Coming from nothing

[Archaeopteryx]

Read books written by atheist, that became enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and then born again.

Atheist are very one dimensional in their thinking. They only except what MAN can prove.

How shallow...I was once in this selfish mind of thinking...man knows it all.

Most atheists, in my experience at least, admit the opposite: man doesn't know it all. Interestingly, purveyors of religion will often claim that their system of belief has all the answers to life's deepest questions. Who then is claiming to know it all?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm content in knowing I don't have all the answers. I can do my best with what God's given me to find them, but I'll never know the whole truth. When you really think about it, human beings are literally a speck of dust compared to the great cosmic universe and the awesomeness of God. For me to say there is no God, is basically to deny all of existence, but that's just my observation. Not a big deal if you don't believe the way I do, I'm content with my faith in Christ.

Are you equating the concept 'God' with all of existence? If not, then that doesn't make sense.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Incidentally, I'm an atheist, and I don't take the view that the universe "began to exist". It may have "begun to change", but it has never not-existed. I don't believe that the universe popped into existence out of a pure philosophical nothingness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dysert]

I'd like to join into the discussion, given I haven't really read everything in this thread. So here I go.

So I'd like say to say that the possibility of God or any other higher being is definitely possible, but on the Biblical side of God isn't as likely, and there may be much more to the story of God and what happened prior to the beginning than what we were told. Perhaps a conspiracy, or maybe just mistranslations over time, we won't know as of who we are now.

There are 4 options to consider to the creation of everything that I have come up over the years of thinking about this.

1: Creation from Nothing
- Literally popping out of nothing, including space and time
- This is the supernatural option, it's logically and scientifically impossible. If one believes this, they're literally on the same level of some religious fanatic that they brag how much they hate.

You dismiss this way too quickly. And denigrating people who believe this way (which is what the Bible teaches, btw) is rather insulting. Nevertheless, I don't know why you'd say it's "logically and scientifically impossible". What logic makes it impossible that an eternal omnipotent being outside space and time created the space and time? And as for science, while it may be impossible to prove that such a thing happened via the scientific method, that doesn't mean it's impossible to have happened - just impossible to prove.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Incidentally, I'm an atheist, and I don't take the view that the universe "began to exist". It may have "begun to change", but it has never not-existed. I don't believe that the universe popped into existence out of a pure philosophical nothingness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The shadow of Plato's hand looms large over our language. Even 'nothing' is abstracted into a pure Platonic form. Paradoxically almost, it becomes 'something'. Fast forward to Wittgenstein and we see that perhaps the "engine is idling" when we use the term 'nothing' in a purely Platonic sense.

 

[Ruthie24]

Are you equating the concept 'God' with all of existence? If not, then that doesn't make sense.

I can't look at the awesomeness of this great big universe, and not see God in it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can't look at the awesomeness of this great big universe, and not see God in it.

You don't need to look at the world through theistic glasses to see how awesome it is through.

 

[Ruthie24]

You don't need to look at the world through theistic glasses to see how awesome it is through.

For me the two go hand in hand. Creator/created. Kinda like looking at a beautiful quilt and wondering, wow I wonder who made that, it's amazing. Same idea.

 

[quatona]

I have seen this critique a lot when it comes to abiogenesis and the creation of everything (which is not evolution, just so everyone knows that). People will say, "Something cannot from nothing" and "A living thing cannot come from a non-living thing." So they say, "Since those two things cannot happen, then there must be some sort of Creator."

But if what they say is true, then who created a higher being?

Their answer is, "Well that being always existed."

Regardless of whether a person beliefs that a god is a physical being or not, they believe it exists, and that this being created everything. So, in reality atheists/agnostics are not doing anything far fetched when they accept things such as ambiogenesis and in theories like the Big Bang.

Any "explanations" about the origins of the universe are necessarily exceptional - in that they can´t conform with what we observe as the rules within the universe. So it´s sort of funny when people try to justify their exceptional claims by pointing to laws such as "something cannot come from nothing". By the same token, I could refer to the law that "spiritual entities cannot create matter". So there.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The shadow of Plato's hand looms large over our language.

I'm not a Platonist.

Even 'nothing' is abstracted into a pure Platonic form.

No, by a "pure philosophical nothingness", I'm trying to distinguish that from some "empty" spacetime vacuum. I mean nothing at all.

Paradoxically almost, it becomes 'something'.

I am saying precisely the opposite. Nothingness isn't anything at all. It isn't just another sort of something.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

I can't look at the awesomeness of this great big universe, and not see God in it.

That is how your psyche is currently set up to believe. Nothing wrong or right about that, that is how you choose to look at things.

Not unlike the psychological tests where images are viewed and the person is asked to state what they see. No right or wrong answers, but the answer will come from the individuals psychological makeup. Those who see God in the universe, likely have a need to believe in a God and this drives their psyche. Again, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ruthie24]

That is how your psyche is currently set up to believe. Nothing wrong or right about that, that is how you choose to look at things.

Not unlike the psychological tests where images are viewed and the person is asked to state what they see. No right or wrong answers, but the answer will come from the individuals psychological makeup. Those who see God in the universe, likely have a need to believe in a God and this drives their psyche. Again, nothing wrong with that.

I don't know about a persons psychological drives determine whether they believe in God or not. To me that's a very weak argument. What psychological drive's are you talking about that are supposedly different between theists and non theists?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know about a persons psychological drives determine whether they believe in God or not. To me that's a very weak argument. What psychological drive's are you talking about that are supposedly different between theists and non theists?

Do you believe we each have a unique psychological makeup?
Do you believe we all have unique psychological needs?

The psychology of belief, is a topic I find extremely interesting.

 

[Dave Ellis]

For me the two go hand in hand. Creator/created. Kinda like looking at a beautiful quilt and wondering, wow I wonder who made that, it's amazing. Same idea.

The problem is you're labelling the universe as created when you have no justification to do so.

 

[Ruthie24]

The problem is you're labelling the universe as created when you have no justification to do so.

One man's justification is another man's lie and vice versa.

You are entitled to believe what you want, so am I. My justification has already been discussed ad nauseum by the atheist league of bowlers. And at their next shin dig conference they'll probably discuss and bash their next Christian targets over their atheist talking point outline. Nothing new under the sun. They would have done karl marx proud.

***Shrug***

 

[Syd the Human]

One man's justification is another man's lie and vice versa.

You are entitled to believe what you want, so am I. My justification has already been discussed ad nauseum by the atheist league of bowlers. And at their next shin dig conference they'll probably discuss and bash their next Christian targets over their atheist talking point outline. Nothing new under the sun. They would have done karl marx proud.

***Shrug***

To the underlined portion

 

[Syd the Human]

I don't know about a persons psychological drives determine whether they believe in God or not. To me that's a very weak argument. What psychological drive's are you talking about that are supposedly different between theists and non theists?

here's one example:

There was a thread on another site about being afraid to die.

"Because it does answer your question. You asked, what if death is the end. And there is nothing after it.

My answer was it doesn't change anything. I still don't fear death. And I wouldn't change how I live either. Even if I found out my God doesn't exist, I would still pray to Him because He is the only one who has ever cared for me. I would still love Him, because I feel loved when I love Him.

Now if I missed a different question, then I'm sorry."

In response to me saying that did not make sense:

"It makes perfect sense. Let me rephrase. When I pray I feel loved. Whether or not God is involved, I still feel loved and wanted when I pray. So I wouldn't stop praying even if God doesn't exist."

She admitted that even if she found that her god was not real, she would continue to pray to said non-existent god to feel loved.

I am not saying that is your reason or anything, but this demonstrates that there is a psychological need to have a god. Maybe not for every single person, but I would guess for many.

 

[Nibru]

You dismiss this way too quickly. And denigrating people who believe this way (which is what the Bible teaches, btw) is rather insulting. Nevertheless, I don't know why you'd say it's "logically and scientifically impossible". What logic makes it impossible that an eternal omnipotent being outside space and time created the space and time? And as for science, while it may be impossible to prove that such a thing happened via the scientific method, that doesn't mean it's impossible to have happened - just impossible to prove.

You do have a point, and looking back I was a bit too harsh. I say "logically and scientifically impossible" by our standards (our way of thinking), since it's the only kind of border we know of. However, I'm not mocking them, but I'm equalizing people who belief "the universe came from nothing" and tries to be as scientific and logical as humanly possible arguing with a religious person of any kind. Although, it's not very common.

I'm not saying it's impossible that an eternal omnipotent being outside space and time, but rather the ability and what it really is may as well be beyond our imagination and perhaps there can be more than what we'd been told, we jump to conclusions about everything it's hard to keep track.

And of course, it may as well happened that the universe came from nothing, and the only supernatural event as far as we can tell is The Big Bang. However, if something that has already happened came from nothing (aka a supernatural event), what will trigger this again? So far, it isn't something to consider since we have not experienced nor witnessed such a thing that something coming out of nothing. Possible the only supernatural event I can consider, is the Double-Slit Experiment (where electrons and other tiny atoms act like a wave, when they're supposed to act like particles). It's easier (although it may not be the same for you) to consider that there are hidden laws and dimensions that created The Big Bang, than considering The Big Bang coming out of nothing out of a supernatural event. Considering this, we can know much more than what our senses and mind can grasp using scientific methods and experiments rather than believing that the universe can break its laws at will whenever it wants.

 

[Dave Ellis]

One man's justification is another man's lie and vice versa.

You are entitled to believe what you want, so am I. My justification has already been discussed ad nauseum by the atheist league of bowlers. And at their next shin dig conference they'll probably discuss and bash their next Christian targets over their atheist talking point outline. Nothing new under the sun. They would have done karl marx proud.

***Shrug***

First off, you are indeed entitled to believe whatever you want, but that does not change the fact if your beliefs are justified or not. If you have no evidence that the universe is in fact created, then you have no justification for assuming a creator.

Secondly, what on earth does this have to do with Karl Marx?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For me the two go hand in hand. Creator/created. Kinda like looking at a beautiful quilt and wondering, wow I wonder who made that, it's amazing. Same idea.

Which may be justified if you are looking at a quilt - an object you know from prior experience to have been made by human hands. But you aren't talking about a mere quilt; you're talking about the universe at large. The universe is no less wonderful without theistic glasses.