Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't take such heavy note on "beyond". Beyond in this context, would simply mean that you could not say that "existence" describes Gods essence, and hence, it is true to say that it does not exist.

It doesn't exist in the same way that my guilt (or innocence) doesn't exist. But I myself do exist, as does God.

Wait, that sounded awfully theistic of me...

But what you fail to see is that theists believe Gods essence is incomprehensible, inexhaustible, transcendent, and noncomposite, such that any human conceptualisation about Gods essence is, in fact, overly restricted no matter what.

I disagree. While most theists say that God is mostly ineffable, they don't say that we don't know anything about him. Christians, for instance, generally consider him to be merciful and just.

 

[david_x]

It doesn't exist in the same way that my guilt (or innocence) doesn't exist. But I myself do exist, as does God.

Wait, that sounded awfully theistic of me...


I disagree. While most theists say that God is mostly ineffable, they don't say that we don't know anything about him. Christians, for instance, generally consider him to be merciful and just.

You are theist, or at least you were right? Goddess of nature or something like that...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are theist, or at least you were right? Goddess of nature or something like that...

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking... but no, I'm not a theist. I was once Christian, then Wiccan, now an atheist.

 

[david_x]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking... but no, I'm not a theist. I was once Christian, then Wiccan, now an atheist.

I meant the Wiccan part, and that you were theist at some point as your very username suggests.

 

[Luddite]

I disagree. While most theists say that God is mostly ineffable, they don't say that we don't know anything about him. Christians, for instance, generally consider him to be merciful and just.

Again you fail to grasp the distinction. Mercy and justice are energies of God, not Gods essence apart from what he does; rather, his "essentia" in the Latin term, which means the "act of being", as opposed to the Greek "ousia", his essence in itself and independently of action. God exists in his energies/essentia; but his essence/ouisa in se is completely beyond any human categories.

Just like I, as a human, might send a signal to you with a flashlight from long away, and you can know my energies (what I do), but you cannot know what my essence is apart from what I do. It remains completely unknowable for you. You can only know my essentia; act of being. It is of course an imperfect metaphor because I am still a human like you, and not a transcendent being. But it gets my point across.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Again you fail to grasp the distinction. Mercy and justice are energies of God, not Gods essence apart from what he does; rather, his "essentia" in the Latin term, which means the "act of being", as opposed to the Greek "ousia", his essence in itself and independently of action. God exists in his energies/essentia; but his essence/ouisa in se is completely beyond any human categories.

Just like I, as a human, might send a signal to you with a flashlight from long away, and you can know my energies (what I do), but you cannot know what my essence is apart from what I do. It remains completely unknowable for you. You can only know my essentia; act of being. It is of course an imperfect metaphor because I am still a human like you, and not a transcendent being. But it gets my point across.

Being just and merciful are traits, not essences. One is just if one does certain things. To say God is merciful is to say he will act mercifully, not that he has a merciful essence.

And since we are only talking about God's existence, I don't see why the distinction between 'essences' and 'energies' is germane.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I meant the Wiccan part, and that you were theist at some point as your very username suggests.

Indeed I was.

 

[catzrfluffy]

How can something come from nothing? It doesn't make sense. If the universe has always existed, and will never end, that would make the universe ,or, more the forces holding it together, God, because then they would be immortal and eternal and invisible, if the universe had always existed. I thought it was expanding. Therefore, the universe must be created.

sorry, bad choice of phrase. what i was trying to get at was, either the universe has gone on forever, making it the creator, or it has not gone on forever, making it created.

 

[Luddite]

sorry, bad choice of phrase. what i was trying to get at was, either the universe has gone on forever, making it the creator, or it has not gone on forever, making it created.

No. The universe's temporal extension does not say anything about whether it's created or uncreated. What does is this: that it's temporal at all (which God is not).

But the universe's temporal extension into the past is finite, according to modern cosmology, the earliest point that we have evidence of and where it's meaningful to speak of time being the Big Bang, and from the cosmological constants decided at the big bang it's temporal extension into the future is also finite and will end (and some different scenarios have been proposed for how this will happen, like Big Crunch).

 

[catzrfluffy]

So the universe is finite. But God is infinite.
But He also exists in everything He created, so is He not also in time, as well as outside of it? Otherwise how could He speak to us, when His words would take up a certain amount of time, because if they took up forever, they would be unintelligible.
So He can't be entirely seperate from His creation, because He holds everything He made together, including time.
But back to the OP, there are certain coincidences, like the formation of the simplest lifeform, that to happen by coincidence would take astronomically longer to occur than the age of the earth and even than the age of the universe. If the no-law theory applies to the formation of the universe, what about these things which cannot happen within the time-frame that the universe has existed? Since laws then apply to them, how does one account for the formation of life?

 

[Krus]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking... but no, I'm not a theist. I was once Christian, then Wiccan, now an atheist.

Why did you become an atheist?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why did you become an atheist?

Short answer, because I no longer believed God or gods exist.
Long answer, my analysis of the claim that deities exist concluded that it was wholly without substantiation. Hence, I do not affirm that deities exist. Thus, I am an atheist.

 

[Blackmarch]

So hypotheses that are less sensible are equally valid?

I think not.

why not? Every once in a while something that seems nutty or counterintuitive does come along and does work out to some degree or another.

it's the theory that you can test that counts. One hypothesis is as good as another. IF you can't craft a testable theory from it then it dies (or remains just hypothesis).

And so far about the only solid thing we have on universe creation that we have is- that from what we can observe, the universe is expanding.

We're hoping to expand that base with the use of particle accelerators but I haven't heard if researchers have achieved or have gotten any results yet that would help them one way or another.

 

[DeathMagus]

why not? Every once in a while something that seems nutty or counterintuitive does come along and does work out to some degree or another.

it's the theory that you can test that counts. One hypothesis is as good as another. IF you can't craft a testable theory from it then it dies (or remains just hypothesis).

I generally gauge the sensibility of a hypothesis on its ability to be tested.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I generally gauge the sensibility of a hypothesis on its ability to be tested.

This proposition is not a hypothesis. It's an idea. A hypothesis is an educated guess. We don't even have that about what occurred in the time before the universe began. It's an idea, don't put too much importance on it.

 

[daniel777]

LOL, oh my gosh, my first visit to cf and ages, and this thread is "STILL" going. nice guys!...

how r u doing pb? i remember you. how's life treating you?

This proposition is not a hypothesis. It's an idea. A hypothesis is an educated guess. We don't even have that about what occurred in the time before the universe began. It's an idea, don't put too much importance on it.

so the idea isn't an "educated guess"; what kind of guess is it then? or did you just mean to say that the idea is not relative to science because of the lack of evidence? if the former, well, what kind of guess is it then? if the latter, what purpose do you personally draw from such an idea? why do you find it intriguing in other words?

 

[Blackmarch]

LOL, oh my gosh, my first visit to cf and ages, and this thread is "STILL" going. nice guys!...
...

you're welcome
And welcome back.

I generally gauge the sensibility of a hypothesis on its ability to be tested.

Fair enough.

We have different requirements for "valid" lol.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

LOL, oh my gosh, my first visit to cf and ages, and this thread is "STILL" going. nice guys!...

how r u doing pb? i remember you. how's life treating you?

Not bad, not bad.

so the idea isn't an "educated guess"; what kind of guess is it then?

Educated refers to having direct knowledge on the subject. I don't know what exact kind of guess you would call this. It's just a guess. The point of this thread was not to show that an atheist universe is probable, but to show that it is possible.

or did you just mean to say that the idea is not relative to science because of the lack of evidence?

That too.

if the latter, what purpose do you personally draw from such an idea? why do you find it intriguing in other words?

I dunno

I don't really draw purpose from the idea, I just thought it up and put it here.

 

[allhart]

What is faith? And how much more faith you atheists have in the unknown than I do in the Bible. All of life for you is open ended. The basic molecular building blocks to life in matter, bio and the universe has no beginning and no end..... Basic laws of pro's and con's show us a cause and a effect. I guess when you can't see the forest through the trees. You speculate, but what is this in the classroom where we can't discuss all possibility in theory? Not religion theory..... Unity, diversity makes for university! Where are the Independent thinkers.......?

 

[IzzyPop]

What is faith? And how much more faith you atheists have in the unknown than I do in the Bible.

Simple. I have no faith. In anything. The closest I can come is to predict future behavior based upon past performance. That's it.

All of life for you is open ended. The basic molecular building blocks to life in matter, bio and the universe has no beginning and no end..... Basic laws of pro's and con's show us a cause and a effect.

And?

I guess when you can't see the forest through the trees. You speculate, but what is this in the classroom where we can't discuss all possibility in theory?

Should we teach alchemy alongside chemistry? Maybe a couple units of astrology while we teach astronomy? If we bring God into evolution, don't we have to bring in other religious creation myths, as well?

Not religion theory..... Unity, diversity makes for university! Where are the Independent thinkers.......?

All over.