A question for atheists and agnostics

[Nihilismus]

This is precisely why Leibniz concluded there must be God; not only can the human mind not fully comprehend utter absurdity, it cannot accept it. He posits that the knowledge of objective meaninglessness would make life too difficult to bear. God is a way to relieve oneself of the anxiety provoked by an absurd universe.

 

[MaxP]

Now supposing that immortal angels exist, just for the sake of our experiment, do you think that this angel can be telling the truth? The question the thought experiment raises is this: if the universe were infinitely old - or, if you prefer, there is an infinite regress of causes - how is it that we come to arrive at now? Does this thought experiment demonstrate that infinite regresses and infinite age are absurd?

I've heard this argument before(for the existence of God), and must say it is a logical fallacy.
Infinity is not an actual number, but a concept - and an abstract one. As such, it cannot be concretely realized, at least in the bounds of time as we experience it(I believe also time is a creation, and there was not time at one point, and will not be time at some point in the future).
But also, if there is nothing without beginning and end, at one time nothing would have existed. If so, nothing would still exist.

 

[Braunwyn]

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

This is just a guess, but probably for the same reasons you don't believe, or fail to understand the plausibility of existance of fairies or leprechauns.

 

[MaxP]

Origin. Nothing is provable, though I must admit I feel science has the upper hand as far as that goes.

I have never really been certain as to what science teaches on origin.
I personally believe origin to be more a matter of philosophy then science.

Why would I have to conclude that?

Why would a rational God create a thing if He did not want be known by it?

No and not really. I don't care to try to pretend to understand things that are really not understandable.

That's fair. I would contend though, that while origin is indeed beyond absolute comprehension, it can be explained.
I also believe knowing from whence existence came is worthy of care because it would help us to discern the purpose of existence.

 

[Skaloop]

That's true, he does. I'm not sure how coherent such an explanation can be, however.

There are many forms of this thought experiment, but here is my favourite:

Suppose you go into a coffee shop, and as you are sitting down with your Fair Trade mocha, you notice an old man in the corner, quietly counting backwards. As you sit down, he says, "73, 72, 71..." and you continue to surreptitiously listen, slurping your coffee, until he says, "3, 2, 1," and sits back with an air of great satisfaction.

Burning with curiosity, you lean over, and ask him, "Why were you counting just now?"

"I am an angel," he replies, "and I have been counting backwards from infinity since the beginning of time."

"And you've just got to zero?" you ask.

"That's right," he says, and getting up, he heads over to the newspaper rack and selects a copy of The Guardian.
​

Now supposing that immortal angels exist, just for the sake of our experiment, do you think that this angel can be telling the truth? The question the thought experiment raises is this: if the universe were infinitely old - or, if you prefer, there is an infinite regress of causes - how is it that we come to arrive at now? Does this thought experiment demonstrate that infinite regresses and infinite age are absurd?

Something can have a beginning and still be infinite.

 

[MaxP]

This is just a guess, but probably for the same reasons you don't believe, or fail to understand the plausibility of existance of fairies or leprechauns.

This is thrown around a lot, but just going off of the responses in this thread, even atheists and agnostics would not argue that God is an unreasonable conclusion.

 

[MaxP]

I need some clarification: What is a "rational being"? What is a "logical being"? Must examples of those two categories always be rational or logical?

A rational and logical being, I suppose the only current example on this planet are humans. And rather than being objectively rational or logical, I suppose the definition of the beings implied is the ability to use logic and reason.

 

[MaxP]

It is not lack of desire so much as lack of relevance.

But knowledge of whence existence came would help explain to where existence is headed, or its purpose.

 

[MaxP]

No, I'm saying that the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" argument only proves, at most, the existence of a creating being whose existence is necessary.

You are welcome to make further arguments for other proposed qualities, but she will not get them solely via that form of the cosmological argument.

You are being completely fair.
But how would a Being from which existence springs not be able to possess the qualities already possessed by Its creation?

From the Big Bang to now, I see no need to posit the existence of God. After the Big Bang, everything is explained or conceivably explicable.

Of course not, by the virtue of the universe being so rational and ordered I would contend it implies that God would be a rational and ordered being. So, we can explain the universe because God created it rationally.

The reason that the cosmological argument is more effective than most is that it talks about something which is outside the realms of our experience, and, further, outside of the scientific discipline (at least as we understand it today). As soon as you get the creation or beginning event out of the way, science can get going with explanations.

As is much of the object of philosophy.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

I have never really been certain as to what science teaches on origin.
I personally believe origin to be more a matter of philosophy then science.

OK.

Why would a rational God create a thing if He did not want be known by it?

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...

That's fair. I would contend though, that while origin is indeed beyond absolute comprehension, it can be explained.
I also believe knowing from whence existence came is worthy of care because it would help us to discern the purpose of existence.

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

 

[Nihilismus]

But knowledge of whence existence came would help explain to where existence is headed, or its purpose.

And you have this knowledge, do you?

This is thrown around a lot, but just going off of the responses in this thread, even atheists and agnostics would not argue that God is an unreasonable conclusion.

I would argue that your God is an unreasonable conclusion.

 

[quatona]

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

Which god? What do you mean - "god"?
Give a proper definition so I know what exactly I am supposed to determine to not exist or to be unknowable.

(Example: A god concept that requires faith deals with an unknowable god by definition.)

 

[Braunwyn]

This is thrown around a lot, but just going off of the responses in this thread, even atheists and agnostics would not argue that God is an unreasonable conclusion.

It's probably thrown around a lot because that's how some view it. I do at least. I haven't read the thread but the latter part of your statement has me confused. Nothing is more unreasonable that a personal monotheistic deity from where I sit.

 

[quatona]

Fair enough, but as a follow-up(I don't intend to smack you with the Bible, but have a discussion based on reason) what is your theory as to metaphysics, ie, why there is something and not nothing(for all who have replied and will)?

I have no idea how this quesstion makes any sense nor what a satisfactory answer could look like. In particular, I don´t seem to understand how "god" helps explaining why there´s something and not nothing.

 

[quatona]

This is thrown around a lot, but just going off of the responses in this thread, even atheists and agnostics would not argue that God is an unreasonable conclusion.

That pretty much depends on the god concept in question, as well as on the reasoning that is presented.
Don´t expect me to define your terms for you.

 

[MaxP]

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...

Why would we be a science project for a Being that would inherently know the result of the experiment, by virtue of being omnipowerful(by virtue of It creating existence).

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

I am not asking you too, just trying to discuss views on the origin of existence.

I would argue for God thusly -
Everything in existence is moved by another thing.This process, however, cannot be infinite; there has to be a first mover. Because everything moved is a sort of instrument of the first Mover. Therefore, if there is no first Mover, then all things that move will be instruments. In an infinite series of moves, there is not first mover. In that case, these infinite mover and things will all be instruments. But instruments cannot be moved without a principal mover. It's like a saw cutting a piece of wood by itself. There must be a first mover above all the rest; this being we call God.

 

[MaxP]

I have no idea how this quesstion makes any sense nor what a satisfactory answer could look like. In particular, I don´t seem to understand how "god" helps explaining why there´s something and not nothing.

Everything in existence is moved by another thing.This process, however, cannot be infinite; there has to be a first mover. Because everything moved is a sort of instrument of the first Mover. Therefore, if there is no first Mover, then all things that move will be instruments. In an infinite series of moves, there is not first mover. In that case, these infinite mover and things will all be instruments. But instruments cannot be moved without a principal mover. It's like a saw cutting a piece of wood by itself. There must be a first mover above all the rest; this being we call God.

 

[MaxP]

And you have this knowledge, do you?

I have not made that assertion, have I?

I would argue that your God is an unreasonable conclusion.

I invite you to do so.

 

[MaxP]

It's probably thrown around a lot because that's how some view it. I do at least. I haven't read the thread but the latter part of your statement has me confused. Nothing is more unreasonable that a personal monotheistic deity from where I sit.

Not true, I have said this in response to two others but I present it again -
Everything in existence is moved by another thing.This process, however, cannot be infinite; there has to be a first mover. Because everything moved is a sort of instrument of the first Mover. Therefore, if there is no first Mover, then all things that move will be instruments. In an infinite series of moves, there is not first mover. In that case, these infinite mover and things will all be instruments. But instruments cannot be moved without a principal mover. It's like a saw cutting a piece of wood by itself. There must be a first mover above all the rest; this being we call God.


Now, to argue as to the nature of God is a different thing from arguing as to Its existence.

 

[quatona]

Everything in existence is moved by another thing.

Says who?
But, ok, let´s take this assertion for a premise for the sake of the argument.

This process, however, cannot be infinite;

Why not?

there has to be a first mover.

Except that this assumption violates your own premise.

Because everything moved is a sort of instrument of the first Mover. Therefore, if there is no first Mover, then all things that move will be instruments. In an infinite series of moves, there is not first mover. In that case, these infinite mover and things will all be instruments. But instruments cannot be moved without a principal mover. It's like a saw cutting a piece of wood by itself. There must be a first mover above all the rest; this being we call God.

You start from the premise that everything in existence needs to be moved by something else, and your conclusion is that there must be something that isn´t moved by something else.
If we start from your conclusion that there can/must be something unmoved, your entire reasoning lacks any basis.

Interestingly the only valid conclusion from your premise is that the first mover is not in existence (because everything in existence needs a mover).