: "jcm"The evidence is that we exist. What more do you want? What evidence do you have to the contrary?

I don't understand why existence, in and of itself, constitutes evidence of a god.  That would only seem to make sense if you define god as existence.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking me with the "evidence to the contrary" bit; are you asking me what evidence I have that there is not a god?  If so, I also don't claim to have any evidence that god does not exist.  What I do claim to have is no evidence that he/she/it does.  So I'm stuck with a puzzle -- there seems to be no evidence of a god, but people believe there is a god.  Examining their reasons, I find them unfounded and unconvincing.

If this is what you were asking, this line of thought is treading very close to claiming that I must prove god doesn't exist in order to not believe in him/her/it.  But, then you would have to do the same for every type of god you don't believe in.  Believing an idea solely on the grounds that the idea cannot be shown to be false opens us up to all sorts of ridiculous things that we must then take seriously, like the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn - I have no evidence that they don't exist either.

Quote from: "jcm"God is real your jerk  :lol:  Honestly, I enjoy talking about this stuff so much because it is truly the most important problem mankind has ever hoped to answer. Religion does not have all the answers and neither does science. As an agnostic, I believe that there is a chance that god may be real. I do not believe that either side is 100% correct. However, science may be able to come up with many more real answers over religion. One of the best quotes I have ever heard was by Carl Sagan: "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." I believe that says a lot about who we are and what the universe has become through us. That being said, I am not convinced us simple humans will ever be able to grasp the complexity of what we truly are and where we came from. Sagan’s quote shows that there is no true self. We are simply a micro evolution of the universe. I believe the answer to where we came from will always be out of our reach, because we will never be able to see further than ourselves.

This was a good paragraph (except for the 'jerk' part --- I stick my tongue out at you in retaliation    !).  I too love that Carl Sagan quote.  My problem is that while I think religion can claim credit for inspiring philosophical thought, I don't think it has any of the answers.

I term myself an "agnostic atheist", or "weak atheist", so I'm really saying I don't believe in god because I can't find a reason too -- I do not claim to "know" that god is not real.  I think there are plenty of god concepts that can be argued to be impossible (self contradictory or nonsensical), and I don't find it very likely that a religious-type god is real.  But something god-like?  Maybe - we just have no evidence for that right now, so how can I believe it?

I don't know if the answers will always be out of our reach, but I hope not!

Finally,

Quote from: "jcm"However, if there is no god and no purpose, then one can dream can’t they?

We get the ultimate opportunity --- we can choose our own purpose.  What could be better than that?  And of course you can dream.  Besides being a happy atheist, I also have a strong libertarian streak.  I'd say you can do whatever you want.  Cheers!

Quote from: "Brakefade"I hope I remain alive to see the day evolution and natural selection is widely accepted as "the answer" for "where do we come from?"

Evolution has been widely accepted by believers since before Darwin. Darwin himself was a believer, as are loads of evolutionary biologists now. Evolution does not discount creation.

It seems like the world is getting more religious and not less for some reason. During the enlightenment we were moving in the right direction, with freethinking becoming quite popular. Now it seems like there are more religious fundamentalists than ever. I wonder if it's because science is getting so specialized that people don't feel they have any connection to it unless they hold a doctorate. So they turn to something that thinks for them. I dunno.

Quote from: "rdm"Evolution has been widely accepted by believers since before Darwin

Really?

Quote from: "rdm"

Quote from: "Brakefade"I hope I remain alive to see the day evolution and natural selection is widely accepted as "the answer" for "where do we come from?"

Evolution has been widely accepted by believers since before Darwin. Darwin himself was a believer, as are loads of evolutionary biologists now. Evolution does not discount creation.

Please feel free to elaborate, with references.

To squash religion? Hmm... I think that if we could answer a) the definition of life b) how the universe started (e.g., point zero of time) and/or c) make sure that ALL schools teach people to be objective about everything they know.