Coming from nothing

[Syd the Human]

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?

^^^^ My question exactly.

 

[Nibru]

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?

Consider this, justifying and evidence are two different things.

jus·ti·fied
ˈjəstəˌfīd/
adjective
adjective: justified
1.
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

Simply put, justifying a belief on someone is simply convincing them to also believe in it. Let's be objective on this, and not convince this argument to its end. Now this aside, when we're talking about God, things can get messy. God has no evidence, and cannot simply have evidence because God can be anything, really. We're talking about an entity that is claimed to have powers outside time and space. Who knows, maybe he's a unicorn too. However, using the Bible or any other form of "justifying" to prove if God exists is a weak argument, and arguing if the Bible is morally wrong or right is not a strong and solid way of proving if God exists. So let's not justify.

If you have no evidence that the universe is in fact created, then you have no justification for assuming a creator.

The universe is created, we live in it. Of course, unless you consider that our 5 senses and our mind is tricking itself into believing what we're living in is actually real and we're in some kind of matrix, then I get your point.

So, on the realist side, the universe is created. There is a creator, we just don't know if this creator is this God we're all talking about, some massive supernova (or whatever), or perhaps something more.

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

Karl Marx is part of this argument because he Karl was created in the universe, and we're talking about the universe.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Consider this, justifying and evidence are two different things.

jus·ti·fied
ˈjəstəˌfīd/
adjective
adjective: justified
1.
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

Simply put, justifying a belief on someone is simply convincing them to also believe in it. Let's be objective on this, and not convince this argument to its end. Now this aside, when we're talking about God, things can get messy. God has no evidence, and cannot simply have evidence because God can be anything, really. We're talking about an entity that is claimed to have powers outside time and space. Who knows, maybe he's a unicorn too. However, using the Bible or any other form of "justifying" to prove if God exists is a weak argument, and arguing if the Bible is morally wrong or right is not a strong and solid way of proving if God exists. So let's not justify.

The point is if you can't back up or justify your claims, then you have no reason to hold them. Likewise, I'd have to reason to ever accept your claims.

In this scenario, she is asserting the universe was created. In theology debates, that would imply that the universe was intelligently and deliberately created and therefore a creator is required.

The problem is, she can not show that the universe was actually created instead of being formed through natural processes of some sort. Therefore, she has no grounds to assume a creator is required to exist.

The universe is created, we live in it. Of course, unless you consider that our 5 senses and our mind is tricking itself into believing what we're living in is actually real and we're in some kind of matrix, then I get your point.

So, on the realist side, the universe is created. There is a creator, we just don't know if this creator is this God we're all talking about, some massive supernova (or whatever), or perhaps something more.

Using created in that sense, you are correct. But that's not the way she was using it. The universe certainly had a beginning, but that does not mean an intelligent force / god created it.

Karl Marx is part of this argument because he Karl was created in the universe, and we're talking about the universe.

I also do not think she was trying to imply that....

 

[Nibru]

The point is if you can't back up or justify your claims, then you have no reason to hold them. Likewise, I'd have to reason to ever accept your claims.

In this scenario, she is asserting the universe was created. In theology debates, that would imply that the universe was intelligently and deliberately created and therefore a creator is required.

The problem is, she can not show that the universe was actually created instead of being formed through natural processes of some sort. Therefore, she has no grounds to assume a creator is required to exist.



Using created in that sense, you are correct. But that's not the way she was using it. The universe certainly had a beginning, but that does not mean an intelligent force / god created it.



I also do not think she was trying to imply that....

I know Karl Marx has nothing to do with this, I wasn't serious at my last part. I suppose I misunderstood (given I've never been in any kind of serious theology study, so I've been very literal).

 

[FireDragon76]

Or just accept that there's no reason to think there is a cause in the first place. Or that the mechanism is something totally different from what we'd intuit because intuition doesn't really do a good job with things so far outside our normal range of experience.

Rejecting the idea that the universe had a cause actually betrays the scientific method, since the whole point of science is to discover the causes of why things happen as they do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Rejecting the idea that the universe had a cause actually betrays the scientific method, since the whole point of science is to discover the causes of why things happen as they do.

It's funny how much you managed to get wrong in a single sentence.

Science looks for explanations. Explanation is not synonymous with "causality".

Causality, furthermore, is a phenomena that applies inside a space-time continuum. The universe IS the space-time continuum.

Trying to extract a phenomena that exists INSIDE the universe to apply it TO the universe itself is problematic at best.

 

[KCfromNC]

Rejecting the idea that the universe had a cause actually betrays the scientific method, since the whole point of science is to discover the causes of why things happen as they do.

No, the point of science is to produce models which allow us to predict future events from past observations. Interestingly enough, some of the best models we have show that certain events are causeless.

Ultimate causes and other such metaphysical nonsense is left to philosophers so they don't get in the way of those doing real work.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's funny how much you managed to get wrong in a single sentence.

Science looks for explanations. Explanation is not synonymous with "causality".

Causality, furthermore, is a phenomena that applies inside a space-time continuum. The universe IS the space-time continuum.

Trying to extract a phenomena that exists INSIDE the universe to apply it TO the universe itself is problematic at best.

Really? Then atheists cannot cling to the multiverse explanation, since it exists outside the universe. You are left with no explanation why there is something rather than nothing. It "just is". How anti-intellectual.

 

[Davian]

Really? Then atheists cannot cling to the multiverse explanation, since it exists outside the universe. You are left with no explanation why there is something rather than nothing. It "just is".

Atheism is not a position on astrophysics.

How anti-intellectual.

I'll take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Really? Then atheists cannot cling to the multiverse explanation, since it exists outside the universe.

How is that relevant? If it happens to exist outside of our universe, then it exists. Why would we not be allowed to use that explanation then?

You are left with no explanation why there is something rather than nothing. It "just is". How anti-intellectual.

Not having an explanation is not anti-intellectual.... It's intellectually honest to say when we don't know the answer to something.

Note, that doesn't preclude us from investigating further to try to find explanations.... in fact, that's the sole purpose of science. If we knew all the answers, then science would be redundant.

Ironically, what you are actually describing above is the Christian viewpoint. You have no explanation for why god exists, or where he came from, he "just is". To make matters worse, on top of that your god isn't an explanation for anything we actually do see.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ironically, what you are actually describing above is the Christian viewpoint. You have no explanation for why god exists, or where he came from, he "just is". To make matters worse, on top of that your god isn't an explanation for anything we actually do see.

The explanation for why God exists is found in God's nature- God is a necessary being.

It's far more important that God explain the things we do not see, but are nonetheless real- moral intuitions, a sense of the numinous or sublime, and so on. Only a materialist worldview could discredit those things.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The explanation for why God exists is found in God's nature- God is a necessary being.

Why do you believe this to be true?

 

[FireDragon76]

Why do you believe this to be true?

An infinite regress of causes cannot actually exist, so therefore there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.

 

[andy b]

threads like this make me realize how little we know its kinda awesome and frighting at the same time,no wonder most scientists go nuts thinking about stuff like this all day cant be healthy its like a dog chasing its tail......capella ..move on baby

 

[quatona]

An infinite regress of causes cannot actually exist, so therefore there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.

Well, once we throw causality out of the window when it comes to existential "explanations", one exceptional claims is a good as the other.

And if we don´t, your postulation is as bad as any other wild guess.

Besides, even if your line of reasoning were sound, this uncaused cause could be anything.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

An infinite regress of causes cannot actually exist, so therefore there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.

1. Why do you believe an infinite regress of causes cannot exist?
2. Why do believe the universe demands a cause of everything?
3. Why do you believe that if there is a first cause, it would be something you would label a god?

 

[Huntun]

People have a habit of reifying nothing and making it into a thing that existed prior to the creation of something.

The fact that the visible universe appears to be expanding and may at one point have existed as some tiny little singularity thingy ,to use a technical scientific term, doesn't imply that nothing existed "prior" to it banging. Time could be finite and repeat infinitly, the visible universe might not be all there is to reality, the big bang could have been a vacuum fluctuation of some sort and the vacuum isn't nothing, there are countless possibilities that don't require the existence of nothing or God prior to the big bang.

 

[FireDragon76]

1. Why do you believe an infinite regress of causes cannot exist?
2. Why do believe the universe demands a cause of everything?
3. Why do you believe that if there is a first cause, it would be something you would label a god?

1. If an actual infinite number of causes existed, we would never be able to reach our present moment in time. So there has to be a first cause.

Full discussion of the problems with actual infinities is beyond my pay grade and deals with transfinite mathematics and other subjects.

2. The universe doesn't demand a cause for everything. Rather, human reason demands it. Otherwise we are left with absurdity. Reason is supposedly the playing field I meet the atheist on, so I'm sure you can understand my appeal to causality vs. absurdity?

3. not "a" god, but the only God. There can be only one being that causes everything else to come into existence, and this being must be immaterial and non-corporeal.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

1. If an actual infinite number of causes existed, we would never be able to reach our present moment in time. So there has to be a first cause.

I'm not seeing the issue. We can reach our present time from any other previous point in an infinite past. Just like you can get to now going backwards in time from any infinite future. But since neither of us apparently know enough to speak on the subject, we might as well drop it.

2. The universe doesn't demand a cause for everything. Rather, human reason demands it. Otherwise we are left with absurdity. Reason is supposedly the playing field I meet the atheist on, so I'm sure you can understand my appeal to causality vs. absurdity?

Since a god would be part of "everything", then you believe that human reason demands that the existence of a god would require a cause. What would that be?

In addition, do you believe that the things that quantum mechanics say violate what we would usually refer to as "human reason" actually exist? Or are those "absurdities" too?

3. not "a" god, but the only God. There can be only one being that causes everything else to come into existence, and this being must be immaterial and non-corporeal.

What evidence do you have that this is true?

 

[Loudmouth]

An infinite regress of causes cannot actually exist, so therefore there must be a first cause that is itself uncaused.

Therefore, lightning is caused by Thor . . . oh, wait, that's not right.