The Atheist's Dilemma

[Occult1]

I suspect it would be pretty tough to find yourself in a Universe that doesn't have the right conditions for you to evolve or thrive.

Assuming that there exist more than one Universe, of course. I am not sure if we we'll ever have solid proof of a Multiverse.

That being said, I won't dismiss the idea. It's quite possible that there is even an infinite number of them, and that they've all evolved quite differently.

The way I see it, it would mean we are part of something far greater than we could possibly imagine.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Phenix20

[psyche101]

I suppose it works fine if you believe that it all comes from 'nothing', a random accident of quantum mechanics but that's an idea I do not subscribe to. I've not been convinced by the arguments of proponent such as Lawrence Krauss either. Since that isn't proven by any mean and that it might actually never be, why should I dismiss other possiblities and simply assume that the Atheist worldview is the right one? I see no reason to.

It is not specifically an Atheist world view though. That is the scientific interpretation considering the best evidence at hand.

Krauss' hypotheses seem more than sound to me, what particular areas do you find fault with?

I think you confuse rumour with possibility maybe? I think it would be more constructive to fully understand the viable model that professional minds across the planet have consensus upon as opposed to a fringe musing? How do you see them to be on a level playing field???

My view of 'God' has been mostly influenced by philosopher Charles Hartshorne so I am gonna quote his intriguing analogy:

''According to Hartshorne, panentheism can best be understood through an analogy: just as a single organism exists both as as a collection of semiautonomous, individual cells and as an autonomous individual who is more than just a collection of cells, God can be seen as both a collection of all the constituent parts of reality and as "something more" than the universe itself. Although we, along with the rest of existence, can be thought of as part of God's "body," God's mind or consciousness extends beyond that body and causes God to be more than just a collection of parts.

As parts of God, our freedom is not absolute - just as the freedom of cells in our body is not absolute. At the same time, our actions and thoughts are not dependent upon or controlled by God any more than we are able to consciously control and direct the actions of our individual cells. We may be more than our cells, but we depend upon our cells acting independently of our minds in order for us to grow and even to be in the first place.''

Source: http://atheism.about...heism_panen.htm

That is not altogether different from the scientific philosophy that we are the Universes conscious matter that has become self aware and has begun to wondering about itself. There is no need for a sole entity to direct that philosophy.

What we do not have is any reason at all to believe there is structure to the Universe, it is chaotic at all levels.

Dr Haisch's 'God' Theory allows for the possiblity that 'God' - indeed not separated from the Universe - might also extend endlessly beyond it. Hence it could still makes sense into a Panentheistic or Panendeistic model as well. But we are entering into a discussion on theological semantics here.

Honestly sounds like the same thing to me?

I've no problem with his views on UFO. There has been some fine scientists over the years who became very interested in this phenomenon, considering seriously the possibility that UFOs could be evidence of extraterretrial visitations. J. Allen Hynek, Peter A. Sturrock, John E.Mack, Jacques Vallé to name a few.

John E Mack felt it was actually a mental problem, he did not think aliens were physical entities, Valle is into dimensional theory and is actually regarded a self proclaimed "heretic" of UFOlogy and Hynek changed his mind saying that thousands of reports do not indicate celestial visitors in his later years. I quote Ed Stewart regarding Sturrock in my own sig and have done for some time. He finds the outdated information largely useless.

And that is where this starts to fall apart. Haisch claims that science avoids the UFO phenomena, he is wrong right of the bat there, and if he begins on the wrong foot, I do not have much confidence things are going to improve. Nor does he seem to have the foresight to correct his erroneous information. He is a show pony surviving on shock value in that respect and has only illustrated great ignorance of the subject, yet seems to feel qualified to comment on it.

UFOlogy, specifically the ETH, likes to hand out the impression that it has more support than it actually has. Fact is, there are better answers than the pop culture ideals of the 50's to answer these questions.

But I fail to see how that should somehow 'discredit' his views on The 'God' Theory? He is a very educated man of science and I am not put off by his unconventional thinking in any way. He just proves that modern science doesn't necesserely has to be interpreted in light of Atheism and physicalism.

I do not see how you come to that conclusion, making up BS is not an alternative. It is just BS.

It shows he is more than willing to run with frail evaluations based on personal bias. He might be an educated man of science, but he shows science little respect, often biting the hand the feeds him. His views on God are even more frail as the entire God concept is a human construct which he is interpreting as opposed to providing physical evidence for even if by way of observation like Lawrence Krauss does. Krauss provides us with equations, explanations and observations that all point at the Universe From Nothing final conclusion, which makes more sense when you listen to him speak as he opens by telling you how "nothing" is not empty. Haisch makes more stuff up out of made up stuff. That a quantum vacuum exists and is not empty is demonstrable fact, the concept of a Universal God and a predetermined Universe is not. That is a personal faith based conclusion. It strikes me that you are simply more comfortable personally with the final answer he proposes? It offers you a reason to believe that upon death you will not simply cease to be??

Edited June 4, 2015 by psyche101

[Rlyeh]

God's "footprints" are all over this universe. I'm just sorry some of you cannot see them.

Some people also see faces in clouds.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

God's "footprints" are all over this universe. I'm just sorry some of you cannot see them.

I know a couple of other posters have responded to this, so I apologize if I also respond. I see in some form a contradiction in your post there. You make a statement then follow up with a point of others not seeing them. So are the 'footprints' provable to show you are right, or are you saying that they don't have the mindset to see something else and conjecture? This seems to me that one individual is on other's point of view and not having the same one. I might see 'examples' that might me think I see evidence of what I believe. But, unless it's evidence like something like this:

then I think it's understandable that one can conclude that it's not evidence to believe it as such.

[LV-426]

Some people also see faces in clouds.

And pizza!

Edited June 4, 2015 by LV-426

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Rlyeh, on 04 June 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

Some people also see faces in clouds.

And pizza!

And bunny rabbits! Don't forget bunny rabbits!!!!!

(I was going to say 'other things' while spouse is away on deployment, but I digress............ )

[Tiggs]

Assuming that there exist more than one Universe, of course. I am not sure if we we'll ever have solid proof of a Multiverse.

Unless they all interact with each other - which I doubt - I expect solid proof will be impossible to obtain.

That being said, I won't dismiss the idea. It's quite possible that there is even an infinite number of them, and that they've all evolved quite differently.

The way I see it, it would mean we are part of something far greater than we could possibly imagine.

I've suspected for a while that every single possible Universe undergoing every single possible timeline exists simultaneously.

Or, in short - our Universe as a whole is quantum in nature.

Still not seeing how that necessitates a Designer. Rather the opposite, in fact.

[White Crane Feather]

Unless they all interact with each other - which I doubt - I expect solid proof will be impossible to obtain.

I've suspected for a while that every single possible Universe undergoing every single possible timeline exists simultaneously.

Or, in short - our Universe as a whole is quantum in nature.

Still not seeing how that necessitates a Designer. Rather the opposite, in fact.

Unless one of those universes evolves something that can design other unjverses. All possible timelines is a pretty big set of circumstances. The only thing we need is a being powerful enough to be able to manipulate quantum probabilities and outcomes.

Edited June 4, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Tiggs]

Unless one of those universes evolves something that can design other unjverses.

You can't use something you don't believe in to create the thing that you do believe in.

[White Crane Feather]

You can't use something you don't believe in to create the thing that you do believe in.

Thus the problem with beleif. if something you do beleive in or accept logically leads to something similar that you don't think exists because of beleif do you change your beleif or do you accept the possability.

Edited June 4, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Dechha1981]

I do not appreciate your anti-intellectualism.

Only an idiot claims to know everything, and only a liar looks down on people for saying "I don't know". "I don't know" is a sign of intellectual honest and therefore intelligence. I have infinitely more respect for Socrates than Ray Comfort. Ray Comfort mocks people for intellectual honesty whereas Socrates openly admitted that he didn't know anything and spent most of his life looking for answers.

And above all, proposing your own explanation for an unknown without evidence, just because you don't like not knowing something, is called "God of the gaps". Why should any position get to be the default for unknowns. If your position relies on winning by default rather than actually relying on evidence, dinosaur bones for example, then your position is flawed.

Also I disagree that there ever was a Universe with nothing in it but never mind that! Intellectual dishonesty is NOT ON.

[Tiggs]

Thus the problem with beleif. if something you do beleive in or accept logically leads to something similar that you don't think exists because of beleif do you change your beleif or do you accept the possability.

I'm totally fine with the concept of nested simulations. I've been talking about Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument on UM for years.

The designer of a nested simulation, however, does not an Ultimate Designer make. No more than me writing a computer program makes me God.

[rrk]

It is hard for an Atheist like me to believe there exists a God. In the words of Epicurus ...Is God willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent ..Is he able but not willing, then he is malevolent ... Is he both able and willing, then whence cometh evil ...Is he neither able nor willing, Then why call him God?

We humans in our limited knowledge have a tendency to explain everything we don't understand as being a miracle or supernatural when in all probability these things we don't understand are completely natural but beyond are range of knowledge.

We will probably never know the scope of the universe or where it came from or how it was created. It is beyond or capability to even imagine what is out there in space let alone where it came from. We humans are not even capable of imagining something with no beginning or no end. Whether you believe God created the Universe or whether you go by the big bang theory you will still be wondering what was there before God or before the big bang because we can not fathom something coming from nothing...What was there before God or what was there before the big bang, these are questions with no answer in our limited range of knowledge... The discussion of God or Atheism is interesting but it can be argued to the end of time with no real answer.

[White Crane Feather]

I'm totally fine with the concept of nested simulations. I've been talking about Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument on UM for years.

The designer of a nested simulation, however, does not an Ultimate Designer make. No more than me writing a computer program makes me God.

No. I Suspect there is no ultimate designer. But consider this. A being that evolved to be able to manipulate quantum probabilities or ultimate evolution if you will. Eventually it would meet another being that evolved the same way. What would this look like. Well it wouldn't be a meeting, it would be a melding. It simply would become one being. How long has this been going on? Well for eternity. So you see it's entirely possible to have a Gia God like being that is infinantly old. When something reaches a certain stage in evolution it simply joins the collective so to speak because there really is nonwhere else to go. This looks awfully like and eternal God that is capable of creating other universes. Potentially other kinds of realities. The sky is the limit. It may be more like an ultimate alien than what is typically thought of as a god, but fundamentally there really is not that much of a difference especially from our perspective. strikingly the universe does look like a simulation with features and processes that look very much like something is makeing a large effort to be efficient. I haven't checked lately, but there was a new inferometer being built that was supposed to give us the resolution to see if space itself is pixikated. This is a prediction of the simulation hypothesis. I'll check latter to see how far the project is.

[Aftermath]

Honestly not sure how you see it that way...

I believe that is the point of my post.

Some people also see faces in clouds.

Yes, that is true (as well as pizza).

I know a couple of other posters have responded to this, so I apologize if I also respond. I see in some form a contradiction in your post there. You make a statement then follow up with a point of others not seeing them. So are the 'footprints' provable to show you are right, or are you saying that they don't have the mindset to see something else and conjecture? This seems to me that one individual is on other's point of view and not having the same one. I might see 'examples' that might me think I see evidence of what I believe. But, unless it's evidence like something like this:

then I think it's understandable that one can conclude that it's not evidence to believe it as such.

I apologize, but it's difficult for me to follow what you are asking; so I will rephrase. The universe itself is evidence for me to believe that God is a magnificent creator. Others do not see it that way, I merely wish they did. I don't see how that is a contradiction.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Oops Monkey

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I apologize, but it's difficult for me to follow what you are asking; so I will rephrase. The universe itself is evidence for me to believe that God is a magnificent creator. Others do not see it that way, I merely wish they did. I don't see how that is a contradiction.

That's cool! Anyways, if someone wanted others to see what they see, wouldn't it behoove one to show that the evidence is actually the evidence? The contradiction is stating something as fact, when it's only a point of view. You may see the universe itself as evidence, ( and I give you credit. I wouldn't argue not to see it that way, it is your right, and I might see the universe as evidence for something for me) but how is it evidence of God's footprints? If you see it, maybe you can show how.

[psyche101]

I believe that is the point of my post.

That seems rather cryptic? You said that you can see God's footprints in the Universe and I implied I think I can see what you are looking at, but science has washed those footprints away, God does not need to exist for the Universe to exist according to current understanding and observational evidence.

As such, I cannot fathom what these footprints might be, unless a personal interpretation? Something like that Live song Heaven, where the singer mentions his daughter as proof of God??

I don't need no one to tell me about heaven

I look at my daughter, and I believe.

I don't need no proof when it comes to God and truth

I can see the sunset and I perceive

Something like that perhaps?? Ironically the song contains a line I prescribe to as well:

I'll believe it when I see it, for myself

[Aftermath]

I've been following this thread for almost a year and it finally sucked me in. Bad move monkey-boy!

I do not believe the universe spontaneously created itself and I do not believe the universe has always existed. I believe something created that infinitesimal point and subsequently the "Big Bang". I believe that "something" is God.

Perhaps it's illogical, so be it, but we humans (although we don't believe this) are totally illogical.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Oops Monkey

[Guest Br Cornelius]

I've been following this thread for almost a year and it finally sucked me in. Bad move monkey-boy!

I do not believe the universe spontaneously created itself and I do not believe the universe has always existed. I believe something created that infinitesimal point and subsequently the "Big Bang". I believe that "something" is God.

Perhaps it's illogical, so be it, but we humans (although we don't believe this) are totally illogical.

The point is what anyone believes makes not a scrap of difference to what is. What we believe only conjuncts with what is when there is evidence.

Acceptance that we might never know what is, and that our own personal belief about it is fairly redundant, represents a step towards maturity.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Better an honest "I don't know" than a bald-faced lie about knowing something that is unknowable.

Doug

[Tiggs]

No. I Suspect there is no ultimate designer. But consider this. A being that evolved to be able to manipulate quantum probabilities or ultimate evolution if you will. Eventually it would meet another being that evolved the same way. What would this look like.

I don't particularly believe that Quantum probabilities can be manipulated, so I'd imagine it would look a lot like a Quantum Computer owner's meetup, basically.

Well it wouldn't be a meeting, it would be a melding. It simply would become one being. How long has this been going on? Well for eternity. So you see it's entirely possible to have a Gia God like being that is infinantly old. When something reaches a certain stage in evolution it simply joins the collective so to speak because there really is nonwhere else to go. This looks awfully like and eternal God that is capable of creating other universes. Potentially other kinds of realities. The sky is the limit. It may be more like an ultimate alien than what is typically thought of as a god, but fundamentally there really is not that much of a difference especially from our perspective.

You seem to be making several presumptions here, some of which are logically untrue. For example - you're making the presumption that such beings are capable of moving between Universes - which necessitates communication of some sort between Universes, and would effectively make them a single Universe. And then you're making the presumption that they could meld together to form one being, in some sort of manner.

All possible Universes doesn't mean that everything is possible, in the same way that all possible combinations of three dice will never give you two bananas and a cherry.

strikingly the universe does look like a simulation with features and processes that look very much like something is makeing a large effort to be efficient. I haven't checked lately, but there was a new inferometer being built that was supposed to give us the resolution to see if space itself is pixikated. This is a prediction of the simulation hypothesis. I'll check latter to see how far the project is.

It doesn't appear to be.

[White Crane Feather]

I don't particularly believe that Quantum probabilities can be manipulated, so I'd imagine it would look a lot like a Quantum Computer owner's meetup, basically.

You seem to be making several presumptions here, some of which are logically untrue. For example - you're making the presumption that such beings are capable of moving between Universes - which necessitates communication of some sort between Universes, and would effectively make them a single Universe. And then you're making the presumption that they could meld together to form one being, in some sort of manner.

All possible Universes doesn't mean that everything is possible, in the same way that all possible combinations of three dice will never give you two bananas and a cherry.

It doesn't appear to be.

It's all speculation of course. But already we can manipulate probabilities by Makeing meaurments. There could theoretically be a way to force manifestations along pre determind portions of its wave function. This would be like discovering the source code of reality.

No. You don't understand, these beings would not move between universes they may actually be universes themselves. There are all kinds of ways to communicate between universes. I'll give one example. Calabi–Yau spaces. If the various string theories are approaching reality, orbifolds are tiny dimensions that we all exist in. Infact of the theory is true, they give rise to spin of subatomic particles. Standard visualizations have them as tiny circles existing everywhere in standard three dimentional space, but this is not acurate. Each compact dimention should only be represented by one circle or sphere. ( whatever it's shape). Yes that's right we exist in actual dimentions that are not expanded. In these dimentions we are litterally one with the universe and any other universes. It may be possible to communicate through these dimensions since since we are actually so close to any other part of reality. Not just close compacted with it. These dimentions are pure energy everywhere. Almost like a substrate energy universe in direct contact with all things. A being capable of being aware of these spaces would realize that in most dimentions nothing is seperate. Sounds a little new agy dosn't it? But it's logically sound. In fact various kinds of combinations of awarness would create entirly different kinds of realities. Some are saying there could be as many as 26 Calabi–Yau spaces. The permutations are huge.

No. All possible universes dosnt mean every kind of universe... Or does it? I used to think there is no way in eternity a giant gold planet could be made, but of course I was wrong. Somwhere out far enough just like this universe likely came from a mega rare tunneling event, in one of those universes enough gold particles could have tunneled close enough to form a planet. That doesn't mean though captain Picard is out there running the enterprise. But if there is a possability of a super being then you can betcha there is one. If there is a possibility of it melding it's conciousness with something like Calabi–Yau spaces, then in all likely hood it's always been there. Of course non of that string theory is prooven, it's just one of our strongest theories at the moment.

Even if string theory is not right and there are no curled up dimentions, something is powering QM. Something underneith it all codes reality into behaving the way it does. It's fairly striking that it's just right to create all kinds of different universes. I don't mean to be anthropic but no one can really deni how amazing it is. Whatever it is, why ever it works that way is the same everywhere. This does imply some sort of connection and similar origin. The mere fact that tunneling can take a particle clear across the universe in a instant suggests that the rules are non physical in nature.

The new Inferometer is supposed to have far more resolution than anything before. The jury is still out on pixilation or not.

Ray curswell thinks that a galaxy can wake up through communicating nano bots. If it's possible it's been done .

Edited June 6, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Jeanne dArc]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Well, it's more than just "I don't know": it's "I don't know, and neither do you".

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

To be fair, only a miniscule fraction of our universe is composed of matter as we know it. But I suppose that is a bit pedantic for these purposes.

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

A reasonable assumption I suppose, but still an assumption. Quantum mechanics would also appear to disagree to you with some extent, with virtual particles and all that jazz.

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Not sure that necessarily follows from your previous premises, but whatever. I'll indulge for hypothetical purposes.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

The "Primal Cause" could exist, and I don't know that it didn't: but not only have you failed to demonstrate that it must have by any stretch of the imagination, but you haven't even begun to tell us anything meaningful about it. Why is it "primal"? What caused it? If nothing caused it (hence "primal"), then why is it allowed to be an exception to the rule of causality? If there is an exception to causality, then it must therefore be possible that the universe itself is an exception to causality, and thus no "Primal Cause" is required to explain it. All of this without mentioning the actual situation in cosmological physics: i.e., that the universe "prior" to the Big Bang was encapsulated entirely in a singularity. What's a singularity? Well, a dimensionless vat of energy (basically), inside of which physics as we know them do not apply. What does that mean? Well, simply put, it means there wasn't really a "before" the Big Bang, because time itself is a completely meaningless concept when talking about a singularity: ergo, causality (as we know it) does not apply, ergo, a "Primal Cause" is irrelevant.

[+Paranoid Android]

If nothing caused it (hence "primal"), then why is it allowed to be an exception to the rule of causality?

In saying what I am about to, I don't support Ben Masada/Shibolet's wider argument about the "logic" of a primal cause. Now, caveat complete, the reasoning is that the universe is a physical thing with physical laws/rules and such that it is governed by. The laws about Causality exist within that physical universe. If there is a creator, he/she/it/they exist outside the physical universe. Therefore it is reasonable to say that when they created the physical universe they also created the rules under which it is governed, including causality. Thus when a person says "the universe popped into existence all by itself" or "the universe has always existed" they are essentially saying that at some point in the past the universe disobeyed its own laws of causality, at least insofar as we understand the concept of causality in a modern setting.

The creator gets to be an "exception to the rule" under the logic that it created the rules to begin with, and therefore exists independently of those rules. To be confined by those rules is as silly as expecting a computer programmer to float in the air because he creates a computer simulation in which a village has a zero-gravity atmosphere and therefore people can float around to their heart content.

[Jeanne dArc]

In saying what I am about to, I don't support Ben Masada/Shibolet's wider argument about the "logic" of a primal cause. Now, caveat complete, the reasoning is that the universe is a physical thing with physical laws/rules and such that it is governed by. The laws about Causality exist within that physical universe. If there is a creator, he/she/it/they exist outside the physical universe. Therefore it is reasonable to say that when they created the physical universe they also created the rules under which it is governed, including causality. Thus when a person says "the universe popped into existence all by itself" or "the universe has always existed" they are essentially saying that at some point in the past the universe disobeyed its own laws of causality, at least insofar as we understand the concept of causality in a modern setting.

The creator gets to be an "exception to the rule" under the logic that it created the rules to begin with, and therefore exists independently of those rules. To be confined by those rules is as silly as expecting a computer programmer to float in the air because he creates a computer simulation in which a village has a zero-gravity atmosphere and therefore people can float around to their heart content.

Fair enough I suppose. Though the whole singularity thing and the lack of causality in the pre-cosmos kinda puts even the physical universe into that same "non-physical" category, at least in every apparently relevant way. But I do see the idea.

Of course we do still have that pesky evidence problem: we have no reason to think that anything "above" our universe necessarily exists. It could, but yeah. It could also not.