A question for atheists and agnostics

[Tinker Grey]

It is not contrary to develop theories as to why and ascribe to the one we deem most likely.

It seems to me that line of thinking in this thread from your end is that "because I cannot imagine how we might be, there must be a god."

A theist's view seems to be: I don't know. I don't like not knowing. I posit God.

A non-theist's view (from my perspective) is: I don't know. I don't like not knowing. So, I'm looking.

For reasons others have stated in this thread, all proofs I've run across and seen argued have fallen flat in the face of that argument.

If there is a god, the universe it has made includes the seeming fact that it (god) is unknowable. If such a god made the universe such that god is unknowable, then at minimum there is no reason to act as if there is a god.

As it is, there is no evidence of a god. Therefore there is no reason to act as if there is. We exist as a consequence of natural laws. That we don't know where the natural laws come from is no reason to posit a god; nor is positing a god a good reason to stop looking for where they come from.

How exactly does a series of consequences create with design and complexity?

I am not a scientist so I'm sure whatever I say will be lacking in precision. But, one might simply consider the fusion process in the sun. Thru the natural laws of the universe the sun exists. It is a giant ball of hydrogen that fuses that hydrogen until helium giving off heat (through which all processes on earth get 99.99~% of the energy to persist).

In short, H to He is an increase in complexity. Books on evolutionary process explain how single celled life can become multi-cellular. IINM, the process has been demonstrated in the lab.

 

[Nathan45]

Hey Nathan,
interesting post, but I´d like to stay focussed for the time being if you don´t mind.
The OP asked why someone would say that the existence of god is unknowable. I gave a couple of reasons, and in response to them you explain how the arguments presented for the existence of god are based on the unknowable and impossible to answer.

lol, I thought we went over this, the existence of God is not unknowable if you define him as your computer monitor, didn't you say?

As for being offtopic... this whole post/forum is offtopic. I wonder how long till they close this place down like they closed General Apologetics

 

[pantless rationalist]

how does defining natural as "is caused by something" pre-suppose the existance of something unnatural, other than that it follows from the premise?

By saying that anything natural must have a cause, you preclude the possibility that there was a natural cause. Since cause and effect has no bearing on the definition of what is natural, this addition is unnecessary and restrictive. It defines the natural world in a way which might not be true.

 

[pantless rationalist]

Well, my point stands that there still have to be something to move matter and energy, even if they were to everlasting.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for. Gravity is a property of mass (which matter has), and would be sufficient to "move", if that's what you mean.

 

[Nathan45]

By saying that anything natural must have a cause

i'm not saying that anything natural must have a cause, i'm just redefining the word natural.

Since cause and effect has no bearing on the definition of what is natural, this addition is unnecessary and restrictive.

It does on my definition of natural. Would you prefer I used a different word?

IIt defines the natural world in a way which might not be true.

There's nothing "true" about semantics, it's all arbitrary. Words mean whatever you define them as.

...

anyway i'll rephrase without using the word natural:



All things that exists are either caused or uncaused.

Any Cause itself must be either caused or uncaused.

Therefore, there must be an infinite chain of causes or something uncaused causing things, which I call the uncaused cause.

Thus, we can presume the existence of either an uncaused cause or an infinite regress.

 

[TheBear]

What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?

I started with the anthropomorphic god of the bible, and worked my way back.

Other than philosophical semantics and weak theoretical arguments, there really is no objective evidence for a god. If there was, it would be falsifiable.

So, my question to you is - What, if found, would falsify the god theory?


(I almost forgot my manners.) Welcome to the forum!

 

[TeddyKGB]

I am not at all familiar with quantum physics, so enlighten me.

Virtual particles are consequences of Heisenbergain uncertainty. They are implicated in nuclear binding (virtual gluons and bosons), the Coulumb force (photons), the Casimir effect (photons), and radio-decay (photons). More detail I can not give; I am a biology guy. Try this for an accessible overview.

 

[MaxP]

It seems to me that line of thinking in this thread from your end is that "because I cannot imagine how we might be, there must be a god."

A theist's view seems to be: I don't know. I don't like not knowing. I posit God.

A non-theist's view (from my perspective) is: I don't know. I don't like not knowing. So, I'm looking.

That is not a theist's view at all.
A theist's view is: I don't know for sure. God is a reasonable conclusion that I have found from my looking.

For reasons others have stated in this thread, all proofs I've run across and seen argued have fallen flat in the face of that argument.

If there is a god, the universe it has made includes the seeming fact that it (god) is unknowable. If such a god made the universe such that god is unknowable, then at minimum there is no reason to act as if there is a god.

As it is, there is no evidence of a god. Therefore there is no reason to act as if there is. We exist as a consequence of natural laws. That we don't know where the natural laws come from is no reason to posit a god; nor is positing a god a good reason to stop looking for where they come from.

No empirical evidence, sure, but what I posit is that God is a no less reasonable conclusion than a non theists view.

 

[MaxP]

I started with the anthropomorphic god of the bible, and worked my way back.

Other than philosophical semantics and weak theoretical arguments, there really is no objective evidence for a god. If there was, it would be falsifiable.

So, my question to you is - What, if found, would falsify the god theory?

Empirical proof that something can come from absolutely nothing.
The whole reason God exists(or is theorized to exist, if you will) is because it makes no logical sense that something can spring from nothing, and the fact that there is no evidence things in this world last forever.
Given that this is pretty much impossible to prove or disprove(but can be reasonably argued against), I don't think the evidence will be forthcoming.
Like I stated, I believe origin discussion is more in the realm of philiosophy then science.

My purpose in this thread is not to prove you all wrong, as you might think, but to prove that God is not a completely unreasonable conclusion as some might be led to believe.

(I almost forgot my manners.) Welcome to the forum!

Thanks!

 

[b&wpac4]

Empirical proof that something can come from absolutely nothing.
The whole reason God exists(or is theorized to exist, if you will) is because it makes no logical sense that something can spring from nothing, and the fact that there is no evidence things in this world last forever.
Given that this is pretty much impossible to prove or disprove(but can be reasonably argued against), I don't think the evidence will be forthcoming.
Like I stated, I believe origin discussion is more in the realm of philiosophy then science.

My purpose in this thread is not to prove you all wrong, as you might think, but to prove that God is not a completely unreasonable conclusion as some might be led to believe.



Thanks!

Maybe I am stupid, but if something cannot come from nothing, how does God exist?

 

[Nathan45]

No empirical evidence, sure, but what I posit is that God is a no less reasonable conclusion than a non theists view.

Non theists don't have a view. they don't posit anything.

Let's say we're back in grade school taking a test. There's a blank line after a question, you have no idea what the answer is. You write "God" in the blank. Is that better than just leaving it blank?

I don't know, do you get points off for guessing wrong?

You say you have no empirical evidence for your God.
Good of you to admit that, i think we're done here. Although i'm still waiting for lesson two.

/thread

 

[MaxP]

Virtual particles are consequences of Heisenbergain uncertainty. They are implicated in nuclear binding (virtual gluons and bosons), the Coulumb force (photons), the Casimir effect (photons), and radio-decay (photons). More detail I can not give; I am a biology guy. Try this for an accessible overview.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the article states:

so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles)

Would that not still be one particle coming from another particle, then fading back out of existence? Would there, assuming this theory is true, not still be base from which the other particle originated, and then faded back into?

 

[threedog]

Deleted

 

[Garyzenuf]

Maybe I am stupid, but if something cannot come from nothing, how does God exist?

You're far from being stupid , and I LOVVVVE reading Christians answers to your question, thank you for asking it.

*

 

[Nathan45]

Maybe I am stupid, but if something cannot come from nothing, how does God exist?

"something cannot come from nothing" is the premise, not the conclusion. The premise is falsified by the conclusion unless you believe in infinite regress.

The whole point of the cosmological argument is to show that something did come from nothing, but nobody knows how or why.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That is not a theist's view at all.
A theist's view is: I don't know for sure. God is a reasonable conclusion that I have found from my looking.


No empirical evidence, sure, but what I posit is that God is a no less reasonable conclusion than a non theists view.

So,

A) You conclude there is a God from all your looking even if there is no empirical evidence.
B) You conclude that this is as reasonable a non-theists "I don't know."

I'm afraid I cannot agree.

 

[Garyzenuf]

The Bible is a good place to start.

threedog

Bad advice if you're asking people take it literaly, but of course I have no idea if thats what you're suggesting.

*

 

[threedog]

OK.


Lots of reasons. We're a science project, a biological/social experiment, it's simply not the way it was planned, etc... If God somehow has to reveal him/herself to us then why do it through a book instead of directly face-to-face? Why do it so cryptically? So many questions...

No, I don't think it can. And until it can, I don't intend to try to turn speculation into absolute truth.

A powerful conclusion...well done!

 

[b&wpac4]

"something cannot come from nothing" is the premise, not the conclusion. The premise is falsified by the conclusion unless you believe in infinite regress.

The whole point of the cosmological argument is to show that something did come from nothing, but nobody knows how or why.

Why does everything need a cause?

 

[SiderealExalt]

Why does everything need a cause?

From what I've heard of Stephen Hawkings that indeed might be a good question.