What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Hans Blaster]

I think Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins would say randomness and entropy are the natural constant attributes of the universe. And to use an oxymoron, before the universe and time, there was something there, that may not have been random and subject to entropy, but that too is considered self existent and not a living thing, not intelligent.

Why would you ask either of them. Hawking is dead and Dawkins is a zoologist. Asking a zoologist about entropy is like asking a cosmologist about the anatomical differences between apes and lemurs.

The claim in between the names doesn't make any sense.

I think the universe is designed by God, with laws and a nature God chose and uses, to further create with, by His presence, you could say His hand in the amidst natural laws, the glove so to speak.

He does not break the laws of nature to create, and defy nature, but uses nature, like a glove or chisel.

(Oh, I see why now.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's not in our nature to accept/believe in the concept or idea of there being absolutely nothing, etc.

I'm not sure what our "nature" has to do with it. Science isn't claiming an absolute nothing, so if there is someone imagining the concept of "absolute nothing" it probably isn't us.

And I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in/accept that over the other "thing", etc, and I guess you could try pointing that out to them, etc.

What other "thing"? That there was a something perhaps always? Why does that take faith or the once there was nothing thing? Even better, what good is "faith" in this question to begin with. Faith is useless.

But even if they come to accept your rationality/view of it, then they will probably say that "It" cannot literally be Jesus Christ, and certainly not the God that is presented to us in the Old Testament of the Bible, and I would actually 100% agree with them on that one (or two) single point(s) actually, and have my own explanations for "it", etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I gotta go for now. Need some sleep before I can continue more, etc.

Gnite/Take Care/God Bless.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

The anti-theists I encountered are English and in with R Dawkins. They have something in common with each other. Cynical guys. The are scientists, logical positivists. Three quarters of them are atheists in the science forum. They believe in God if something about the question of the existence of the universe inspires them. The trend in the universe is entropy, giving a further trend of determining whether or not God exists by the sense of chance order for likeliness. Hawking said he did not believe there could be a god, because before the Universe there were no dimensions, no time to exist in.

These fellows even say and press others to agree, that Moses never existed and Jesus also, never existed. Of course they believe in evolution. And when trying to see things from their point of view you can stumble and they want you to doubt god exists... so I ask what to say for my and younger men's and ladies' benefit.

 

[BCP1928]

The anti-theists I encountered are English and in with R Dawkins. They have something in common with each other. Cynical guys. The are scientists, logical positivists. Three quarters of them are atheists in the science forum. They believe in God if something about the question of the existence of the universe inspires them. The trend in the universe is entropy, giving a further trend of determining whether or not God exists by the sense of chance order for likeliness. Hawking said he did not believe there could be a god, because before the Universe there were no dimensions, no time to exist in.

These fellows even say and press others to agree, that Moses never existed and Jesus also, never existed. Of course they believe in evolution. And when trying to see things from their point of view you can stumble and they want you to doubt god exists... so I ask what to say for my and younger men's and ladies' benefit.

Whether Moses and Jesus existed is a separate question from whether God exists ans well as from whether evolution is true.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Whether Moses and Jesus existed is a separate question from whether God exists ans well as from whether evolution is true.

With anti-theists, one follows the other in a corollary.

 

[Neogaia777]

The anti-theists I encountered are English and in with R Dawkins. They have something in common with each other. Cynical guys. The are scientists, logical positivists. Three quarters of them are atheists in the science forum. They believe in God if something about the question of the existence of the universe inspires them. The trend in the universe is entropy, giving a further trend of determining whether or not God exists by the sense of chance order for likeliness. Hawking said he did not believe there could be a god, because before the Universe there were no dimensions, no time to exist in.

These fellows even say and press others to agree, that Moses never existed and Jesus also, never existed. Of course they believe in evolution. And when trying to see things from their point of view you can stumble and they want you to doubt god exists... so I ask what to say for my and younger men's and ladies' benefit.

Almost everyone is undoubtedly biased by some thing or another, etc, and I would just ask them to closely examine those in their own lives and remove them when necessary, and try to view any and all subjects, 100% truly objectively, etc, as I think this has become a problem with almost anything (any subject) nowadays increasingly, and is why we have made a lot less forward progress than we maybe should have by/past this point right now, and is why we might even be regressing in that right now currently, etc.

And anyone can always ask me any kind of questions they want to or not, etc.

I can at least tell them how a God or gods or some religions/religious books, are still possible, etc.

Bias is always a very great source of very great error for any kind of subject, etc.

And pride is on the rise almost everywhere nowadays. Don't mean to just only pick on that one only, but it has been very much on the rise a lot nowadays, etc, to the point that I don't think we are going to have any more new Einstein's or anything like that anymore lately, etc.

God Bless.

 

[stevevw]

What do you say to anti-theists who say, the universe is self existent and all it's marvels exist by chance of themselves?

It is like the Egyptian sun disc concept, not seeing in full, and assuming it is flat.

There are ideas like the universe being self existent but dead.
The universe as having a soul.
The universe being god.
The universe being full of God.

If we go by the hsitorical record then science cannot really say that they have found the truth about fundemental reality and how the universe came into being.

We know 500 years ago it was wrong and updated again and again and this will contiinue. Occassionally there will be paradigm shifts as weith classical physics and quantum physics or as with Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis. Or with the BB and Inflation theory.

Now other theories like String Theory, Simulation hypothesis, The Holographic Universe, Plasma Universe, Multiverse theory, Eternal inflation, dark matter and dark energy, quantum gravity, modified gravity (MOG) ect ect.

Add tothis that recent discoveries such as from the JWT and in QM suggest theres something missing or even completely wrong from the Standard Model. So I think its a case of watch this space (no pun intended). As I think when it comes down to it science does not really know what 95% of the universe is made up of let alone be able to know how it came into being.

 

[BCP1928]

With anti-theists, one follows the other in a corollary.

Moses and Jesus could both have lived on the Earth even if there was no God, or they could just be storybook characters even if there was a God. Evolution could be true regardless. No, they're separate questions.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Moses and Jesus could both have lived on the Earth even if there was no God, or they could just be storybook characters even if there was a God. Evolution could be true regardless. No, they're separate questions.

How can you explain that to them?

 

[Neogaia777]

How can you explain that to them?

Tell them to look at it 100% truly objectively, and then decide for themselves, etc.

Also tell them that one thing about true objectivity, is that a lot of us think we have it, when we really don't, etc.

It often requires all of us to sacrifice things that we don't truly want to sacrifice, etc.

But it's not just them that I would say this to either, or also, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[BCP1928]

How can you explain that to them?

They know it already.

 

[Ophiolite]

As I think when it comes down to it science does not really know what 95% of the universe is made up of let alone be able to know how it came into being.

Your implication is that because science periodically updates its theories and hypotheses, that this is a "vortex of ignorance" which does not and cannot deliver a solid understanding of the world. There is a measure of truth in this in regard to the very large - cosmology - and the very small - quantum physics and the like, but it is not valid for the scales in between.

I take a specific example: our understanding of the minutae of the formation sedimentary rocks of great diversity, in equally diverse environments, from deposition, through diagenesis, has grown steadily more detailed and assured. The same can be found in practically all "human scale" sciences.

Thus, if I have correctly understood your implication, it is absolutely invalid at these "human scales".

Occassionally there will be paradigm shifts as weith classical physics and quantum physics or as with Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis.

I would like to see you justify the claim that the move from Darwinism to the Modern Synthesis was a Kuhnian paradigm shift.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moses and Jesus could both have lived on the Earth even if there was no God,

In name only.

 

[BCP1928]

In name only.

No, it's logically possible to conclude that they were real people without believing in God.

 

[Larniavc]

The anti-theists I encountered are English and in with R Dawkins. They have something in common with each other. Cynical guys. The are scientists, logical positivists. Three quarters of them are atheists in the science forum. They believe in God if something about the question of the existence of the universe inspires them. The trend in the universe is entropy, giving a further trend of determining whether or not God exists by the sense of chance order for likeliness. Hawking said he did not believe there could be a god, because before the Universe there were no dimensions, no time to exist in.

These fellows even say and press others to agree, that Moses never existed and Jesus also, never existed. Of course they believe in evolution. And when trying to see things from their point of view you can stumble and they want you to doubt god exists... so I ask what to say for my and younger men's and ladies' benefit.

You’ve got a great inside track onto what those people think. What makes you think that what you think other people think is accurate?

 

[David Lamb]

No, it's logically possible to conclude that they were real people without believing in God.

Real people, maybe, but not the people described in the bible. For instance, if there were no God, Jesus could not be the Son of God. If there were no God, Moses could not have been the one sent by God to speak to Pharaoh.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Hi, anti-theists think the universe exists by itself and that God doesn't exist.

I would use things that the athiest would respect and find credible. Try mentioning the laws of thermodynamics and the laws of conservation of mass and energy and have them reconcile that with their conclusion.

 

[Larniavc]

With anti-theists, one follows the other in a corollary.

Not true.

 

[Larniavc]

Almost everyone is undoubtedly biased by some thing or another, etc,

Glad you said almost! As I am the most least biased person you’ll ever meet.