A question for atheists and agnostics

[God-free]

I have no time to really get into this. I just want to throw this out there. Someone else has probably already said it in one way or another.
Re: free-will...

Maybe impossible to know for sure; but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?

This has always bugged me. If God wants us to believe he exists then why not just make his existence obvious? It wouldn't nullify our free-will in any way. We would still be free to decide whether or not to live our lives in a way that "serves Him".

~Barbara

 

[selfinflikted]

I have no time to really get into this. I just want to throw this out there. Someone else has probably already said it in one way or another.
Re: free-will...
This has always bugged me. If God wants us to believe he exists then why not just make his existence obvious? It wouldn't nullify our free-will in any way. We would still be free to decide whether or not to live our lives in a way that "serves Him".

~Barbara

It bothers me too. It's a copout, plain and simple. It's just a way to skirt around the fact that god never will make his existence known.

 

[MaxP]

Sure. But if we are trying to avoid introducing entities whose independent existences provoke additional bewildering questions, we might not want to invoke God unless we absolutely must.

Isn't that the nature of much of science? Answers leading to more questions?

Something in the neighborhood of 50 billion light-years in diameter, IIRC. [wikicheck = 46.5 bly]

Interesting. How do we know that?

No.

Yes. See "heat death."

So, if the universe was a cycle, what would cause it to contract?

Depends. If my hypothetical girlfriend gave me a choice between swimsuits and F-18s...

The choice is obvious.

 

[Nathan45]

You'll probably be annihilated a moment later.

I've often had this thought but everytime it occurs to me it falsifies itself a moment later

 

[MaxP]

We have infinity to play with.

Infinity doesn't solve a conundrum of how matter can cause a phenomena that, in its nature, abstracts matter.
Infinity is not sufficient reason; if something simply cannot happen, infinity won't make it happen.

I'm not talking about brains.

I'm talking about the slightest quantum eddy which, for a brief moment - the very moment you are reading this - produces a conscious thought - the one you are having right now - which simultaneously perceives itself as having existed for a number of years, and has apparent memories of those times.

But it's all just a brief flash in the pan. You'll probably be annihilated a moment later.

So, then, time doesn't exist?
None of us are truly conscious?

And I still don't get how a "quantum eddy" explains consciousness.

 

[MaxP]

What leads you to believe that time is linear?

While time may not itself be linear, every piece of matter that exists in the bounds of time travels linearly through time.

 

[MaxP]

I have no time to really get into this. I just want to throw this out there. Someone else has probably already said it in one way or another.
Re: free-will...
This has always bugged me. If God wants us to believe he exists then why not just make his existence obvious? It wouldn't nullify our free-will in any way. We would still be free to decide whether or not to live our lives in a way that "serves Him".

~Barbara

Well, I've said this too, faith is required. The Bible mandates faith, as does most Christian teaching. Christianity admits God cannot be "absolutely" proven. I don't think He wants to be absolutely proven(although He has given evidence). There is way to reason God exists and see historical example of Him working, but other than that there is no empirical evidence. So we have faith. I suppose that is a leap most atheists are not willing to make.
If He was absolutely proven there would be no requirement of the faith He speaks of in the Bible.

 

[MaxP]

I've often had this thought but everytime it occurs to me it falsifies itself a moment later

And if it wasn't proven false you'd never know.

 

[cantata]

Infinity doesn't solve a conundrum of how matter can cause a phenomena that, in its nature, abstracts matter.
Infinity is not sufficient reason; if something simply cannot happen, infinity won't make it happen.

As I said, the article I read (which I now can't find, I'm sorry) said that such things were potentially possible given infinite time and random quantum events. It was written by a quantum physicist, so I have to bow to their superior knowledge.

So, then, time doesn't exist?
None of us are truly conscious?

Time exists. "You" (you bundle of quantum peculiarity, you!) are conscious at this precise moment; the next moment, you may be gone. There is no "us". Everyone you think you are interacting with is an illusion. Everything you see is also an illusion; there is nothing there but space and random quantum events.

Think Cartesian scepticism, a brain-in-a-vat - but far more fleeting.

And I still don't get how a "quantum eddy" explains consciousness.

Again - you'd have to ask the quantum physicists. I'm still hunting for that article.

 

[MaxP]

He makes no sense.
He is darn Evil in the OT
He is a lousy engineer
He has no idea about science
Too much evil on this planet
No room for God in physics

List is endless; but in short, I believe in science since I was a kid.

People seem to have big hang-up about how a all-good God can exist if evil does.
I would contend evil is not an actual force; but a lack of good.

As for the rest of your points, I'd be interested to hear you elaborate.

 

[cantata]

While time may not itself be linear, every piece of matter that exists in the bounds of time travels linearly through time.

Time might join up again at the end/beginning.

 

[MaxP]

As I said, the article I read (which I now can't find, I'm sorry) said that such things were potentially possible given infinite time and random quantum events. It was written by a quantum physicist, so I have to bow to their superior knowledge.

All right, I suppose we can't continue this line till you find the article.
I'll be waiting!

Time exists. "You" (you bundle of quantum peculiarity, you!) are conscious at this precise moment; the next moment, you may be gone. There is no "us". Everyone you think you are interacting with is an illusion. Everything you see is also an illusion; there is nothing there but space and random quantum events.

So there is no earth?
Would not, under this theory, quantum physics and all of science be an illusion?
So wouldn't the theory invalidate itself?

Think Cartesian scepticism, a brain-in-a-vat - but far more fleeting.

I have no idea what Cartesian scepticism is, so I'll just smile and nod.

Again - you'd have to ask the quantum physicists. I'm still hunting for that article.

Ok.

 

[MaxP]

Time might join up again at the end/beginning.

But then what caused time? Time is indifferent as to its own existence.

 

[cantata]

So there is no earth?
Would not, under this theory, quantum physics and all of science be an illusion?
So wouldn't the theory invalidate itself?

Well, we wouldn't know.



Cartesian scepticism is the idea that you can't know anything at all (except that you exist) because you may be deceived about everything else.

But then what caused time? Time is indifferent as to its own existence.

I have no idea what time's indifference has to do with anything.

Need time be caused? Does a circle have a beginning?

 

[MaxP]

Well, we wouldn't know.

So you're saying you have a theory that says nothing exists, based on things we "think" exist, but we can't know if it's true?
I'll stick to God, thank you.

Cartesian scepticism is the idea that you can't know anything at all (except that you exist) because you may be deceived about everything else.

But apparently we can know we can't know anything.

I have no idea what time's indifference has to do with anything.

Need time be caused? Does a circle have a beginning?

No, but the circle does not draw itself. A circle couldn't care less whether it exists or not; so why, then, does it exist?

 

[cantata]

So you're saying you have a theory that says nothing exists, based on things we "think" exist, but we can't know if it's true?
I'll stick to God, thank you.

Well, it's a more general argument for scepticism. I just thought it was a fun thought, since you were muttering something about heat death.

But apparently we can know we can't know anything.

That too, if you like.

Do you have a good argument against scepticism? How can I know anything other than that I exist?

No, but the circle does not draw itself. A circle couldn't care less whether it exists or not; so why, then, does it exist?

Why do you demand an explanation for the existence of time? Have you ever known time to begin existing or cease to exist?

Why assume that everything is in the habit of appearing or disappearing?

 

[MaxP]

Well, it's a more general argument for scepticism. I just thought it was a fun thought, since you were muttering something about heat death.

I do not mutter. I shout.

Anyway, it was an interesting(if illogical, IMHO), thought.

That too, if you like.

Do you have a good argument against scepticism? How can I know anything other than that I exist?

Well, although I am limited in my experience with scepticism, I would say you can know, by definition, existence exists. If you exist, also, you would only be able to interact with that which also exists, the world. Perhaps we can be skeptic on things we do not have first hand knowledge of.

Why do you demand an explanation for the existence of time? Have you ever known time to begin existing?

Same reason I would demand an explanation for the bridge down my street(theoretical bridge). I have never seen it not exist, but I know it cannot build itself.

 

[cantata]

I do not mutter. I shout.

Anyway, it was an interesting(if illogical, IMHO), thought.

I don't think you're in a position to deem it illogical until I have found that article

Well, although I am limited in my experience with scepticism, I would say you can know, by definition, existence exists. If you exist, also, you would only be able to interact with that which also exists, the world. Perhaps we can be skeptic on things we do not have first hand knowledge of.

Let me frame it in one of the most famous ways:

How do you know you're not a brain in a vat, being stimulated by mad scientists to have all the experiences of a real, material world - Matrix-style?

Same reason I would demand an explanation for the bridge down my street(theoretical bridge). I have never seen it not exist, but I know it cannot build itself.

Do you really think that time is the same sort of thing as a bridge?

I've never seen the tree in my garden not exist, but I know it cannot build itself. Er, wait...

What reason can you give me for thinking that bridges and time are similar in this regard?

 

[Paulos23]

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

No concrete, repeatable, testable evidence.

Plus, my life has not changed between when I believed and when I didn't. If there was a personal God, you think there would be a difference between believing and praying and not believing and not praying, but in my experience there isn't.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Isn't that the nature of much of science? Answers leading to more questions?

Sometimes. But the point of cosmology is to explain what we see and what follows logically from what we see. It is not supposed to provide an empirical endpoint whose discovery allows us to say, "Ah, so that's where God goes."

Interesting. How do we know that?

I have no more than a superficial understanding. You are probably better off doing your own research; I could not knowingly point you in any more precise direction than wikipedia or google.

So, if the universe was a cycle, what would cause it to contract?

A barely scholarly supposition: A combination of gravity, dark matter, and dark energy.