Food for thought.

[Chriliman]

There is a "reason" in the sense that it has an explanation for why it is there.

Just like mountains. There is a "reason" for why they exist as in: there is a mechanism that produces mountains and that is why mountains exist.

That's interesting. Based on what you've said above, would it be reasonable to conclude that there is a mechanism that has produced the universe?

But that's not what you mean by the word "reason", is it?

I'm using the word "reason" in the most logical sense: a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

 

[Chriliman]

If you're asking me to show that an afterlife doesn't exist, I can't.

I know you can't and that's my point. If an afterlife does not exist then this truth can never be demonstrated to anyone, thus my point that it seems irrational to believe that an afterlife does not exist. This is not the same as asking someone to prove unicorns exist, because unicorns very well could have existed at some point in the past. An afterlife only exists after death, it can't possibly exist in the past, it can only exist in the future.

If an afterlife does exist then this truth would only be demonstrated after you die, thus proving its true at that point in time. I'm incapable of proving that an afterlife exists, but after death it would be proven. This is why I claim to have a rational belief in an afterlife.

Maybe a different definition is required of what it means to die.

Romans 6:3
"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

Philippians 1:21
"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

2 Corinthians 5:17
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."

1 Corinthians 15:31
"I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!"

Matthew 10:38
"And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

John 12:24
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."

Mark 8:35
"For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it."

Galatians 5:24
"And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."

Galatians 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

The consistent message that one must die to self in order to attain life is at least interesting to say the least.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm just claiming that the reason for why the universe exists can be known. You seem to agree, but you just don't know the reason yet, correct?

No, I don't agree.

I agree that the universe exists for some reason. As in, that it has an explanation. Just like there is a reason for why mountains exist. There is an explanation: plate tectonics.

Note that I use "reason" here in terms of mechanisms or explanation.

But it is not at all clear to me that this reason can be known.
We are talking about a context / state that is pretty inaccessible to us.
I hope it can be known and it is that hope that fuels scientific research and motivates scientists to look for answers.

But it is very well possible that we will never find the actual "ultimate" answer.

But you believe there is a reason as to why the universe exists and you can, at some point in the future, know that reason?

The universe had a beginning. Therefor, the universe came into existance in some way. It's not a "belief" that the universe as we know it came into existance in some way. It's rather a fact; a given.

And, to repeat, no, it's not clear to me that we will eventually know how exactly that happened. I hope we will find out, preferably during my lifetime - it sounds like it would be very interesting.


Having said all that....
You didn't actually address the post you were replying to.
The core of the argument that I was responding to was a blatant shift of the burden of proof.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's interesting. Based on what you've said above, would it be reasonable to conclude that there is a mechanism that has produced the universe?

If the universe as we know it did not always exist, then it is pretty much a given that "some process" produced the universe as we know it.

Even in the ideas of Krauss, where a universe comes from "nothing" - there still is a process that produces this universe "from nothing".

Even in theistic creation ideas, where a universe is "created" - there still is a process that produces this universe.

Even in the "eternal universe" idea where the universe "eternally" existed as some signularity - there still is a process that turned that singularity into the space-time continuum we currently live in.

If X hasn't always existed, then *some process/mechanism* produced X.
Even if X suddenly appears out of seemingly nowhere - there still is a process/mechanism that makes that happen.

At this point, we also need to be carefull with our use of words. Human languages weren't developed to talk about these things. Words like "create", "produce", "make",... are all bound to the concept of "time passing".

These terms are problematic when talking about the origins of space and TIME.
Off course, we have no other choice but to use the words that we know and understand... But still I'ld like to raise that red flag here - because our words are actually inadequate to describe events (if we can even call 'em that) happening at T = 0 or worse: T = null, meaning "no T at all - not even 0".

I'm using the word "reason" in the most logical sense: a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

Somehow, I doubt that.

But if that's the case... then you are just stating the obvious, imo.
If X came into existance, then it came into existance in some way.

I don't think we require an entire forum topic to agree on that.

 

[Chriliman]

No, I don't agree.

I agree that the universe exists for some reason. As in, that it has an explanation. Just like there is a reason for why mountains exist. There is an explanation: plate tectonics.

Note that I use "reason" here in terms of mechanisms or explanation.

But it is not at all clear to me that this reason can be known.
We are talking about a context / state that is pretty inaccessible to us.
I hope it can be known and it is that hope that fuels scientific research and motivates scientists to look for answers.

But it is very well possible that we will never find the actual "ultimate" answer.

I'm glad to here you have hope. I guess the difference is that I believe the ultimate answer can be known, we just need to ask the right questions.

The universe had a beginning. Therefor, the universe came into existance in some way. It's not a "belief" that the universe as we know it came into existance in some way. It's rather a fact; a given.

And, to repeat, no, it's not clear to me that we will eventually know how exactly that happened. I hope we will find out, preferably during my lifetime - it sounds like it would be very interesting.


Having said all that....
You didn't actually address the post you were replying to.
The core of the argument that I was responding to was a blatant shift of the burden of proof.

I began to realize I wasn't getting anywhere by asking atheists why they don't believe in God, so I decided to think about things differently and ask different questions and it has lead me to a truth. That truth is that atheists honestly just don't know, but at least you have hope that a truth about the universe can possibly be known. I can understand that answer and I agree there is hope that a truth about the universe can be known and I'd argue that it's just a matter of time.

 

[Chriliman]

If the universe as we know it did not always exist, then it is pretty much a given that "some process" produced the universe as we know it.

Even in the ideas of Krauss, where a universe comes from "nothing" - there still is a process that produces this universe "from nothing".

Even in theistic creation ideas, where a universe is "created" - there still is a process that produces this universe.

Even in the "eternal universe" idea where the universe "eternally" existed as some signularity - there still is a process that turned that singularity into the space-time continuum we currently live in.

If X hasn't always existed, then *some process/mechanism* produced X.
Even if X suddenly appears out of seemingly nowhere - there still is a process/mechanism that makes that happen.

At this point, we also need to be carefull with our use of words. Human languages weren't developed to talk about these things. Words like "create", "produce", "make",... are all bound to the concept of "time passing".

These terms are problematic when talking about the origins of space and TIME.
Off course, we have no other choice but to use the words that we know and understand... But still I'ld like to raise that red flag here - because our words are actually inadequate to describe events (if we can even call 'em that) happening at T = 0 or worse: T = null, meaning "no T at all - not even 0".



Somehow, I doubt that.

But if that's the case... then you are just stating the obvious, imo.
If X came into existance, then it came into existance in some way.

I don't think we require an entire forum topic to agree on that.

I think you'd agree that getting to the truth isn't always easy and sometimes requires a forum like this that asks unique questions to get to the truth. I'm satisfied with the answer from atheists that they just don't know, but they have hope that the truth can possibly be known, if they ask unique questions.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I know you can't and that's my point. If an afterlife does not exist then this truth can never be demonstrated to anyone, thus my point that it seems irrational to believe that an afterlife does not exist.

It's not true that I believe an afterlife does not exist. I don't believe one does. There's a difference.

If an afterlife does exist then this truth would only be demonstrated after you die, thus proving its true at that point in time. I'm incapable of proving that an afterlife exists, but after death it would be proven. This is why I claim to have a rational belief in an afterlife.

It's irrational to believe in something you can't demonstrate to be true. So no, you're not being rational at all...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I know you can't and that's my point. If an afterlife does not exist then this truth can never be demonstrated to anyone, thus my point that it seems irrational to believe that an afterlife does not exist.

 

[Chriliman]

It's not true that I believe an afterlife does not exist. I don't believe one does. There's a difference.

So its true that you don't believe an afterlife exists, which means its also true that you believe an afterlife does not exist.

Both of the above statements are true about what you believe.

What your claiming would be like me claiming that its not true that I don't believe God exists. I believe God exists. Is there really a difference there?

It's irrational to believe in something you can't demonstrate to be true. So no, you're not being rational at all...

It's rational to believe in something that can be demonstrated, even if I'm not the one demonstrating it. It's irrational to believe in something that can never be demonstrated to anyone ever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm glad to here you have hope. I guess the difference is that I believe the ultimate answer can be known, we just need to ask the right questions.

No. I think the primary difference is not that you believe that the ultimate answer CAN be known ... I think the difference rather is that you believe that you allready know that answer. Before asking the questions. Isn't that right?

After all, imo, that is a crucial tenant of theism...

I began to realize I wasn't getting anywhere by asking atheists why they don't believe in God

Why not?
It's the only thing that defines an "atheist": unbelief in god(s).
What other question could you ask about someone's atheism?

FYI: my answer is simply "because I have no reasons to believe that a god DOES exist... so instead I don't believe it". Simple, isn't it?

, so I decided to think about things differently and ask different questions and it has lead me to a truth. That truth is that atheists honestly just don't know, but at least you have hope that a truth about the universe can possibly be known.

My opinions about the search for the origins of the universe are quite irrelevant to my atheism.

This "truth" you speak of, is not a truth at all in the sense that you are claiming it.

I can understand that answer and I agree there is hope that a truth about the universe can be known and I'd argue that it's just a matter of time.

And it would be irrelevant to (a)theism.

To atheists, god would remain a non-issue and a non-factor.
To theists, they'll still continue to claim on faith that a god is behind it all.

I seriously doubt if explaining the nature of the big bang would change anything to anyone's religious beliefs or lack thereof.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you'd agree that getting to the truth isn't always easy and sometimes requires a forum like this that asks unique questions to get to the truth.

I'ld even say that getting to truth is mostly not easy at all. Especially not when it concerns "deep" truths, like the origins of the universe.

I'll also add that such truth will NOT be found on forums.
If such truths are exposed, they'll be exposed by scientists who actually studied the thing being explained. Not by priests or random people on the interwebs.

We are not going to resolve the true nature of the big bang on a forum (and even less with a bronze age legend).

I'm satisfied with the answer from atheists that they just don't know, but they have hope that the truth can possibly be known, if they ask unique questions.

Wow, back up there... that's not what I said.
I didn't say anything about "unique questions".

Obviously, one has to ask the right questions. But that's not enough and it's not the reason that I said that it's not clear to me if the answer can be known...

The reason I said that that's not clear to me, is rather that I'm not so sure if we can tap into that which we need to tap into to gather the data required to get those answers.

For example, let's just assume for a second that an eternal multi-verse is the correct answer to what the true nature of the big bang was.

How would we find out? How could we test that?
We don't have any access to other universes... We are confined to our space-time continuum.

Suppose string theory is correct and there are "higher dimensions". How could we find out? We can't leave our 3-dimensional world. It's not a given that we can simply "tap into" those other dimensions to check if they are really there.

So what I was refering to is more something like testability.
Is the data that we require to draw the correct conclusion actually available to us or not? THAT's what's not at all clear to me. Perhaps we'll come up with crazy technology in a couple of centuries to gather such data, but perhaps it's simply physically impossible to do so. I don't know.

I "hope" that this data is available for us. For the sheer fact that I'ld rather have humanity answer those questions then not.... But my hope could be in vain. And if it is, then so be it.

 

[Chriliman]

That's great that someone spent a lot of time showing how the belief that a walrus juggling skulls under pluto's surface is an irrational belief. This does nothing to show that the belief that an afterlife does not exist is somehow a rational belief, when it can never be demonstrated as true to anyone ever.

 

[bhsmte]

Just a few "unique questions" and we can know just about anything folks.

Never mind about the answers though, and whether they can be relied upon as credible.

 

[Chriliman]

I'ld even say that getting to truth is mostly not easy at all. Especially not when it concerns "deep" truths, like the origins of the universe.

I'll also add that such truth will NOT be found on forums.
If such truths are exposed, they'll be exposed by scientists who actually studied the thing being explained. Not by priests or random people on the interwebs.

We are not going to resolve the true nature of the big bang on a forum (and even less with a bronze age legend).



Wow, back up there... that's not what I said.
I didn't say anything about "unique questions".

Obviously, one has to ask the right questions. But that's not enough and it's not the reason that I said that it's not clear to me if the answer can be known...

The reason I said that that's not clear to me, is rather that I'm not so sure if we can tap into that which we need to tap into to gather the data required to get those answers.

For example, let's just assume for a second that an eternal multi-verse is the correct answer to what the true nature of the big bang was.

How would we find out? How could we test that?
We don't have any access to other universes... We are confined to our space-time continuum.

Suppose string theory is correct and there are "higher dimensions". How could we find out? We can't leave our 3-dimensional world. It's not a given that we can simply "tap into" those other dimensions to check if they are really there.

So what I was refering to is more something like testability.
Is the data that we require to draw the correct conclusion actually available to us or not? THAT's what's not at all clear to me. Perhaps we'll come up with crazy technology in a couple of centuries to gather such data, but perhaps it's simply physically impossible to do so. I don't know.

I "hope" that this data is available for us. For the sheer fact that I'ld rather have humanity answer those questions then not.... But my hope could be in vain. And if it is, then so be it.

The reason I said ask unique questions is because who determines what the right questions are? You have questions in the back of your mind that are unique to you, explore those questions and you might find what is true, don't rely on other people to tell you what is true, figure it out for yourself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So its true that you don't believe an afterlife exists, which means its also true that you believe an afterlife does not exist.

No, that's not at all what it means and I can't comprehend how you don't get that.

Not being convinced of the truth of X is not the same as being convinced of the truth of the opposite of X.

Consider this...
You flip a coin and catch it in your hand without showing me the result.
You then make the truth-claim that it is heads.
I have no evidence that your statement is true. So I don't accept your statement as a true-ism. I don't believe your claim. I am not convinced that your claim is correct.

That does NOT mean that I am convinced that it is tails instead!!!

Both of the above statements are true about what you believe.

No, they are not. As I have just explained.

What your claiming would be like me claiming that its not true that I don't believe God exists. I believe God exists. Is there really a difference there?

Yes.
You changed all the terminology in there (by slipping in a double negative).

Do you understand the difference between these two statements:

"I don't believe a god exists"
and
"I believe no gods exist".

These are not synonymous statements....

 

[DogmaHunter]

The reason I said ask unique questions is because who determines what the right questions are?

Not "who". Rather: "what".
And the answer is the data and the thing under discussion.

You have questions in the back of your mind that are unique to you, explore those questions and you might find what is true, don't rely on other people to tell you what is true, figure it out for yourself.

I'm not qualified to "figure out" where the universe came from. I'm not a physicist / scientist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's great that someone spent a lot of time showing how the belief that a walrus juggling skulls under pluto's surface is an irrational belief. This does nothing to show that the belief that an afterlife does not exist is somehow a rational belief, when it can never be demonstrated as true to anyone ever.

You missed the point entirely.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not qualified to "figure out" where the universe came from. I'm not a physicist / scientist.

So you admit that you rely on scientists to tell you what is true. Does that really seem wise? What if what they're saying is not true? How would you ever figure out that what they're saying is not true if you rely on them to tell you what is true?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

@Chriliman, when I say "I don't believe there is a Greeble on Pluto," I am not saying "I believe there is no Greeble on Pluto." In other words, I'm unconvinced that there is a Greeble on Pluto, which is different from being convinced that there is no Greeble on Pluto.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you admit that you rely on scientists to tell you what is true. Does that really seem wise? What if what they're saying is not true? How would you ever figure out that what they're saying is not true if you rely on them to tell you what is true?

By doing science!