StarthrowerJanuary 13, 2018 at 03:3915275 views120 comments
Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why?
Comments (120)
Deleted UserJanuary 13, 2018 at 04:04#1432270 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Yes, it makes sense within the system of belief. If you don't believe it, then it doesn't make sense.
There isn't any way around belief here: In the beginning there was the Big Bang. So, what triggered the Big Bang? What came before the Big Bang? We don't know, we haven't found out yet, so we have no choice but to believe "somehow" the Big Bang happened.
In the beginning, God said... or In the beginning the Word was... is like the Big Bang: What came before God, or the Word? We don't know. Somehow God brought about the cosmos. We don't know how, and we almost certainly will never get an explanation.
Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why?
For context, I'm an atheist. I live as if there is no divine intelligence running the game and looking out for me (or torturing me). That's practical atheism. Some people may be practical agnostics, living and acting as if there's a real chance either way. Practical agnosticism sounds incredibly stressful. It's logically possible that I could change my position. Something amazing would have to happen.
Now to the issue. I for one can't make sense of beings before time creating time and so on. It's a round square. The words snap together on paper but there's no semi-distinct image in the mind to go along with those words.
But is that what all theists mean? I don't think so. I can vaguely imagine an intelligent being within time who created the world and all of us. Where this dude could come from I cannot say. Can I mae sense of a God who was always here?
But can I make sense of a universe that was always here? Or the birth of time and physicists might have it? Or quantum mechanics? Yet I believe QM as a method of prediction and for the design of technology.
In short, I'm aware of no tradition, religious or scientific, that gives an explanation of the biggest picture that fits comfortably within the intuition. Science offers stuff that works whether I believe in it or not, so I have bias in that direction. On the other hand, it might be a little too easy to jump from what science does right to its big picture guesses. Arguably the machines for prediction and control that work whether we believe in them or not are the essence. Religion can be viewed as the kind of technology that may work for believers but is not shaped to satisfy nonbelievers.
StarthrowerJanuary 13, 2018 at 16:59#1434100 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank I don’t know how to quote officially, but in response to the question, “what came before God,” God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. That is why He cannot be killed.
StarthrowerJanuary 13, 2018 at 17:05#1434110 likes
Based on the answers I have been given here, I draw my conclusion: nobody has any idea whether God exists, science doesn’t have any idea either. Until someone proves or disproves God, I will continue to serve Him, because it’s better to be safe than sorry.
People in their life may seek First Cause in order to better understand life.
Belief in a First Cause can take many forms, e.g. God, Big Bang, the Dao, and the enumeral versions that exist in all cultures.
For me, the beginning is Mind. The Mind that we observe everywhere in the universe in all of its forms. The exploration of Mind reveals many interesting and practical ideas for navigating through life, physical, mental, and spiritual. Life is interesting because it is being explored.
Reply to Starthrower You have the problem of before the beginning. It cannot be anything before the beginning.
StarthrowerJanuary 13, 2018 at 20:00#1434680 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Thank you. In fact, it is benefitial, at least to other people. My belief in God influences my decisions in that I try to be kind to people and refrain from drugs, alchohol and violence. I do not suggest someone becomes a Christian, however, if they really don’t believe in it. That won’t stop me from trying to show them that God is real and is active.
StarthrowerJanuary 13, 2018 at 20:01#1434700 likes
Reply to bahman God is from before. God created time, created limits. All things are from God, except the void.
God influences my decisions in that I try to be kind to people and refrain from drugs, alchohol and violence.
Many will approve your abstinence from drugs, alcohol and violence, but you know, God was never very outspoken against alcohol. In fact, there are a few places in the OT where "strong drink" is recommended. We don't know what sort of drug use the ancient Israelies may have had available, and at least in the OT, God doesn't seem all that opposed to the regular application of violence (though He seems to have improved his position on this issue over time).
StarthrowerJanuary 13, 2018 at 21:00#1435020 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank If you are speaking of the Israel conquests, God was using Israel to punish other countries.
Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why?
Why a being? Why not just a chance occurrence that set the ball rolling.
StarthrowerJanuary 13, 2018 at 21:09#1435040 likes
Reply to Cavacava Because it would take googols of years for random chance to form a Universe at all, and much, much longer to form a Universe like this.
SnowyChainsawJanuary 13, 2018 at 21:19#1435100 likes
The only concept of God that I agree could exist is a kind of "sentient" universe. However, even if that is true, then it does not explain how the universe came to be, self aware or no. Nevertheless, the Big Bang Model and current advances in our understanding of quantum and classical physics suggest that the universe does indeed come from nothing. This does not disprove the existence of God, but it does stimulate within me the concept of sentience outside what we call the universe or space-time: if the universe indeed came from nothing, then what is the nature of nothing? More importantly, is it still there?
However, even if that is true, then it does not explain how the universe came to be, self aware or no. Nevertheless, the Big Bang Model and current advances in our understanding of quantum and classical physics suggest that the universe does indeed come from nothing.
SnowyChainsawJanuary 13, 2018 at 21:32#1435150 likes
Reply to Cavacava
Awesome, thank you. I don't have time to read it right now but I will at my earliest convenience.
Based on the title, however, I think it reflects some of my own reservations that I had about Krauss's work before I read his book. He convinced me.
SnowyChainsawJanuary 13, 2018 at 21:55#1435210 likes
Reply to Cavacava
Ok, i managed to get as far as his first, legitimate criticism. I'll summarize it as follows: Classical Physics follows a set of rules, so Quantum Physics must follow the same rules.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Quantum Physics. The entire point behind Quantum Physics being so strange and wonderful is that it does not follow what we thought were the physical rules of the universe as we perceived them. There is no reason to believe that they should other then that is how our limited perspective up until now has shown us. However, our perspective is just that, limited. Scientific pursuit is all about expanding that perspective and if we discover things that do not conform to our predictions, all the better. To summarize: just because it doesn't do what we think it should do, doesn't mean its not doing it. There is plenty of evidence showing us that it operates in a different way to Classical Physics.
So far all the author of this article has done is make arguments from ignorance. I hope this improves.
Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why?
Does the concept of an uncaused world that nevertheless seems contingent make sense?
You don't see " David Albert of Columbia said about Krauss’s book in The New York Times." in the article?
SnowyChainsawJanuary 13, 2018 at 23:03#1435690 likes
As for George Ellis's critique, this is a popular argument against this thesis in the scientific community. I'll summarize: there is not, and cannot be, any evidence for or against what was and what was not before the universe.
The Big Bang model suggests there was nothing before the universe, so it stands to reason that there will be no evidence of what was before the universe. This concept begs the question: is a lack of evidence evidence for a lack of anything? If yes, then since Krauss's thesis suggests that nothing is unstable, the infinite nothingness before the universe, evident by the lack of evidence, would inevitably break down into something that it is not, id est, something.
Kruass's conclusions are derived from mathematical models, true, however this is currently the best, if not only, way for us to measure mechanisms at the quantum level due to lacking technology. They are also based on an experiment that reproduced these conditions at a micro scale, solidifying his conclusion. However, to suggest that Kruass's thesis suggests anything more then a universe from nothing is plausible is to grossly misrepresent his work.
I actually agree that Kruass should engage this topic on a philosophical level. I fancy myself a philosopher and would love to see him do so.
SnowyChainsawJanuary 13, 2018 at 23:04#1435700 likes
Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why?
You know that not all Theists believe that God is a "creature", right? A creature is something or someone that has been created.
In fact not all Theists say that God is a being, or an element of metaphysics. Existence is a metaphysical term (...but, incidentally, a metaphysical term that lacks a metaphysical definition).
The notion of "Creation" is anthropomorphic.
But sure, a lot of Theists believe the allegory. That allegory is the only Theism that most here have heard of. The preachy Theists, like the ones who knock on your door, are the most staunch believers in that allegory, in its extreme Biblical-Literalist version, and so that's what you hear about, and that's what Theism means to most people.
Above I mentioned the notion of God being a being. That's anthropomorphic too.
Anyway, non-Literalists don't promote, proselytize or preach. I don't regard religion as a matter to convince anyone about.
If you're curious about non-allegorical, non-anthropomorphic, non-Literalist Theism, then maybe googling "Negative Theology" would bring up some references.
“It happens that ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electromagnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.
The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in A Universe From Nothing--the laws of relativistic quantum field theories--are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on--and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.
Apparently, quantum fields must exist in order for something to come from Krauss's 'nothing', in Albert's pov.
Tossing a bit of bait into the fishpond and watching the action.
In the context of the history of ideas, I think it's important to get an understanding of the metaphysics of the Greek tradition, starting mainly with Plato, and in particular the Parmenides, and then developing through neoPlatonism, paying special attention to the metaphysics of The Republic. This philosophical tradition was then appropriated by the nascent Christianity which created fusion of Hebraic revealed religion and Greek philosophy especially by the early Greek-speaking philosophical theologians including Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Philo, and others.
I say this because due to the vagaries of history, much of the original metaphysics has been forgotten or rejected in relatively recent times. This is due, in my opinion, to the strongly anti-metaphysical strain in Protestantism, specifically arising from Luther and Calvin, and also to certain anti-metaphysical developments in later scholastic philosophy. The consequences of that, and other currents of thought, was the imposition of an essentially irrationalist notion of God, to whom one had no choice but to surrender in quaking submission. (Not for nothing has Calvin been called The Ayatollah of Geneva.)
Whereas, in the earlier Greek tradition, still preserved to some degree in Thomism and neoThomism, there is still the conception that the order of the Universe can be understood in terms of a Divine Intellect and a universalistic notion of Reason. Hence the traditionalist understanding that mathematics and science represent one tier in the 'great chain of being', but that still above that reside the eternal forms and essences in the eternal mind. (This is still preserved in Galileo's dictum that 'the book of nature is written in mathematics' whilst many of the supporting ideas have fallen away.)
Nothing discovered in modern science contravenes that understanding, indeed scientifically educated Thomist philosophers (typically Jesuit, such as Stephen M Barr and Robert Spitzer) are thoroughly conversant with the detail of current philosophical cosmology and don't see any conflict between it, and the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition which they represent. Unlike the idiot creationists, who wish to argue with rocks.
Apparently, quantum fields must exist in order for something to come from Krauss's 'nothing', in Albert's pov.
Actually, they don't. Krauss's thesis is that nothingness is unstable. Since he is restrained by our pesky mortal existence, testing this is impossible. However, we can measure the closest thing to absolute nothingness, a complete vacuum, and his predictions seem accurate. His conclusions are derived from this experiment and then, when applied to absolute nothingness, can explain a universe from nothing. Remember, his thesis is that this is plausible, not definitive.
This argument comes from not being able to fully conceptualize Kruass's conclusions. Understandably so, the English language is too crude and clumsy to accurately describe how I, at least, envision the state of absolute nothingness.
The Greek natural philosophers were quite correct in saying that from nothing, nothing comes. But by "comes" they meant a change from one state to another, which requires some underlying material reality. It also requires some pre-existing possibility for that change, a possibility that resides in something.
Creation, on the other hand, [according to Aquinas] is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a matter of taking something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, Creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing.
Strictly speaking, points out Aquinas, the Creator does not create something out of nothing in the sense of taking some nothing and making something out of it. This is a conceptual mistake, for it treats nothing as a something. On the contrary, the Christian doctrine of Creation ex nihilo claims that God made the universe without making it out of anything. In other words, anything left entirely to itself, completely separated from the cause of its existence, would not exist—it would be absolutely nothing. The ultimate cause of the existence of anything and everything is God who creates—not out of some nothing, but from nothing at all.
Reply to Cavacava Oh, is that what you mean. There is actually a reply to that, although I suspect it will also be categorised as gibberish, so I’ll leave it.
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 15, 2018 at 03:17#1440420 likes
That actually leads to refutation of creation ex nihilo (in the sense of saying there was nothing present form which the universe came) because God is the presence from which the universe comes-- it did not come from nothing, but rather from God.
Any objection based on the assertion God must be nothing and so impossible only misses the point-- God is something and is that form which the universe springs.
WISDOMfromPO-MOJanuary 15, 2018 at 03:45#1440450 likes
Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness Thanks, I like that argument. I deny a deity, but I agree with the presence of something(s) out of which everything became.
Michael OssipoffJanuary 25, 2018 at 18:43#1469740 likes
Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why?
The notion of God as a "being", and the notion of "creation" are anthropomorphic.
jim McCarthyJanuary 26, 2018 at 05:27#1470490 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank I think there's a way around belief by not believing. I don't believe in the big bang but I know there's evidence for it as I know that further evidence may more strongly prove or weaken the theory. If we're tentative regarding all these things, there's no need to believe anything. Our perspective, being limited, is bound to be temporary.
Some conceptions of God make sense to me, others do not.
In general I have a religious inclination which I cannot seem to shake, it is one that rejects the notion that the world is accidental and purposeless and lacks any larger meaning.
The notion of God that I employ has to do with creativity and novelty, order on primordial chaos, imposing form on the void, and providing possibilities for the future. I do not see God as primarily concerned with human morality.
If one looks at the question historically, it is hardly possible to understand history, architecture, art, music or literature without some understanding of the religious notions which inspired much such work and so perhaps belief in higher meaning and purpose has some utility to it other than just Pascal's wager.
Reply to Cavacava It is hard to put into words. In fact I think language is inadequate to describe many experiences or thoughts. In terms of religious philosophy, I am a panentheist of a process theology type, so nature is part of God but God is more than just nature as we understand and experience it. Nature itself is more than our mathematical models or our physical measurements. Gods purpose as I conceive of or understand it, is creativity, novelty, intensity of experience. In modern times the original religious notions of the earth as the center of the universe and man as the crown and purpose of creation are no longer tenable in any rational sense and so larger conceptions become necessary to avoid cognitive dissonance. God IMHO works through the laws and processes of nature not by contravention of them. Still I think it is possible to see nature as forms and patterns spontaneously organizing (Platonic)and complexity and experience as increasing, "forms wonderous and beautiful" (Darwin).
does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense?
Saying a being existed "before time" is saying that there is a time external to time, which is incoherent. It is like asking what's North of the North Pole.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 30, 2018 at 03:00#1481350 likes
Reply to Maw What's north of the north pole is technically space, the final frontier.
Saying a being existed "before time" is saying that there is a time external to time, which is incoherent. It is like asking what's North of the North Pole.
Questions like that get asked all the time, not that there are any scientific or empirical answers.
What exists beyond the universe?
What existed before the big bang?
Some people love asking and trying to answer such questions because one can speculate away unencumbered by any data or facts, others find it a massive waste of time and mental energy.
Saying a being existed "before time" is saying that there is a time external to time, which is incoherent.
No it's not. When people talk of "before time", they are talking of "before (scientific) time". Scientific time is the time physicists deal with - they say this time started with the Big Bang, because it was impossible to physically measure time before that. However, this isn't to say that there couldn't be a (non-physically measurable) time before this.
Read the discourse on the method part 4 by René Descartes. He explains how he proved the existance of a greater being, whom he calls God.
Yes, I actually think the ontological argument for God's existence is the most powerful argument, but it must be properly understood. Kant's famous critique of the ontological argument is that "being is not a property", so I do not add anything to a notion by saying that it exists. Kant gives the notion of 100 thalers, and says that nothing is added to the notion if we say it exists. Existence adds no difference between the concept and its object.
So this strikes at one of the core issues of philosophy, which is the relation between Thought and Being. From the very beginning, philosophy aimed to close the gap between thought and being - that's what thought, in its endeavour of doing philosophy, aims to do - it aims to coincide with being. But one must notice here that it is precisely this gap between thought and being that is the mark of finitude. So this gap may hold for finite objects like 100 thalers. The thought of 100 thalers isn't the same as the being of 100 thalers, because the object is finite. But obviously, this gap between the thought and the object cannot hold for an infinite being, which is the subject of the ontological argument. As Hegel illustrated, the infinite being must be both Subject and Substance, both thought and object.
We do not know whether there are infinitely many twin primes. We can imagine the set of twin primes to be infinite. But if the set turns out to be finite, then we will have been imagining something infinite that does not exist. The gap between thought and object seems to hold for infinite beings just as much as finite ones, no?
StarthrowerFebruary 13, 2018 at 19:14#1525910 likes
Reply to Buxtebuddha Precisely nothing, actually. That is also the answer to the question of time. There was no time before time, and yet there was infinite time before time. I conclude this discussion with the reasoning that we humans, in our current knowledge, don't know enough to make a concrete, science-based conclusion on the existence or nonexistance of a God. The basis of religion (including atheism) is belief.
StarthrowerFebruary 13, 2018 at 19:29#1525920 likes
Unless we lose humanity and become a hyperdimensional being, we cannot prove or disprove a God.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 13, 2018 at 23:45#1526750 likes
Unless we lose humanity and become a hyperdimensional being, we cannot prove or disprove a God.
But you can prove that we can't prove or disprove his existence? To disprove something one must have knowledge of that thing, no? Do you, then, have knowledge of God?
Reply to Buxtebuddha The issue isn't whether god exists or not. There are many variations of theism, many variations of atheism, and everything in between. Each of these perspectives can be matched with a certain scientific perspective, because science is itself a worldview( actually a large , constantly evolving spectrum of world views). And each of these perspectives provides a useful, pragmatic guide to understanding the social, psychological and ethical dimensions of life. The question is, what does one gain and what does one lose in the struggle to make sense of a world of other people, in choosing among these perspectives.
I choose my form of atheism not because I think theism is untrue( it is true for its adherents in the extent that it provides a practical guide for living ) , but because I think my atheist perspective achieves everything a theistic one does in explaining human behavior and ethical issues,and it also explains much that theistic frameworks cannot.
CuddlyHedgehogFebruary 18, 2018 at 00:16#1542150 likes
Reply to Starthrower It doesn't make sense. The Universe ALWAYS existed. There was no creation time, or big bang for that matter. Our human brain needs to attribute "beginning" and "end" to everything, thus all the absurd theories. The Universe is infinite.
René DescartesFebruary 26, 2018 at 09:47#1569170 likes
god does make sense, if he is alone. Adding billions of separated souls to a being who is omnipresent is illogical. An omnipresent entity leaves no room for individuals, or fragmentation of any kind, because multiple beings can’t occupy the same space and remain separate. If god were everywhere there could be no one else in a distinct location, because it would void gods omnipresence. So creation of the earthly variety would require god to split or shrink himself, and discard his omnipresence. Otherwise a limited identity could never take hold. This all assumes god is by definition omnipresent, but what god worth his salt isn’t.
Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why?
Yes, there's nothing apriori to suggest that all forms of being are necessarily time-and-space bound, and we already have examples of possible things that might not be (like numbers, qualia, etc.)
IOW, we usually construe "existence" as necessarily tied up with time and space - as taking up both. In fact we can't even conceive of a form of existence outside those conditions. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing. It's logically possible that time-and-space-bound existence is just one form of existence and that other forms have different parameters.
One way of looking at it is this: time and space are tied up with things existing together, being relative to each other, comparable to each other. IOW, time and space seem to be intimately connected to a world of duality, a world with separate things, that define their existence relative to each other. It may be the case though, that something that's truly alone, that has no other with which to compare it to, is outside of being compared with other things in time and space in that sense. There are also arguments for why this "thing" would have to be single, simple, etc. (i.e. if there is such a thing, then it automatically shoots up to the ranks of being God).
The long and the short of it is that we don't really know, and arguments can be made for both sides, and both points of view make sense in their own way.
What I believe is empirically true is man has an ingrained curiosity or drive to search for a meaning for his existence. And this drive almost inevitably leads to an evaluation of theism.
Why are we pushing the rock up the hill?
We can’t answer the question as a matter of fact. It would be easy, but I am not sure in any real sense better, If God appeared on the evening news, parted the Atlantic ocean and made the sun rise in the west – and told us to believe, or else suffer an eternity in hell. Is that a world of saints, or a world of sheep?
It would be equally easy if science unequivocally established as a matter of fact how the universe (meaning all we know of what exists or might exist) came into existence. Would we still search for meaning ? Would there be another hole that a being like a God could fill ? Or would that void need to be filled in outer ways ? Materialism, hedonism, acceptance, humanism ??
But neither of those options are available to us right now. So we find things we believe to be true and we act on those beliefs accordingly - to give us reason to push the rock up one more time.
However, we are reasoned beings, and we don’t want to be fools. We want what we believe to true stand the test of fact and reason. So we think. We find or develop reasoned arguments that test our beliefs. And that is where we are.
It is a fact, that man searches for meaning
It is not a fact that God is, or is not.
It is reasonable to believe God is, or is not
By faith one can believe and act accordingly to be theist or atheist.
To make "sense"to me means understanding that the concept is rational, logical, and reasonable. In my (our??) world, the Western World, and from the perspective of a scientist, the concept of god does not make "sense" . The existence of a god is a profound phenomenon which requires profound evidence, so far for which has not ever been presented.
Reply to Starthrower A great being or something creating everything else yes. How the bible says god made the world with crayons as though it was a coloring book sounds like nonesense. There might be other species outside our solor systems and universes. Its thought big bang created something out of nothingness and it changed.
I agree that the bible god is nonsense, but then shouldnt any other god? The bible god is just one of perhaps hundreds in human history. Can you explain why it makes sense that a "great being" or creator should make sense?
If there are other species outside our solar system, that is not evidence of a god.
To make "sense"to me means understanding that the concept is rational, logical, and reasonable. In my (our??) world, the Western World, and from the perspective of a scientist, the concept of god does not make "sense" . The existence of a god is a profound phenomenon which requires profound evidence, so far for which has not ever been presented.
Just don't think that is true. There are many who would rightly call themselves scientists who are theists. Even one or two philosophers.
Beware of a scientist who believes there is a god. I didnt take a gallup poll but most probably do not believe. Unless you include charatans like deepok chopra a scientist. Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true. Etc etc.
true scientists believe n the scientific method. And reasoning by observation or inference/experimentation.
oops, no edit function as I wanted to add- the scientific method can not of course, prove that a god does not exist. But it s the gold standard of proving what does. Again , as i said, extraordinary clams need extraordinary evidence. Show me the evidence.
Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true.
Walter Isaacson’s biography, Einstein’s Universe, has a chapter devoted to the topic of Einstein’s God. It shows prettty conclusively that Einstein was no atheist. He certainly didn’t believe in organised or congregational religion, but there is a well-known quote which says:
I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
Also
You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
An omnipresent entity leaves no room for individuals, or fragmentation of any kind, because multiple beings can’t occupy the same space and remain separate.
Why? This is not true even about ordinary things - why should this be true about a hypothetical supernatural thing?
Further to the above - there’s a very good WIkipedia article on Einstein’s religious views. Overall, I don’t agree with everything he says about the matter, but I admire his sense of ‘cosmic ethics’. I rather think the ‘personal God’ that he rejects is rather a Santa Claus figure, but it’s certainly true that this is how ‘God’ occurs to many believers, and insofar as that is the case, then I reject such a belief as firmly as does he. But - that’s not all there is to it.
I agree that the question of Einstein's belief can be interpreted as yes/no. We can go on and on on this like many other threads on this forum. In short, all I wish to say about it is he could not explain all in the universe (the link between relativity and quantum mechanics among other endeavors), so like many of us, when there s no explanation we easily submit- there MUST be a god.
Moving on, and away from that to my man point, Make a claim, supply the evidence. There have been now a few posts back/forth, which I . very much appreciate, but so far, as I expected, no evidence had been supplied for this preposterous claim that there s such thing as a god, a "celestial being", some would say creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
Again, show me the evidence, not articles from a quick google search on wiki.
sorry, I misspelled a few words above, but cant seem to find the edt function. Any help appreciated. I am still learning about this site as a new member.........
You say "a believer would answer that the Universe IS the answer". Is that really adequate for you? That because one can not explain the universe entirely, (as Darwin explained life for Biology/evolution) that we should simply submit by deferring to a god for the answer?
That approach is dark age Europe-esque. Because there was no better understanding, no better science, in a society rampant with illiteracy, ignorance, and despotism we submit it has to be god's work.
You say "a believer would answer that the Universe IS the answer". Is that really adequate for you?
I didn't say it was adequate for me. It's a philosophical discussion.
But, for argument's sake, let's say I did believe that. Say I'm a believer and am perfectly familiar and comfortable with Darwinian evolution, as I'm not a fundamentalist creationist. But as it is, I then say 'nothing would have existed in the first place, without the original act of creation, and if nothing existed, then sure as hell life couldn't get started'. And science doesn't really have an answer to that. Why the universe exists, 'why there is something rather than nothing', is not necessarily a scientific question at all. It might be, or it might not be. So asserting that 'belief in religion is a medieval superstition', is simply an expression of prejudice, it is not any form of reasoned argument, nor does it communicate a grasp of the issue. Sure, there are ignorant religious fundamentalists, but there are also ignorant scientific materialists.
One of the problems with answering this question, using science, is the connected to the philosophy of science. As an example, say I had a dream. I relate my dream details to a group of scientists. My account would never be accepted as fact, even if I am honest and accurate, since my dream violates the philosophy of science. There is no way to verify my claims, nor is there any way for others to reproduce my dream, for verification. Yet, paradoxically, we have all had dreams and can understand that my claims are not out of the realm of possibility. However, it violates the philosophy.
There is a wide range of brain/mind data that is real and even common, but is not consistent with the philosophy of science. This type of data is connected to what is called soft science. The philosophy of science was designed to help segregate physical sensory based reality; verifiable, from internal psychological reality, which is also real. The former is assumed to be objective; verifiable, while the latter is assumed to be subjective; not easily verifiable.
Say God, was a physics dark energy affect; hypothetically, that requires the brain work as a delicate receiver. The input signal triggers output, in the brain, such as a dream or vision. This type of data; dream and visions, which are not uncommon, violates the philosophy of science, since it is not verifiable or repeatable. Instead, science would prefer God be defined as someone who is tangible, so we can use mechanical instruments to determine if God is a repeatable observation. However, this may not be how you observe this affect so it is never seen that way.
If you look in the bible, for example, many affects that are claimed to be connected to God are based on visions and dreams. These type of output affects are connected to a special analytical tool called the brain. However, the human brain does not network with other brains in a way that is consistent with the philosophy of science. It is not the same as computers and telescopes. We do not have the tools to get a direct feed between brains for verification.
The human mind is the final frontier of science. We first needed to isolate external reality, so we have a firm foundation. Internal reality will come last, as knowledge of the outside isolates the inside. The philosophy of science, would then need to be updated, to deal with the unique experiences of the mind that are based on common human experiences; dreams and visions.
One of the problems with answering this question, using science, is the connected to the philosophy of science. As an example, say I had a dream. I relate my dream details to a group of scientists. My account would never be accepted as fact, even if I am honest and accurate, since my dream violates the philosophy of science. There is no way to verify my claims, nor is there any way for others to reproduce my dream, for verification. Yet, paradoxically, we have all had dreams and can understand that my claims are not out of the realm of possibility. However, it violates the philosophy.
That is factually incorrect. Dreams are a subject for science - and I don't just mean "objective" measures like REM observations, brain imaging, etc. - dream reports are in fact used in psychology and cognitive science. Similarly, religious scriptures and other historical documents of dubious factual value are used by historians. You just need to know how to work with your source material.
Reply to Life101 Changing it a little, would it be a good or a bad thing if God did reveal Himself so as to remove all doubt.
He breaks in every TV station in the world, parts the Atlantic Ocean, starts the world spinning the other way, you name it. There is no longer any reasonable doubt, God is fact.
He signs off by saying, you all need to love one another, stop hurting each other, share all this stuff I gave you, and if you do - paradise to level you can't understand awaits you.
Reply to ShowOfForce That's what I said, no? I don't really know what sort of an entity an omnipresent consciousness would be - but that's all the more reason for doubting pronouncements about it being possible or impossible for such an entity to be collocated with other entities.
I agree with what you said. However, much of this approach is still considered soft science that is not entirely consistent with the philosophy of science, except in terms of approach.
A good example of this is the psychology of Carl Jung. His thesis of the archetypes of the collective unconscious, is supported by a blend of historical symbolism, dreams and a career of case studies compiled in a scientific manner. However, not all scientists agree with this thesis, because it is not as easy to verify, like observing a new bird or collecting the rain water.
It would take a certain amount of opened mind effort; accept certain premises, to get the observational mind right, so the evidence appears more reliable. A hostile research team, that does not like religion, would not take the extra subjective; theoretical steps, to make any religious claims easy, when this effort is not straight forward, and the results will never be called hard science.
I don't really know what sort of an entity an omnipresent consciousness would be
Let me give a hint, it may be, attributed with, wait for it, yep, omnipresence(snorts, laughs). The thing about omnipresent consciousness you should know is, that an omnipresent being, is naturally indivisible, given that you can’t be everywhere, whilst divided. Now, since this entity is everywhere, undivided, where could another entity, possibly be located. That there, would be a division of being, within an indivisible consciousness. An absurdity of the highest order, of the absurd.
Why? Your only stated reason is that it just can't be. Something that is present in some, but not all places can be divisible, presumably. Why not something that is present everywhere?
Now, since this entity is everywhere, undivided, where could another entity, possibly be located. That there, would be a division of being, within an indivisible consciousness.
Non sequitur. What does divisibility have to do with sharing space with something else?
One way to address this is with physics. If you were to travel at the speed of light the universe would appear contracted to a point-instant, due to special relativity. This point-instant universe allows you to be everywhere in the inertial universe at the same time; omnipresent. God can be omnipresent if he in a speed of light reference.
Jesus said his kingdom is not of this realm. In tradition God is not inertial, but is spirit or in a reference at the speed of light. Spirit is closer to energy, than it is to matter. There is a consistency between tradition and what we know of relativity; God is at the speed of light.
At the speed of light, space-time breaks down into separate space and separate time. This allows one to move in space without time and move in time without space. The reason this becomes so at the speed of light is because a point-instant universe requires no time or no space to be anywhere or everywhere, since everything to overlap in space and time ay a point.
If you move in time without the restrictions of space, you can know the history of the universe, omniscience. If you can move in space without the restrictions of time you are omnipresent. These are consistent with God traditions and relativity.
Reply to wellwisher Speed of movement doesn’t redefine movement. A movement moves, from here to there. As long as you’re moving you are always here, never there. A presence in actual motion cannot be simultaneously omnipresent.
The one topic that is sure to generate an ocean of ink is that of God.
The inevitable argument between theists and atheists then ensues full whack. There are always those who deem themselves above the debate and apply terms of agnosticism or personal God in as much as they like to say things like 'I believe in my own definition of a God' which seems little different from a belief that one is a God oneself. Then there are those who make assertions like 'I know there must be something' but I don't believe in anything other than my own moral principal of 'do onto others'.
There is a lot of refinement and hyper refinement of what God is or is not and then there is a lot of hyper refinement in what one actually believes in.
The God question is as old as God. If there is such a thing I doubt if it is particularly perturbed by what us plebs believe or don't believe.
What is most interesting is how the God thing can hijack the passions so readily and so easily.
Opinions on God are like assholes in that everyone has one. To hold an opinion on God is indeed a celebration of the fact that if there is a Go- like intelligence it must be somewhat like our own (probably more open minded than most and certainly a better sense of humor)
This is a philosophy forum and we must bow to the masters in respect of established wisdom. The philosopher who has undoubtedly (IMOP) come the closest to an appropriate answer to the question of God is Spinoza.
I have yet to encounter a God concept that makes more sense to believers and non-believers alike.
The God question is as old as God. If there is such a thing I doubt if it is particularly perturbed by what us plebs believe or don't believe.
What is most interesting is how the God thing can hijack the passions so readily and so easily.
Agree - Camus' absurdism. Why do we push the rock up the hill.
In any meaningful way - as in how it effects your actions. Belief in God is a matter of faith.
However, it is important for thinking people to not hold this belief as a fool in conflict with fact or reason.
God does or does not exist is not a matter of fact
Theist's need a reasoned argument for the existence of a necessary being, to keep from being fools. Atheists need a reasoned argument for the non - existence of God - to keep from being fools.
Both have them.
Agnostics don't need anything - to believe nothing or both. By far the weakest position.
In the end history ends with God, or a big black hole -
What kind of evidence would you consider? What kind of evidence would you expect of a 'supernatural cause of existence'?
OK, figured out how to quote.....
So, wayfarer, evidence I would accept would be based on the scientific method. But it appears that we both agree that since we are talking of a supernatural thing, unlikely any evidence would be possible. Some evidence would be say, if one prays and asks for favors to the divine being or jesus, the favor would be provided every time. But since I know this s bunk and praying is useless, we know in advance evidence will never be provided. Thats just one example. t does get silly, of course.
Again, you sad there is a god, but you have no evidence. Hate to repeat, but thats where we are at.
If you say there s a god, the burden of proof is on you, not me to prove that one does not exist. It s like prooving that the tooth fairy does not exist. get it?
So, wayfarer, evidence I would accept would be based on the scientific method. But it appears that we both agree that since we are talking of a supernatural thing, unlikely any evidence would be possible.
The scientific method is useful to identify matters of fact, or very very highly probable to be fact. But you can, and you already do believe things to be true and act accordingly by both reason and faith.
Here is an example.
You do not know as a matter of fact, that your spouse is not going to shoot you when you walk in the door.
You can by reason believe it is not very likely, you haven't done anything worth getting shot over, you are getting along fine, no reason not to open the door.
I for one can't make sense of beings before time creating time and so on.
Where was such a claim made? Though one could think of it as humans becoming aware of the passing of time, and starting concepts as past and future. Before humans had a word for time, there were no conversations about time, so in a way it didn't exist from the perspective that things only exist among humans if they can talk about them.
For me, the beginning is Mind. The Mind that we observe everywhere in the universe in all of its forms.
That would be the individual perspective. However, for groups of humans trieng to survive it was the logos, since a group of one had no chance at survival.
The only concept of God that I agree could exist is a kind of "sentient" universe. However, even if that is true, then it does not explain how the universe came to be
That's one solution. Another solution is to read the 'in the beginning' in genisis, not as 'in the beginning of the universe' but rather as 'in the beginning of humans becoming concious'.
Beware of a scientist who believes there is a god. I didnt take a gallup poll but most probably do not believe. Unless you include charatans like deepok chopra a scientist. Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true. Etc etc.
true scientists believe n the scientific method. And reasoning by observation or inference/experimentation.
Of course Einstein was a believer, he was a believer in the scientific method at least. Any descent scientist with additional believes knows that in order to practice science, he/she has to put his/her additional believes on the coat rack when entering the lab.
Some evidence would be say, if one prays and asks for favors to the divine being or jesus, the favor would be provided every time. But since I know this s bunk and praying is useless, we know in advance evidence will never be provided. Thats just one example. t does get silly, of course.
The benefit of praying is that it orients ones mind on what's important, if ones mind is more orientated at what goals are important, it's more likely one will succeed in achieving those goals.
You seem to have made your decision, so there's nothing to discuss.
Not so fast- I am not done, and dont claim for me certain " decisions". But looks like youve made up your mind not to add anything else to this tread since you have "nothing to discuss".
What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid?
I thought you had nothing to discuss??
I do not have to defend the scientific method. But you still have to prove your belief in a god. It is not up to me to show you how to do that. And dont use the common tactic of "reversing the burden of proof" on one who questions that belief.
What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid?
It's interesting that you mention the scientific method. Scientists accept the best explanations of observable phenomena. At some time in the past, a god or gods were the best explanation of observable phenomena, but then better explanations came along. For some sentimental reason that I find very hard to understand, theists cling to these long defunct hypotheses.
To answer the OP's original question, god did make sense, but he was superseded a long time ago.
No it's not, to the extent that one even considers what will happen in your example, it is a strong inductive inference.
I would hope it is a strong cogent argument with a high truth value that your spouse won't shoot you, but it is all argument until you open the door, and that is an act of faith.
I would hope it is a strong cogent argument with a high truth value that your spouse won't shoot you, but it is all argument until you open the door, and that is an act of faith.
You needn't restate your position. It was clear the first time. It's still incorrect though.
To suppose that something will happen based on inductive, deductive or abuctive reasoning is not faith. Clearly, we can't expect complete certainty in most cases, so high probability suffices.
Faith is trusting that something is or will be the case without requiring any of the conditions of reason to be satisfied. Faith would be jumping into an active volcano and expecting not to get hurt.
Besides which, on your account, any action one might undertake is an act of faith. This is so general as to be entirely useless.
Comments (120)
There isn't any way around belief here: In the beginning there was the Big Bang. So, what triggered the Big Bang? What came before the Big Bang? We don't know, we haven't found out yet, so we have no choice but to believe "somehow" the Big Bang happened.
In the beginning, God said... or In the beginning the Word was... is like the Big Bang: What came before God, or the Word? We don't know. Somehow God brought about the cosmos. We don't know how, and we almost certainly will never get an explanation.
For context, I'm an atheist. I live as if there is no divine intelligence running the game and looking out for me (or torturing me). That's practical atheism. Some people may be practical agnostics, living and acting as if there's a real chance either way. Practical agnosticism sounds incredibly stressful. It's logically possible that I could change my position. Something amazing would have to happen.
Now to the issue. I for one can't make sense of beings before time creating time and so on. It's a round square. The words snap together on paper but there's no semi-distinct image in the mind to go along with those words.
But is that what all theists mean? I don't think so. I can vaguely imagine an intelligent being within time who created the world and all of us. Where this dude could come from I cannot say. Can I mae sense of a God who was always here?
But can I make sense of a universe that was always here? Or the birth of time and physicists might have it? Or quantum mechanics? Yet I believe QM as a method of prediction and for the design of technology.
In short, I'm aware of no tradition, religious or scientific, that gives an explanation of the biggest picture that fits comfortably within the intuition. Science offers stuff that works whether I believe in it or not, so I have bias in that direction. On the other hand, it might be a little too easy to jump from what science does right to its big picture guesses. Arguably the machines for prediction and control that work whether we believe in them or not are the essence. Religion can be viewed as the kind of technology that may work for believers but is not shaped to satisfy nonbelievers.
Belief in a First Cause can take many forms, e.g. God, Big Bang, the Dao, and the enumeral versions that exist in all cultures.
For me, the beginning is Mind. The Mind that we observe everywhere in the universe in all of its forms. The exploration of Mind reveals many interesting and practical ideas for navigating through life, physical, mental, and spiritual. Life is interesting because it is being explored.
that is Pascal's Wager, a perfectly sensible approach.
There are two possibilities: god exists, god does not exist
You have two choices: god exists, god does not exist
You win if you chose "god exists" and in fact "god exists"
You lose if you choose "god does not exist" and in fact "god exists".
If you choose "god exists" and in fact "god does not exist" you lose nothing.
If you choose "god does not exist" and in fact "god does not exist" you lose nothing.
So, your choice is the safe one, and possibly very beneficial.
What if the stuff was there at the beginning? This make sense since there is no before the beginning.
Many will approve your abstinence from drugs, alcohol and violence, but you know, God was never very outspoken against alcohol. In fact, there are a few places in the OT where "strong drink" is recommended. We don't know what sort of drug use the ancient Israelies may have had available, and at least in the OT, God doesn't seem all that opposed to the regular application of violence (though He seems to have improved his position on this issue over time).
Why a being? Why not just a chance occurrence that set the ball rolling.
I thought there is evidence of a big bang?
Intelligent from who's point of view?
From the universe's point of view it may be all based off chance, no intelligence required. Of course we don't like that idea.
There is a dispute about this.
Awesome, thank you. I don't have time to read it right now but I will at my earliest convenience.
Based on the title, however, I think it reflects some of my own reservations that I had about Krauss's work before I read his book. He convinced me.
Ok, i managed to get as far as his first, legitimate criticism. I'll summarize it as follows: Classical Physics follows a set of rules, so Quantum Physics must follow the same rules.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Quantum Physics. The entire point behind Quantum Physics being so strange and wonderful is that it does not follow what we thought were the physical rules of the universe as we perceived them. There is no reason to believe that they should other then that is how our limited perspective up until now has shown us. However, our perspective is just that, limited. Scientific pursuit is all about expanding that perspective and if we discover things that do not conform to our predictions, all the better. To summarize: just because it doesn't do what we think it should do, doesn't mean its not doing it. There is plenty of evidence showing us that it operates in a different way to Classical Physics.
So far all the author of this article has done is make arguments from ignorance. I hope this improves.
Does the concept of an uncaused world that nevertheless seems contingent make sense?
Look at Albert's criticism of Krauss which appeared in NYTimes review of books.
Sure, I'm on George Ellis. I'll be there soon enough, hopefully.
Hmm doesn't seem to cover anyone called Albert? Are you referring to Albert Einstein and/or do you have another link for me?
You don't see " David Albert of Columbia said about Krauss’s book in The New York Times." in the article?
The Big Bang model suggests there was nothing before the universe, so it stands to reason that there will be no evidence of what was before the universe. This concept begs the question: is a lack of evidence evidence for a lack of anything? If yes, then since Krauss's thesis suggests that nothing is unstable, the infinite nothingness before the universe, evident by the lack of evidence, would inevitably break down into something that it is not, id est, something.
Kruass's conclusions are derived from mathematical models, true, however this is currently the best, if not only, way for us to measure mechanisms at the quantum level due to lacking technology. They are also based on an experiment that reproduced these conditions at a micro scale, solidifying his conclusion. However, to suggest that Kruass's thesis suggests anything more then a universe from nothing is plausible is to grossly misrepresent his work.
I actually agree that Kruass should engage this topic on a philosophical level. I fancy myself a philosopher and would love to see him do so.
I don't actually...... Strange.
I'll look it up.
You know that not all Theists believe that God is a "creature", right? A creature is something or someone that has been created.
In fact not all Theists say that God is a being, or an element of metaphysics. Existence is a metaphysical term (...but, incidentally, a metaphysical term that lacks a metaphysical definition).
The notion of "Creation" is anthropomorphic.
But sure, a lot of Theists believe the allegory. That allegory is the only Theism that most here have heard of. The preachy Theists, like the ones who knock on your door, are the most staunch believers in that allegory, in its extreme Biblical-Literalist version, and so that's what you hear about, and that's what Theism means to most people.
Above I mentioned the notion of God being a being. That's anthropomorphic too.
Anyway, non-Literalists don't promote, proselytize or preach. I don't regard religion as a matter to convince anyone about.
If you're curious about non-allegorical, non-anthropomorphic, non-Literalist Theism, then maybe googling "Negative Theology" would bring up some references.
Michael Ossipoff
Apparently, quantum fields must exist in order for something to come from Krauss's 'nothing', in Albert's pov.
In the context of the history of ideas, I think it's important to get an understanding of the metaphysics of the Greek tradition, starting mainly with Plato, and in particular the Parmenides, and then developing through neoPlatonism, paying special attention to the metaphysics of The Republic. This philosophical tradition was then appropriated by the nascent Christianity which created fusion of Hebraic revealed religion and Greek philosophy especially by the early Greek-speaking philosophical theologians including Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Philo, and others.
I say this because due to the vagaries of history, much of the original metaphysics has been forgotten or rejected in relatively recent times. This is due, in my opinion, to the strongly anti-metaphysical strain in Protestantism, specifically arising from Luther and Calvin, and also to certain anti-metaphysical developments in later scholastic philosophy. The consequences of that, and other currents of thought, was the imposition of an essentially irrationalist notion of God, to whom one had no choice but to surrender in quaking submission. (Not for nothing has Calvin been called The Ayatollah of Geneva.)
Whereas, in the earlier Greek tradition, still preserved to some degree in Thomism and neoThomism, there is still the conception that the order of the Universe can be understood in terms of a Divine Intellect and a universalistic notion of Reason. Hence the traditionalist understanding that mathematics and science represent one tier in the 'great chain of being', but that still above that reside the eternal forms and essences in the eternal mind. (This is still preserved in Galileo's dictum that 'the book of nature is written in mathematics' whilst many of the supporting ideas have fallen away.)
Nothing discovered in modern science contravenes that understanding, indeed scientifically educated Thomist philosophers (typically Jesuit, such as Stephen M Barr and Robert Spitzer) are thoroughly conversant with the detail of current philosophical cosmology and don't see any conflict between it, and the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition which they represent. Unlike the idiot creationists, who wish to argue with rocks.
Hey, I thought Thomas agrees with creation ex nihilo.
Ah yes, that bit. My first "reply" to the article was aimed at this.
Actually, they don't. Krauss's thesis is that nothingness is unstable. Since he is restrained by our pesky mortal existence, testing this is impossible. However, we can measure the closest thing to absolute nothingness, a complete vacuum, and his predictions seem accurate. His conclusions are derived from this experiment and then, when applied to absolute nothingness, can explain a universe from nothing. Remember, his thesis is that this is plausible, not definitive.
This argument comes from not being able to fully conceptualize Kruass's conclusions. Understandably so, the English language is too crude and clumsy to accurately describe how I, at least, envision the state of absolute nothingness.
Aquinas vs Intelligent Design
That actually leads to refutation of creation ex nihilo (in the sense of saying there was nothing present form which the universe came) because God is the presence from which the universe comes-- it did not come from nothing, but rather from God.
Any objection based on the assertion God must be nothing and so impossible only misses the point-- God is something and is that form which the universe springs.
Please define "make sense".
Do you mean adherence to formal logic?
Do you mean subjective intellectual satisfaction?
Please clarify.
The notion of God as a "being", and the notion of "creation" are anthropomorphic.
Michael Ossipoff
In general I have a religious inclination which I cannot seem to shake, it is one that rejects the notion that the world is accidental and purposeless and lacks any larger meaning.
The notion of God that I employ has to do with creativity and novelty, order on primordial chaos, imposing form on the void, and providing possibilities for the future. I do not see God as primarily concerned with human morality.
If one looks at the question historically, it is hardly possible to understand history, architecture, art, music or literature without some understanding of the religious notions which inspired much such work and so perhaps belief in higher meaning and purpose has some utility to it other than just Pascal's wager.
Quoting Starthrower
Quoting Starthrower
How do you reconcile these two ideas?
Quoting Starthrower
Sounds like fear not love
Saying a being existed "before time" is saying that there is a time external to time, which is incoherent. It is like asking what's North of the North Pole.
Questions like that get asked all the time, not that there are any scientific or empirical answers.
What exists beyond the universe?
What existed before the big bang?
Some people love asking and trying to answer such questions because one can speculate away unencumbered by any data or facts, others find it a massive waste of time and mental energy.
No it's not. When people talk of "before time", they are talking of "before (scientific) time". Scientific time is the time physicists deal with - they say this time started with the Big Bang, because it was impossible to physically measure time before that. However, this isn't to say that there couldn't be a (non-physically measurable) time before this.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
How so? North is a direction that is relative to the North pole.
Yes, I actually think the ontological argument for God's existence is the most powerful argument, but it must be properly understood. Kant's famous critique of the ontological argument is that "being is not a property", so I do not add anything to a notion by saying that it exists. Kant gives the notion of 100 thalers, and says that nothing is added to the notion if we say it exists. Existence adds no difference between the concept and its object.
So this strikes at one of the core issues of philosophy, which is the relation between Thought and Being. From the very beginning, philosophy aimed to close the gap between thought and being - that's what thought, in its endeavour of doing philosophy, aims to do - it aims to coincide with being. But one must notice here that it is precisely this gap between thought and being that is the mark of finitude. So this gap may hold for finite objects like 100 thalers. The thought of 100 thalers isn't the same as the being of 100 thalers, because the object is finite. But obviously, this gap between the thought and the object cannot hold for an infinite being, which is the subject of the ontological argument. As Hegel illustrated, the infinite being must be both Subject and Substance, both thought and object.
Doubtful we ever will if God is defined as supernatural.
Quoting Starthrower
But you can prove that we can't prove or disprove his existence? To disprove something one must have knowledge of that thing, no? Do you, then, have knowledge of God?
I choose my form of atheism not because I think theism is untrue( it is true for its adherents in the extent that it provides a practical guide for living ) , but because I think my atheist perspective achieves everything a theistic one does in explaining human behavior and ethical issues,and it also explains much that theistic frameworks cannot.
Yes, there's nothing apriori to suggest that all forms of being are necessarily time-and-space bound, and we already have examples of possible things that might not be (like numbers, qualia, etc.)
IOW, we usually construe "existence" as necessarily tied up with time and space - as taking up both. In fact we can't even conceive of a form of existence outside those conditions. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing. It's logically possible that time-and-space-bound existence is just one form of existence and that other forms have different parameters.
One way of looking at it is this: time and space are tied up with things existing together, being relative to each other, comparable to each other. IOW, time and space seem to be intimately connected to a world of duality, a world with separate things, that define their existence relative to each other. It may be the case though, that something that's truly alone, that has no other with which to compare it to, is outside of being compared with other things in time and space in that sense. There are also arguments for why this "thing" would have to be single, simple, etc. (i.e. if there is such a thing, then it automatically shoots up to the ranks of being God).
The long and the short of it is that we don't really know, and arguments can be made for both sides, and both points of view make sense in their own way.
What I believe is empirically true is man has an ingrained curiosity or drive to search for a meaning for his existence. And this drive almost inevitably leads to an evaluation of theism.
Why are we pushing the rock up the hill?
We can’t answer the question as a matter of fact. It would be easy, but I am not sure in any real sense better, If God appeared on the evening news, parted the Atlantic ocean and made the sun rise in the west – and told us to believe, or else suffer an eternity in hell. Is that a world of saints, or a world of sheep?
It would be equally easy if science unequivocally established as a matter of fact how the universe (meaning all we know of what exists or might exist) came into existence. Would we still search for meaning ? Would there be another hole that a being like a God could fill ? Or would that void need to be filled in outer ways ? Materialism, hedonism, acceptance, humanism ??
But neither of those options are available to us right now. So we find things we believe to be true and we act on those beliefs accordingly - to give us reason to push the rock up one more time.
However, we are reasoned beings, and we don’t want to be fools. We want what we believe to true stand the test of fact and reason. So we think. We find or develop reasoned arguments that test our beliefs. And that is where we are.
It is a fact, that man searches for meaning
It is not a fact that God is, or is not.
It is reasonable to believe God is, or is not
By faith one can believe and act accordingly to be theist or atheist.
If there are other species outside our solar system, that is not evidence of a god.
Just don't think that is true. There are many who would rightly call themselves scientists who are theists. Even one or two philosophers.
true scientists believe n the scientific method. And reasoning by observation or inference/experimentation.
Walter Isaacson’s biography, Einstein’s Universe, has a chapter devoted to the topic of Einstein’s God. It shows prettty conclusively that Einstein was no atheist. He certainly didn’t believe in organised or congregational religion, but there is a well-known quote which says:
Also
Quoting Life101
A believer would answer that the Universe IS the evidence.
Why? This is not true even about ordinary things - why should this be true about a hypothetical supernatural thing?
I agree that the question of Einstein's belief can be interpreted as yes/no. We can go on and on on this like many other threads on this forum. In short, all I wish to say about it is he could not explain all in the universe (the link between relativity and quantum mechanics among other endeavors), so like many of us, when there s no explanation we easily submit- there MUST be a god.
Moving on, and away from that to my man point, Make a claim, supply the evidence. There have been now a few posts back/forth, which I . very much appreciate, but so far, as I expected, no evidence had been supplied for this preposterous claim that there s such thing as a god, a "celestial being", some would say creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
Again, show me the evidence, not articles from a quick google search on wiki.
You say "a believer would answer that the Universe IS the answer". Is that really adequate for you? That because one can not explain the universe entirely, (as Darwin explained life for Biology/evolution) that we should simply submit by deferring to a god for the answer?
That approach is dark age Europe-esque. Because there was no better understanding, no better science, in a society rampant with illiteracy, ignorance, and despotism we submit it has to be god's work.
I read Isaacson's book on Einstein, and I recommend it.
Quoting Life101
I didn't say it was adequate for me. It's a philosophical discussion.
But, for argument's sake, let's say I did believe that. Say I'm a believer and am perfectly familiar and comfortable with Darwinian evolution, as I'm not a fundamentalist creationist. But as it is, I then say 'nothing would have existed in the first place, without the original act of creation, and if nothing existed, then sure as hell life couldn't get started'. And science doesn't really have an answer to that. Why the universe exists, 'why there is something rather than nothing', is not necessarily a scientific question at all. It might be, or it might not be. So asserting that 'belief in religion is a medieval superstition', is simply an expression of prejudice, it is not any form of reasoned argument, nor does it communicate a grasp of the issue. Sure, there are ignorant religious fundamentalists, but there are also ignorant scientific materialists.
Quoting Life101
What kind of evidence would you consider? What kind of evidence would you expect of a 'supernatural cause of existence'?
There is a wide range of brain/mind data that is real and even common, but is not consistent with the philosophy of science. This type of data is connected to what is called soft science. The philosophy of science was designed to help segregate physical sensory based reality; verifiable, from internal psychological reality, which is also real. The former is assumed to be objective; verifiable, while the latter is assumed to be subjective; not easily verifiable.
Say God, was a physics dark energy affect; hypothetically, that requires the brain work as a delicate receiver. The input signal triggers output, in the brain, such as a dream or vision. This type of data; dream and visions, which are not uncommon, violates the philosophy of science, since it is not verifiable or repeatable. Instead, science would prefer God be defined as someone who is tangible, so we can use mechanical instruments to determine if God is a repeatable observation. However, this may not be how you observe this affect so it is never seen that way.
If you look in the bible, for example, many affects that are claimed to be connected to God are based on visions and dreams. These type of output affects are connected to a special analytical tool called the brain. However, the human brain does not network with other brains in a way that is consistent with the philosophy of science. It is not the same as computers and telescopes. We do not have the tools to get a direct feed between brains for verification.
The human mind is the final frontier of science. We first needed to isolate external reality, so we have a firm foundation. Internal reality will come last, as knowledge of the outside isolates the inside. The philosophy of science, would then need to be updated, to deal with the unique experiences of the mind that are based on common human experiences; dreams and visions.
That is factually incorrect. Dreams are a subject for science - and I don't just mean "objective" measures like REM observations, brain imaging, etc. - dream reports are in fact used in psychology and cognitive science. Similarly, religious scriptures and other historical documents of dubious factual value are used by historians. You just need to know how to work with your source material.
He breaks in every TV station in the world, parts the Atlantic Ocean, starts the world spinning the other way, you name it. There is no longer any reasonable doubt, God is fact.
He signs off by saying, you all need to love one another, stop hurting each other, share all this stuff I gave you, and if you do - paradise to level you can't understand awaits you.
Do we now have a world of saints, or sheep?
And why would an ordinary thing be similar to an invisible consciousness.
I agree with what you said. However, much of this approach is still considered soft science that is not entirely consistent with the philosophy of science, except in terms of approach.
A good example of this is the psychology of Carl Jung. His thesis of the archetypes of the collective unconscious, is supported by a blend of historical symbolism, dreams and a career of case studies compiled in a scientific manner. However, not all scientists agree with this thesis, because it is not as easy to verify, like observing a new bird or collecting the rain water.
It would take a certain amount of opened mind effort; accept certain premises, to get the observational mind right, so the evidence appears more reliable. A hostile research team, that does not like religion, would not take the extra subjective; theoretical steps, to make any religious claims easy, when this effort is not straight forward, and the results will never be called hard science.
Let me give a hint, it may be, attributed with, wait for it, yep, omnipresence(snorts, laughs). The thing about omnipresent consciousness you should know is, that an omnipresent being, is naturally indivisible, given that you can’t be everywhere, whilst divided. Now, since this entity is everywhere, undivided, where could another entity, possibly be located. That there, would be a division of being, within an indivisible consciousness. An absurdity of the highest order, of the absurd.
Why? Your only stated reason is that it just can't be. Something that is present in some, but not all places can be divisible, presumably. Why not something that is present everywhere?
Quoting ShowOfForce
Non sequitur. What does divisibility have to do with sharing space with something else?
One way to address this is with physics. If you were to travel at the speed of light the universe would appear contracted to a point-instant, due to special relativity. This point-instant universe allows you to be everywhere in the inertial universe at the same time; omnipresent. God can be omnipresent if he in a speed of light reference.
Jesus said his kingdom is not of this realm. In tradition God is not inertial, but is spirit or in a reference at the speed of light. Spirit is closer to energy, than it is to matter. There is a consistency between tradition and what we know of relativity; God is at the speed of light.
At the speed of light, space-time breaks down into separate space and separate time. This allows one to move in space without time and move in time without space. The reason this becomes so at the speed of light is because a point-instant universe requires no time or no space to be anywhere or everywhere, since everything to overlap in space and time ay a point.
If you move in time without the restrictions of space, you can know the history of the universe, omniscience. If you can move in space without the restrictions of time you are omnipresent. These are consistent with God traditions and relativity.
The inevitable argument between theists and atheists then ensues full whack. There are always those who deem themselves above the debate and apply terms of agnosticism or personal God in as much as they like to say things like 'I believe in my own definition of a God' which seems little different from a belief that one is a God oneself. Then there are those who make assertions like 'I know there must be something' but I don't believe in anything other than my own moral principal of 'do onto others'.
There is a lot of refinement and hyper refinement of what God is or is not and then there is a lot of hyper refinement in what one actually believes in.
The God question is as old as God. If there is such a thing I doubt if it is particularly perturbed by what us plebs believe or don't believe.
What is most interesting is how the God thing can hijack the passions so readily and so easily.
Opinions on God are like assholes in that everyone has one. To hold an opinion on God is indeed a celebration of the fact that if there is a Go- like intelligence it must be somewhat like our own (probably more open minded than most and certainly a better sense of humor)
This is a philosophy forum and we must bow to the masters in respect of established wisdom. The philosopher who has undoubtedly (IMOP) come the closest to an appropriate answer to the question of God is Spinoza.
I have yet to encounter a God concept that makes more sense to believers and non-believers alike.
M
Agree - Camus' absurdism. Why do we push the rock up the hill.
In any meaningful way - as in how it effects your actions. Belief in God is a matter of faith.
However, it is important for thinking people to not hold this belief as a fool in conflict with fact or reason.
God does or does not exist is not a matter of fact
Theist's need a reasoned argument for the existence of a necessary being, to keep from being fools. Atheists need a reasoned argument for the non - existence of God - to keep from being fools.
Both have them.
Agnostics don't need anything - to believe nothing or both. By far the weakest position.
In the end history ends with God, or a big black hole -
OK, figured out how to quote.....
So, wayfarer, evidence I would accept would be based on the scientific method. But it appears that we both agree that since we are talking of a supernatural thing, unlikely any evidence would be possible. Some evidence would be say, if one prays and asks for favors to the divine being or jesus, the favor would be provided every time. But since I know this s bunk and praying is useless, we know in advance evidence will never be provided. Thats just one example. t does get silly, of course.
Again, you sad there is a god, but you have no evidence. Hate to repeat, but thats where we are at.
If you say there s a god, the burden of proof is on you, not me to prove that one does not exist. It s like prooving that the tooth fairy does not exist. get it?
Right!
Quoting Life101
You seem to have made your decision, so there's nothing to discuss.
What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid?
The scientific method is useful to identify matters of fact, or very very highly probable to be fact. But you can, and you already do believe things to be true and act accordingly by both reason and faith.
Here is an example.
You do not know as a matter of fact, that your spouse is not going to shoot you when you walk in the door.
You can by reason believe it is not very likely, you haven't done anything worth getting shot over, you are getting along fine, no reason not to open the door.
But actually opening the door is an act of faith.
Genisis is quite clear on this, it was spoken into being. Though the cosmos wasn't mentioned there.
Select the part you wish to quote, then hover your mouse over it and right click, it will give the quote option then.
Where was such a claim made? Though one could think of it as humans becoming aware of the passing of time, and starting concepts as past and future. Before humans had a word for time, there were no conversations about time, so in a way it didn't exist from the perspective that things only exist among humans if they can talk about them.
That would be the individual perspective. However, for groups of humans trieng to survive it was the logos, since a group of one had no chance at survival.
Where was this claim made? The big bang theory doesn't make such claim, nor does the bible.
Nonsense, we can talk about the beginning of the industrial era, of course there was something before the beginning of the industrial era.
That's one solution. Another solution is to read the 'in the beginning' in genisis, not as 'in the beginning of the universe' but rather as 'in the beginning of humans becoming concious'.
If the higgs boson can be everywhere, then why can't god?
Of course Einstein was a believer, he was a believer in the scientific method at least. Any descent scientist with additional believes knows that in order to practice science, he/she has to put his/her additional believes on the coat rack when entering the lab.
The benefit of praying is that it orients ones mind on what's important, if ones mind is more orientated at what goals are important, it's more likely one will succeed in achieving those goals.
Not so fast- I am not done, and dont claim for me certain " decisions". But looks like youve made up your mind not to add anything else to this tread since you have "nothing to discuss".
I thought you had nothing to discuss??
I do not have to defend the scientific method. But you still have to prove your belief in a god. It is not up to me to show you how to do that. And dont use the common tactic of "reversing the burden of proof" on one who questions that belief.
It's interesting that you mention the scientific method. Scientists accept the best explanations of observable phenomena. At some time in the past, a god or gods were the best explanation of observable phenomena, but then better explanations came along. For some sentimental reason that I find very hard to understand, theists cling to these long defunct hypotheses.
To answer the OP's original question, god did make sense, but he was superseded a long time ago.
Thank goodness we can finally put that question to rest.
No it's not, to the extent that one even considers what will happen in your example, it is a strong inductive inference.
I would hope it is a strong cogent argument with a high truth value that your spouse won't shoot you, but it is all argument until you open the door, and that is an act of faith.
You needn't restate your position. It was clear the first time. It's still incorrect though.
To suppose that something will happen based on inductive, deductive or abuctive reasoning is not faith. Clearly, we can't expect complete certainty in most cases, so high probability suffices.
Faith is trusting that something is or will be the case without requiring any of the conditions of reason to be satisfied. Faith would be jumping into an active volcano and expecting not to get hurt.
Besides which, on your account, any action one might undertake is an act of faith. This is so general as to be entirely useless.