Like most, I'd class myself as an agnostic rather then an atheist, as while I severely doubt God exists, it can't be entirely rules out given that we know next to nothing about the Universe we live in. I certainly don't believe that the Gods from all the world's religions exist.
If there is some kind of maker, I believe it would be something far beyond our ability to perceive, given our severely limited perceptions of the universe. Was it a conscious effort or did it simply happen, or has our universe and what lies beyond it always been there and always will be?
This always brings us back to the question of why? Why is there something when there could just as easily be nothing? If there was a creator of the universe, who created the creator?
Does anyone think it's possible we will ever know? I do wonder that in spite of everything we may one day learn, some questions may be too big to ever be answered. If they can never be answered, will the speculation of a creators existence ever end?
I have chatted to people on here and with their help I have managed to let go of most of my wilder ideas. I try to avoid labels but I would say that I was more of an agnostic than an atheist. I don't so much doubt the existence of God as doubt what God is. All the long gone religions of the past are called 'myths'. In about 2000 years our God may also become a 'myth'. The point is even in the future if we are worshiping a giant potato as the supreme being/divine creator it will still be the same 'thing'. I don't see it as being something on the outside of us, it's more on the inside of us. Not all of us are aware of this or accept it. And that's okay. I have let go of a lot of stuff lately but that feeling lingers on. And I don't mind, it's actually quite nice.
It depends on what we make of the question. It can be treated as a scientific question, to which a scientific answer can be offered:Originally Posted by The_Corinthian
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html
Or it can be treated as a question of a different sort:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/08/30...-than-nothing/
'Ultimately, the problem is that the question — “Why is there something rather than nothing?” — doesn’t make any sense. What kind of answer could possibly count as satisfying? What could a claim like “The most natural universe is one that doesn’t exist” possibly mean? As often happens, we are led astray by imagining that we can apply the kinds of language we use in talking about contingent pieces of the world around us to the universe as a whole. It makes sense to ask why this blog exists, rather than some other blog; but there is no external vantage point from which we can compare the relatively likelihood of different modes of existence for the universe.'
Count me with those who think that, unless we hear a convincing contrary account, the non-scientific question makes no sense.
One that explains how we got from nothing to something, or one that proves that there's always been something and never nothing.
If it's so non-scientific, how come I was watching a Horizon programme yesterday on the net, in which the particle physicists can be quoted as saying, "how did something come out of nothing?", this was in relation to the Big Bang That's one of the things they hope to find out with CERN.What could a claim like “The most natural universe is one that doesn’t exist” possibly mean? As often happens, we are led astray by imagining that we can apply the kinds of language we use in talking about contingent pieces of the world around us to the universe as a whole. It makes sense to ask why this blog exists, rather than some other blog; but there is no external vantage point from which we can compare the relatively likelihood of different modes of existence for the universe.'
Count me with those who think that, unless we hear a convincing contrary account, the non-scientific question makes no sense.
Firstly, I'd say this statement is not entirely correct - we know a great deal about the universe. Obviously our knowledge is far from complete - but this is not evidence for a God.
Secondly - the first statement is a commonly made logical fallacy. People often think that just because something cannot be proven false, that it is equally probable to be true - this is not so! It is known as the argument to ignorance. The absence of evidence is logically meaningless.
If you take an 'on balance' view - you might say that the existence of a God has no empirical support - as such - there is no real reason to accept it. Ideas / claims / conclusions need positive evidence - not the absence of it.
A logical possibility is not the same as an evidenced probability.
I have a simlar viewpiont onn the existence of god. I am an Agnostic (without knowledge) and as such I live my life as an Atheist (without God) The two are not mutually exclusive. However there is a perception that Agnostics are appeasers to faith and as such I dislike the baggage carried with such a label. Whilst I am tollerent of belief that does no harm I do object religious indoctirination of the young and consequently to faith schools especially those paid for from the public purse.
I take a similar stance on Russells Celestial Teapot, the Dragon in Carl Sagan's Garage and the flying spahgetti monster.
Just because I have no knowledge that something exists and am logically barred from having knowledge that it doesn't exist then that's no reason for me to entertain the possibility that it does exist.
Whilst logically that possibility allways exists for all that could be imagined to be consistent with verified observations the burden of such considerations is literally infinite - invisible this, intangible that, perverse afterlifes which reward sinners.
As such I respond more to the label of Atheist and yet once again this has negative connotations. It is a negative label that whilst is is accuprate in its description of me, it is hardly precise refering only to what I am not - a theist. I don't decribe myself as a non black, non female or non french. Instead when it comes to matters of belief I call myself a humanist.
I noticed that you have used a quote from Richard Dawkins in your signature. Have you read "The God Delusion" yet? If not, I would recommend that you get hold of a copy.
We know a great deal about the universe, but we still know only a fraction about it. I never said that this is evidence for the existence of God, I said that it means we can't entirely rule it out.
You seem to be basing your entire post on the assumption that I'm claiming God exists because he can't be proved to not exist. I've made no such claim or even indicated it. Unless you can tell me what caused the big bang, what caused the events that led to the big bang, and what caused the events that lef to that. We can't rule out the possibility of some kind of creator.Secondly - the first statement is a commonly made logical fallacy. People often think that just because something cannot be proven false, that it is equally probable to be true - this is not so! It is known as the argument to ignorance. The absence of evidence is logically meaningless.
Here's another way to look at it. Human technology is accelerating profoundly. Futurologists claim that one day we will be able to manipulate matter on a quantum level, obtain immortality, create limitless power, and control and travel between all dimensions. Who's to say we won't one day create our own big bangs, our own universes, and beings to populate them? Who's to say this isn't how we came into existence, and will continue to happen on an infinite loop?If you take an 'on balance' view - you might say that the existence of a God has no empirical support - as such - there is no real reason to accept it. Ideas / claims / conclusions need positive evidence - not the absence of it.
A logical possibility is not the same as an evidenced probability.
While I believe almost next to nothing of what the Bible says, it would an historic irony if the claim that 'God created us in his own image' turned out to be true, just as we may choose to populate our universes with being in our own image.
You will find no empirical value in modern religion for proving or disproving God. But our own philosophies and desire to grow and control 'everything' may be enough proof to not rule God out.
This of course raises the debate of whether God is supreme creator, or just 'our' creator. Perhaps we need to define more clearly what God is before we can even begin to contemplate whether it exists or not, as I said, it might be something beyond our perception, let alone our comprehension. Then again, one day we might meet God as our creator and also our equal.
Last edited by The_Corinthian; 15th October 2007 at 09:24 PM.
I nearly did the other day, on your inspiration, I will. Thank you. :)
Douglas Adams imagined a race of people who believed that the universe had been sneezed out of some devine being's nose (Great Green Argleseizure?). Are you, TC, minded to believe in that? It is possible and the amount of evidence is about the same as in the scenario you describe.
What you dont understand is - there is no need to rule it in! You see, the absence of evidence is meaningless - it thus, means nothing either way. However, we do have lots of positive evidence for an alternative hypothesis - so on balance, and provisonally, it is extrememly unlikely there is a God. Not having any evidence does not mean one cannot rule it out - as it cannot be ruled in, in the first place
You did and have - go back and read it - and see my comments above.You seem to be basing your entire post on the assumption that I'm claiming God exists because he can't be proved to not exist. I've made no such claim or even indicated it.
Dont you see - a creator is NOT an explanation of anything.....so your not explaining anything. Also go and read some logic - I think you will benefit greatly from that. Remember the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence......Unless you can tell me what caused the big bang, what caused the events that led to the big bang, and what caused the events that lef to that. We can't rule out the possibility of some kind of creator.
Something about a flying spaghetti monster springs to mind.....
Time did not exist before the big bang. The question of what came before it is makes as much sense as asking what is north of the north pole.
It's not a matter of ruling it out, it's a matter of there not being a single piece of evidence to suggest one exists. By your logic we should all accept the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the teapot orbiting Pluto simply because we can't prove that they don't exist.We can't rule out the possibility of some kind of creator.
Futurologists also claimed that we'd be living on the Moon and flying around in atomic cars while robots did all our housework.Here's another way to look at it. Human technology is accelerating profoundly. Futurologists claim that one day we will be able to manipulate matter on a quantum level, obtain immortality, create limitless power, and control and travel between all dimensions. Who's to say we won't one day create our own big bangs, our own universes, and beings to populate them?
Wrong question. The correct question is who's to say this is how we came into existence. Anyone can just make something up and claim it's possible. That doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. This is where that evidence thing comes in handy.Who's to say this isn't how we came into existence, and will continue to happen on an infinite loop?
This just doesn't make sense.You will find no empirical value in modern religion for proving or disproving God. But our own philosophies and desire to grow and control 'everything' may be enough proof to not rule God out.
No it doesn't. There is no point debating what colour the teapot orbiting Pluto is until you prove that there is a teapot there in the first place.This of course raises the debate of whether God is supreme creator, or just 'our' creator.
Many people have defined gods. They are either provably wrong or are designed purposely to be unprovable.Perhaps we need to define more clearly what God is before we can even begin to contemplate whether it exists or not, as I said, it might be something beyond our perception, let alone our comprehension.
And we might all be eaten by sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads. Just because you can write something doesn't mean it is actually a useful statement.Then again, one day we might meet God as our creator and also our equal.
TC,
Perhaps we are at cross-purposes. I was contrasting scientific approaches to the question with nonscientific approaches.
Unless I'm missing something, Stenger is sketching an answer to the question, scientifically understood, how we can get from nothing to something. Whether it's a good answer is another question, which I am content to leave to the scientists.
As for the particle physicists you mention, I imagine that they too are taking the question to be a scientific one, since, as you say, they are hoping to get answers from CERN. But I see that you have taken up the matter of the Big Bang with Cuddles.
Unlikely doesn't mean the same as impossible, for someone so well versed in "logic", I would have thought you'd have understood this. I note with interest that you've completely ignored the point that one day humans might become creators themselves. If it may be possible that we can do it, who's to say it isn't possible that that's how we came to being?What you dont understand is - there is no need to rule it in! You see, the absence of evidence is meaningless - it thus, means nothing either way. However, we do have lots of positive evidence for an alternative hypothesis - so on balance, and provisonally, it is extrememly unlikely there is a God. Not having any evidence does not mean one cannot rule it out - as it cannot be ruled in, in the first place
Our very existence and potential is evidence in itself that such a possibility may ring true.
Can't see it, how about you quote it?You did and have - go back and read it - and see my comments above.
If it turned out to be true, it would possibly be an explanation of everything. I didn't set out to explain anything, only speculate on the possibility of a creator.Dont you see - a creator is NOT an explanation of anything.....so your not explaining anything.
How does one "read some logic"?Also go and read some logic - I think you will benefit greatly from that.
A creator is one of several possibly explanation for how we came into being. We have no evidence that the Higgs boson exists, only theories that make the Higgs boson a possible piece of an incomplete jigsaw. It's entirely possible that a creator could equally be a missing piece in the puzzle of how we came to being. It's no coincidence that the Higgs Boson is often referred to as the 'God Particle'.Remember the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence......
Something about a flying spaghetti monster springs to mind.....
So claiming something doesn't exist because there's no physical evidence of it, doesn't seem to be enough. The fact remains that while it's improbable there's a creator, it's not impossible while there is still room for doubt.
Not even Steven Hawking will rule out the possibility of a creator. Only pseudo scientists like yourself who claim to be masters of logic would arrogantly dare to do so without all the answers.
I didn't say what came before it, I asked what caused it? Can you answer that?
So Higg's Boson doesn't exist, and the £6,000,000,000 they'd spent on looking for it is a waste of time then? There's no proof of it, no ones ever seen one, it just fills a convenient missing part of the puzzle that fits the hole.It's not a matter of ruling it out, it's a matter of there not being a single piece of evidence to suggest one exists. By your logic we should all accept the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the teapot orbiting Pluto simply because we can't prove that they don't exist.
A teapot orbiting pluto wouldn't fill in any gaps in explaining the origins of the universe, and we know enough about our insignificant section of it to assume there isn't. We don't know anywhere near enough about the universe to rule out a 'God shaped' piece of the puzzle.
The first two are far from unrealistic, and will very likely happen in the near future, and the third is unnecessary but would be quite possible should we feel inclined to go down that route. If this is your argument for futurologists being of no consequence, then it's a pretty poor one.Futurologists also claimed that we'd be living on the Moon and flying around in atomic cars while robots did all our housework.
Ok, show me your evidence of how the universe came into existence.Wrong question. The correct question is who's to say this is how we came into existence. Anyone can just make something up and claim it's possible. That doesn't mean it should be taken seriously. This is where that evidence thing comes in handy.
To you maybe. Most people find the concept that we ourselves could become creators in our own right, pretty easy to grasp.This just doesn't make sense.
I'm tired of using the Higgs Boson example, so let's got for Dark Matter. We have never seen it, and until recently we didn't have an ounce of evidence to support it's existence, other then another large gap in the puzzle that needed filling. Dark matter is one of several explanations, but currently the most supported to explain expansion of the universe.No it doesn't. There is no point debating what colour the teapot orbiting Pluto is until you prove that there is a teapot there in the first place.
If scientists followed your line of thinking that, "there's no evidence so it can't exist" or, "there's no point debating it until we know it exists". Then we not only wouldn't we have had the Dark Matter theory, we wouldn't have set about trying to prove or disprove it, and as a result found some evidence to proving it.
Pure conjecture, which probably sums up best of all your inability to make a well reasoned argument, by the simple fact that you've missed out the option of 'people who define God as something that may or may not exist'.Many people have defined gods. They are either provably wrong or are designed purposely to be unprovable.
"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired."
- Stephen W. Hawking
As you've adequately proved several times over, particularly well with the observation itself.And we might all be eaten by sharks with frickin' laser beams attatched to their heads. Just because you can write something doesn't mean it is actually a useful statement.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks