145 replies to this topic

[Mnemonix]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 28 July 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

This very question, and the answers I received, were one of the catalysts in my becoming an atheist. Now the one hand I was being told that nothing could exist for ever, or spontaneous spring into existence and so the universe must have been created by a god. Then I was told that god existed for ever. My young mind reasoned that if a god could exist without beginning and end then it was not impossible for the universe to have existed without beginning or end, and thus there was no need for a creator for the universe to exist.

That's fine if you believe that, but I believe that the universe needs a Creator because it is a creation. Islam says that God is like nothing in His creation.

Just a personal opinion.

[Rlyeh]

The New Richard Nixon, on 28 July 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Please people take this seriously.

There is no correct answer, people have defined a deity that's beyond the universe in order to explain it.

[Rlyeh]

Angel Left Wing, on 28 July 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

Doesn't that go against the scientific principle that you can't create something from nothing, though?

That's not what he said though.

Quote

Also, in being an atheist, doesn't your comment above contradict your beliefs? In other words, if you do not believe in God (or "gods" as the case may be), how can you reason that His existence (which you don't believe in) having no beginning or end allows for the same to be true about the universe?

It would seem that you are basing that belief on the acknowledgement of a being that you don't believe exists to begin with.

He is applying the same reasoning believers use with god, to the universe.
Not sure how his acknowledgement of other beliefs (and their reasoning) contradicts his atheism.

[Armchair Educated]

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

That's not what he said though.[/font]

He is applying the same reasoning believers use with god, to the universe.
Not sure how his acknowledgement of other beliefs (and their reasoning) contradicts his atheism.

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

That's not what he said though.

[font=verdana, geneva, sans-serif]He is applying the same reasoning believers use with god, to the universe.
Not sure how his acknowledgement of other beliefs (and their reasoning) contradicts his atheism.

how is this not contradicting him self. can i not now say as the universe can exist forever, is it possible that god also existed forever?

Edited by Ever Learning, 28 July 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Uncle Pockets]

The creator is nothing like the creation. You associate the way we are born and assume it must be similar.

This is a bit where Christianity slips. You cannot associate human traits with God. It is wrong to refer to him as father as that makes you think of a father as you have. That opens the doors for sons and so on.

Again, the Creator is nothing like the creation.

[Rlyeh]

Ever Learning, on 28 July 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

how is this not contradicting him self. can i not now say as the universe can exist forever, is it possible that god also existed forever?

He is applying the same reasoning believers give god, to the universe. Where is the contradiction?

[Left-Field]

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

That's not what he said though.

I'll wait for him to speak for himself as I have no intentions of putting words in his mouth.

He may not have said it directly, but in stating:

"My young mind reasoned that if a god could exist without beginning and end then it was not impossible for the universe to have existed without beginning or end"

He is, if nothing else, implying he believes it is possible for the universe to have never come into being and that it simply always was. As far I understand though, science insists that nothing has simply always been and that you can't have something come about from nothing.

I don't know if science still holds that stance, but I know that when I was in school it is what I was taught.

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

He is applying the same reasoning believers use with god, to the universe. Not sure how his acknowledgement of other beliefs (and their reasoning) contradicts his atheism.

How can one apply the reasoning used to explain something they don't believe exits (regardless of the fact others do) to then explain something they do believe in?

If they do so, they are basing their belief (or at least part of it) on one thing upon principles they find are a faulty explanation of another.

Ultimiately, however, what I am asking about has more to do with scientif laws and beliefs than it has to do with God.

If science tells us that nothing can exist forever or spontaneously spring into existence than it is science that contradicts the idea of the universe having done so.

If you (not "you" specifically, I mean it in the general sense) are going to bypass that by stating that "Oh well, that is how people explain God's existence so I can use that same reasoning to explain how the universe came to be." then you would have to acknowledge God's existence as a reality to believe the reasoning used to explain Him can righfully be applied to explaining how the universe came to be.

[Left-Field]

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

He is applying the same reasoning believers give god, to the universe. Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction lies in the fact that if he truly believes the "reasoning believers give God" is credible reasoning that can also be applied to the universe he would have to also acknowledge that God truly exits.

In other words, if God truly does not exist and one truly believes that is so, then no amount of reasoning used to explain God's being can be applied to explain the existence of the universe (or anything else for that matter).

It stands to reason that only believers in God (or some other higher being) can apply their beliefs in Him to also explain why the universe has always been, with no beginning and no end.

The only logical way around that for an atheist (off the top of my head) would be to hold a belief that the universe itself is God (or a higher being if that is what one would prefer to acknowledge it as).

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 28 July 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Angel Left Wing, on 28 July 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

"My young mind reasoned that if a god could exist without beginning and end then it was not impossible for the universe to have existed without beginning or end"

He is, if nothing else, implying he believes it is possible for the universe to have never come into being and that it simply always was. As far I understand though, science insists that nothing has simply always been and that you can't have something come about from nothing.

So what is the problem since he didn't say the universe came from nothing?

Quote

If you (not "you" specifically, I mean it in the general sense) are going to bypass that by stating that "Oh well, that is how people explain God's existence so I can use that same reasoning to explain how the universe came to be." then you would have to acknowledge God's existence as a reality to believe the reasoning used to explain Him can righfully be applied to explaining how the universe came to be.

More like, "I can exclude the universe from certain rules, just as people do with their gods". However your reasoning God must exist doesn't make sense, as it doesn't depend on God's existence but the reasons (or special pleading) put forth.

Just because Zeus is credited to throwing lightning bolts doesn't mean the acceptance of lightning implies (or requires) Zeus' existence.

Edited by Rlyeh, 28 July 2012 - 10:16 AM.

[Lilly]

God is the Universe.

see link here

Edited by Lilly, 28 July 2012 - 10:21 AM.
addition

[Left-Field]

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

So what is the problem since he didn't say the universe came from nothing?

The problem is that he gives no indication (or at least he hasn't yet) as to where the universe came from - this would imply that it has simply always been (or that it came from nothing). To the best of my knowledge science tells us that nothing has simply always been. As far as I know, science states that everything came forth from something else

So if a person is to state that they believe it's possible that the universe has always been, they are then stating the universe itself defies the laws of science. This would then mean that the universe's coming into being is to be viewed as something extraordinary - something that is on the same level as the belief in God.

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

More like, "I can exclude the universe from certain rules, just as people do with their gods". However your reasoning God must exist doesn't make sense, as it doesn't depend on God's existence but the reasons (or special pleading) put forth.

That is only true if one is willing to believe that science is flawed.

If, on the other hand, you believe scientific laws are credible then a belief that the universe came from nothing and has always been stands in direct contrast to the scientific analysis used to reason everything about ourselves and what surrounds us by those who do not believe in God (and by others).

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Just because Zeus is credited to throwing lightning bolts doesn't mean the acceptance of lightning implies (or requires) Zeus' existence.

That doesn't apply here because science tells us why lightening exists and where it comes from - we know for a fact that Zues has nothing to do with it. Science, however, does not explain to us why the universe exists.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 28 July 2012 - 12:15 PM.

[Habitat]

Fact is, rational thinking breaks down when you ask the pesky question, " where did * EVERYTHING* come from ? " And simply because rational thinking works by comparing things and finding relationships between them. And there is, by definition no other "everything" to compare with ! But, that doesn't stop the old enquiring mind continuing its struggles with the problem, it is like a wind-up toy that won't stop ! But, you may disagree.......

[gentai]

i believe consciuosness always existed but was unaware. like dreaming. it dreamed of something funny and became self aware through the sound / feeling of its own reaction. it thought of everything it could think of. and just when it thought it might last foever this way, it willed itself to shine like a star to start to see what it looks like. consciuosness has a strong will. is a star still connected to and / or still a part of the light that it shines? i would say yes. is the light exactly the same as the star? no. but the star is always changing and so are you.

[Rlyeh]

Angel Left Wing, on 28 July 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

The problem is that he gives no indication (or at least he hasn't yet) as to where the universe came from - this would imply that it has simply always been (or that it came from nothing). To the best of my knowledge science tells us that nothing has simply always been. As far as I know, science states that everything came forth from something else

So if a person is to state that they believe it's possible that the universe has always been, they are then stating the universe itself defies the laws of science. This would then mean that the universe's coming into being is to be viewed as something extraordinary - something that is on the same level as the belief in God.

That is only true if one is willing to believe that science is flawed.

If, on the other hand, you believe scientific laws are credible then a belief that the universe came from nothing and has always been stands in direct contrast to the scientific analysis used to reason everything about ourselves and what surrounds us by those who do not believe in God (and by others).

Laws of science, you want to be more specific? Because it sounds like you're throwing out a lot of your interpretations without anything of real substance.

As far as I'm aware he's speaking of his own reasoning.

Quote

That doesn't apply here because science tells us why lightening exists and where it comes from - we know for a fact that Zues has nothing to do with it. Science, however, does not explain to us why the universe exists.

Special pleading. Either you can accept people using reasoning that believers might use or you can't.

Anyway science isn't a factor, people who didn't believe in Zeus still accepted the existence of lightning before the scientific explanation of lightning.

Edited by Rlyeh, 28 July 2012 - 12:41 PM.

[Left-Field]

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Laws of science, you want to be more specific? Because it sounds like you're throwing out a lot of your interpretations without anything of real substance.

As far as I'm aware he's speaking of his own reasoning.

---

The First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics may be expressed by several forms of the fundamental thermodynamic relation for a closed system:

Increase in internal energy of a system = heat supplied to the system - work done by the system. U = Q - W

For a thermodynamic cycle, the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.

More specifically, the First Law encompasses the following three principles:

The law of conservation of energy

This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system remains the same.

* The flow of heat is a form of energy transfer.

(In other words, a quantity of heat that flows from a hot object to a cold object can be expressed as an amount of energy being transferred from the hot object to the cold object.)

* Performing work is a form of energy transfer.

(For example, when a machine lifts a heavy object upwards, some energy is transferred from the machine to the object. The object acquires its energy in the form of gravitational potential energy in this example).

Combining these three principles gives the first law of thermodynamics.

---

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Special pleading. Either you can accept people using reasoning that believers might use or you can't.

You seem to be missing the point.

Personally, I can easily accept the same reasoning people use to explain God to explain the existence of the universe because I actually believe in Him.

For someone who doesn't believe in Him to state something else can be explained as possible using the same reasoning believers use to explain God would first require them to believe that God exists.

If someone doesn't believe God exists, yet they use the reasoning believers use to explain God's existence to explain the origins of the universe they are basing it on something they regard as a work of fiction - it simply doesn't make sense for an atheist to do this.

Rlyeh, on 28 July 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Anyway science isn't a factor, people who didn't believe in Zeus still accepted the existence of lightning before the scientific explanation of lightning.

The fact that people accepted the existence of lightening at a time when there wasn't a known scientific explanation of lightening does not change the fact that there is, and has always been, a science behind lightening which explains why it occurrs and where it comes from.

I really don't understand the path you're heading down regarding those last comments about Zeus and lightening.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 28 July 2012 - 01:25 PM.