bgast1's Official thread on I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest

[ainwood]

Man has this thread been hijacked. I don't even know what to do now. I haven't even had a chance to read through everything here yet. It'll probably take me 2 days just to do that.

Moderator Action: If you want it closed and/or the threadjackers dealt with, then PM me.

 

[Grisu]

The evidence that I wish to point out with regard to the Big Bang is not proof in and of itself of a God. But I believe that it is compelling when compared with other evidences whether they be philosophical, Biblical, historical, scientific together. That is what gives reasonable doubt. I want to touch briefly on the second law of thermodynamics, the expanding universe, radiation from the Big Bang, findings by COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I am certain that much of what I present will be over-simplified. The main argument of course being, If there is no God, Why is there something from nothing? I will attempt to show, that even acknowledged athiests, and agnostics are baffled by this question, and even admit that they do not have the answer to this question, but are in my opinion unwilling to accept God as the answer.

You're right, I don't have an answer as to how exactly the universe started. But just because the answer isn't known to science (yet?) doesn't automatically imply that the god must exist. Sure Christianity offers an answer to that question, but I just can't belive that one. As such I'm not unwilling to accept God as the answer, but unable to, since it just doesn't sound plausible to me. Being able to answer a question doesn't automatically make this answer true.

Note: I'm not an atheist but an agnostic, so I might not be the main target of this thread. I don't absolutely rule out the possibility that there is some higher being, it's just that the explanation given by the bible (or any other holy book I've seen so far) seem unbelievable and in many occasions conflict with very plausible scientific theories.

 

[bgast1]

You're right, I don't have an answer as to how exactly the universe started. But just because the answer isn't known to science (yet?) doesn't automatically imply that the god must exist. Sure Christianity offers an answer to that question, but I just can't belive that one. As such I'm not unwilling to accept God as the answer, but unable to, since it just doesn't sound plausible to me. Being able to answer a question doesn't automatically make this answer true.

Note: I'm not an atheist but an agnostic, so I might not be the main target of this thread. I don't absolutely rule out the possibility that there is some higher being, it's just that the explanation given by the bible (or any other holy book I've seen so far) seem unbelievable and in many occasions conflict with very plausible scientific theories.

Actually, this thread is more for you than the hardcore athiest. Please, by all means stick around. I am more than willing to accept that Cosmology, or even the evolution might not be enough reasonable evidence to convince you or anyone for that matter. But, when I am done. In my opinion only, I believe that there will be enough information presented that will enable you to make a choice. At that point, then it is reasonable to come to a conclusion that you will have moved from the unable to the willing or unwilling camp. I personally have not seen any good scientitific proof that conflicts with the existence of God. Although I have seen a lot of argument that attempts to skirt the issue.

Regarding the Bible. I will continue to assert it's truthfulness, and at the same time accept that there are those, who no fault of their own, either have not examined it correctly or sufficiently or had reasonable explanations offered to them.

This is my only day off in the week. I have a great deal of yard work to accomplish. My house looks really bad, and if I don't get some of it done, the village where I live is going to be after me. Also, I despise the appearance of an unkempt exterior of a home.

 

[Perfection]

Actually, this thread is more for you than the hardcore athiest. Please, by all means stick around. I am more than willing to accept that Cosmology, or even the evolution might not be enough reasonable evidence to convince you or anyone for that matter. But, when I am done. In my opinion only, I believe that there will be enough information presented that will enable you to make a choice. At that point, then it is reasonable to come to a conclusion that you will have moved from the unable to the willing or unwilling camp. I personally have not seen any good scientitific proof that conflicts with the existence of God. Although I have seen a lot of argument that attempts to skirt the issue.

Not's not about evidence contradicting the existance of god, it's about lack of evidence for the existance of god.

 

[El_Machinae]

bgast1 - are you starting with St. Anselm's argument? It's a good one (and actually, I completely agree with the first part of his propositions).

(and don't worry about the high-jacking. It's just good fun. If it really bugs you, you can't put instructions in the opening post - then moderators will be happy to delete, warn, and ban threadjackers. (so I've heard, I've never actually seen))

 

[bigfatron]

Actually, this thread is more for you than the hardcore athiest. Please, by all means stick around. I am more than willing to accept that Cosmology, or even the evolution might not be enough reasonable evidence to convince you or anyone for that matter. But, when I am done. In my opinion only, I believe that there will be enough information presented that will enable you to make a choice. At that point, then it is reasonable to come to a conclusion that you will have moved from the unable to the willing or unwilling camp. I personally have not seen any good scientitific proof that conflicts with the existence of God. Although I have seen a lot of argument that attempts to skirt the issue.

Regarding the Bible. I will continue to assert it's truthfulness, and at the same time accept that there are those, who no fault of their own, either have not examined it correctly or sufficiently or had reasonable explanations offered to them.

these are two almost totally unrelated issues:
- is there a rational explanation for the existence of the universe?
- is the Christian religion an accurate portrayal of the existence, essence, intentions and activities of the Creator, should one exist?

I'm at a loss to understand how addressing one has any bearing on the other...

On your initial post, I strongly dispute your assertion that life has no purpose in the absence of religion - it simply falls on us as rational beings to give it purpose through our actions.

I could argue - in parallel to your initial postulate - that religionis a necessity for those incapable through personal weakness (lack of intelligence, will-power or empathy) of establishing their own purpose and developing a moral framework through the application of logic and intelligence to human empathy.

 

[bgast1]

bgast1 - are you starting with St. Anselm's argument? It's a good one (and actually, I completely agree with the first part of his propositions).

(and don't worry about the high-jacking. It's just good fun. If it really bugs you, you can't put instructions in the opening post - then moderators will be happy to delete, warn, and ban threadjackers. (so I've heard, I've never actually seen))

I'm not a theologin. I don't know St. Anselm's argument but then, who knows I could easily be incorporating unknowingly.

I am not really worried about the hi-jacking so much as that I don't have time to really read all of the threads and post the information that I want to bring forth. At the same time I don't want to leave serious questions unanswered.

I just got finished mowing the lawn, I'm beat, but I want to try and get some of that Cosmological information that I have been promising up today.

Perfection -- your astronomical picture thread is awesome. You don't think that just some of those pictures alone, leaves one cause to wonder if maybe God did it?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not a theologin. I don't know St. Anselm's argument but then, who knows I could easily be incorporating unknowingly.

It starts with:

"Imagine something SO important, that the universe could not exist without it"

 

[bgast1]

these are two almost totally unrelated issues:
- is there a rational explanation for the existence of the universe?
- is the Christian religion an accurate portrayal of the existence, essence, intentions and activities of the Creator, should one exist?

I think so. More about that later.

I'm at a loss to understand how addressing one has any bearing on the other...

On your initial post, I strongly dispute your assertion that life has no purpose in the absence of religion - it simply falls on us as rational beings to give it purpose through our actions.

I was going to actually answer this, but in short, one can have meaning without having a relationship with God, but one can also have much more meaning and purpose with they do have a relationship with God. But having meaning without God does not prevent one's eternal destiny from coming into question. Again more about that later as well.

I could argue - in parallel to your initial postulate - that religionis a necessity for those incapable through personal weakness (lack of intelligence, will-power or empathy) of establishing their own purpose and developing a moral framework through the application of logic and intelligence to human empathy.

Many feel that religion is nothing but a cop out. I agree that religion plays a role in providing hope, purpose and morals to those who need them. But I also submit that it is a necessary element in every human beings life, as I think God placed that need in all of us. It really is a matter of how we respond to that need. Some folks find that they would rather rely on their own self sufficiency, but still that does not answer the eternal destiny question.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

those incapable [...] of [...] developing a moral framework through the application of logic and intelligence to human empathy.

I'd argue the point that an (irreligious) moral framework cannot be developed by logic and must be based on selfishness, but this is bgast1's thread and I've just sent him the link to a text which argues this, so I'll let him handle it.

 

[Perfection]

Perfection -- your astronomical picture thread is awesome. You don't think that just some of those pictures alone, leaves one cause to wonder if maybe God did it?

Not at all! I see no reason to say that nature can't produce beauty on its own.

 

[Perfection]

Many feel that religion is nothing but a cop out. I agree that religion plays a role in providing hope, purpose and morals to those who need them. But I also submit that it is a necessary element in every human beings life, as I think God placed that need in all of us.

I've looked for it, and couldn't find it.

It really is a matter of how we respond to that need. Some folks find that they would rather rely on their own self sufficiency, but still that does not answer the eternal destiny question.

Why do you assert that we must have some eternal destiny?

 

[El_Machinae]

*I* have an eternal destiny! Because I will have always existed, regardless of my final fate.

 

[Perfection]

*I* have an eternal destiny! Because I will have always existed, regardless of my final fate.

Not if my and my TARDIS have anything to say about it!

 

[El_Machinae]

First you threaten to consume my solar mass. Now you threaten me with your time- box (which won't actually change the fact of my existence).

I'm starting to think that you're not a nice person.

 

[bgast1]

I'd argue the point that an (irreligious) moral framework cannot be developed by logic and must be based on selfishness, but this is bgast1's thread and I've just sent him the link to a text which argues this, so I'll let him handle it.

Please, by all means join in, your arguments are welcome too.

 

[bgast1]

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind" -- Albert Einstein.

In 1916 Albert Einstein did not like where his calculations were leading him. The problem was that if his calculations were correct, it meant that the universe had a beginning. His original belief was that the universe was static and eternal. This bothered him a great deal. My source tells me that his theory of General Relativity is now proven to within 5 decimal places.

Einstein was so irritated with the implications of General Relativity that he introduced a cosmological constant (which some call the fudge factor) to show that the universe is constant and static to avoid an absolute beginning. The thing is my source also tells me that in 1919 Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was true -- the universe was not static but had a beginning. Eddington was also very unhappy with the implications. He later wrote "Philosophically, the notion of the present order of nature is repugnant to me....I should like to find a genuine loophole."

Then in 1922 Alexander Friedmann officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor. What Einstein did in his quest to avoid a beginning to the universe was to divide by zero. He later described the cosmological constant that he introduced as "the biggest blunder of my life"

It seems that what we know now is that universe appears to expanding from a single point in the distant past.

The Cosmological argument goes like this.
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

More to come later.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The Cosmological Constant, is it? Looks like it may exist after all, and Einstein is laughing at us.

Please, by all means join in, your arguments are welcome too.

The short version of it is this: Moral arguments must have an absolute start (God says this is good, or God commands us to do this) or else be arbitrary, in which case they generally reduce to selfishness, sometimes collective selfishness. "My wants are justified" (or "My wants should be fulfilled") is usually the basis for 'logical' systems of morality.

 

[Sidhe]

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind" -- Albert Einstein.

In 1916 Albert Einstein did not like where his calculations were leading him. The problem was that if his calculations were correct, it meant that the universe had a beginning. His original belief was that the universe was static and eternal. This bothered him a great deal. My source tells me that his theory of General Relativity is now proven to within 5 decimal places.

Einstein was so irritated with the implications of General Relativity that he introduced a cosmological constant (which some call the fudge factor) to show that the universe is constant and static to avoid an absolute beginning. The thing is my source also tells me that in 1919 Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was true -- the universe was not static but had a beginning. Eddington was also very unhappy with the implications. He later wrote "Philosophically, the notion of the present order of nature is repugnant to me....I should like to find a genuine loophole."

Then in 1922 Alexander Friedmann officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor. What Einstein did in his quest to avoid a beginning to the universe was to divide by zero. He later described the cosmological constant that he introduced as "the biggest blunder of my life"

It seems that what we know now is that universe appears to expanding from a single point in the distant past.

The Cosmological argument goes like this.
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

More to come later.

1.Not suported by Big Bang Theory
2.well duh?
3. Not suported by Big Bang Theory

Physics cannot absolutely deny that matter can be created from nothing and thus from no cause. In fact this is meant to happen all the time in a vaccuum.

What your looking for is either God or Membrane Theory, to be honest though at this current moment in time there is more evidence of God existing? But one is a hypothesis and the other is religion. Calling a religion a hypothesis could get you all sorts of disaproving looks. OK Jesus makes it a theory you satisfied

This is a good first point do you want to expand upon your notion?

This thread went 16 pages with no clear subject(BTW this is easily one of the most interesting threads on CFC I've read in the last 6 months, unfortunately now though it's on topic

 

[sanabas]

The main argument of course being, If there is no God, Why is there something from nothing? I will attempt to show, that even acknowledged athiests, and agnostics are baffled by this question, and even admit that they do not have the answer to this question, but are in my opinion unwilling to accept God as the answer.

But if the answer is 'we don't know', why should we change the answer to 'god did it'? Also, if we decide 'god did it', it begs the question 'where did god come from?' Why is there something (god) from nothing?

I personally have not seen any good scientitific proof that conflicts with the existence of God. Although I have seen a lot of argument that attempts to skirt the issue.

I would suggest that you haven't seen any, because there isn't any. Because there can not possibly be any. What possible evidence can not be explained by 'god made it that way'? In fact, that's the main reason why creationism/ID/god did it isn't scientific. It's not falsifiable. If you disagree with the above, please give me one theoretical example of evidence that would conflict with the existence of god.