A question for Atheists

[BlackCat]

Before I ask, I would like to say that I'm agnostic, and that I basically have my own philosophy/faith and I couldn't peg it on anything specific besides some form of Paganism (hence the jewelry if you would think to say something about that). That is a different topic though. You may like to note that I give science a lot of merit (I'm an evolutionist etc).

So, what makes science work? What makes reality able to function the way it does? I don't think anything could just *poof* here, not at all. What is it that started everything? If you say the big bang etc, what made THAT happen?

This is why I'm agnostic. Everything must have a cause, and the only thing that I can think of that could cause that would be some sort of higher being, or anything else (I'm unsure, but there must be something higher other than what there is). But something must be causing things to work/happen the way that they do.

I don't want to be flamed, I want answers. I have been curious about this for a while.

EDIT: MY CONCLUSION- http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ity/16084-question-atheists-2.html#post623392

This post no longer means anything. Thanks.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Well, this is a question that I won't see any human answer for a very long time to come, if ever.

But my personal thoughts on this is basicly as follows. Don't try to disect every sentence I am about to say as I am aware it's filled with subjective analogies. But our language is just flawed in this sense.




Rationally, there was once nothing. No matter, no space, no time, no blackness.

Now I just said a contradiciton in itself, because there could never have been nothing any time in the past. Absolute nothing in itself does not, never has and never will exist. It is incapable of existing. But bare with me as I try to explain my view.


I think that logical reason assumes that absolute nothing can not exist. And therefor, infinite space must exist. Infinite to all sides.

Now the big bang theory is based on the fact that matter as we know it keeps expanding. And thus all matter as we know it might have at one point started at a single point.

So, we have infinite space, because absolute nothing can not exist. But there has to have been a single moment in time (Time, as we know it, does not in fact exist. But is a reference for us to measure movement.) where infinite space was born.And the very instant before this was born, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing, not even time. But as we now have an infinite space, we have several physical laws. But we lack the quantifiable means to give this endless space meaning.

Density being the most important one in my 'theory'. I believe that during the creation of infinite space. (I keep saying creation but there technically was no creation, it just started to exist because it has to exist.) there was a reaction that created variances in density in that endless space. To quantify the meaning of space.

Possibly as a big bang of sorts (or multiple big bangs), and through density, matter took shape. Through matter, movement. And through movement, time as we know it. Now in our universe, all matter, planets, expand here and there, all having gravitational influence on one and other. Creating a web that quantifies the space inbetween them.

But what if planets move so far apart, that at some point, the gravitational forces between two systems become null? Ie. a gap forms inbetween space that suddenly does not have quantifiable means of existance? Then according to this theory, another big bang will happen, in that space. And again, matter will be born.

So what my theory assumes, is that space is infinite, but so is matter within space. And it could very well be that I am typing this message an infinite number of times across an infinite number of places within our universe. Like an infinite three dimensional grid that in which every point keeps repeating itself. Like similar tiles on a wall. At least, assuming there were an infinite amount of big bangs happening across the infinite space that was birthed out of nothingness all at a set interval from one and other.

It's also possible that there was only one big bang, and through a singular yet extremely dense particle (infinitely dense) one big bang occured sufficiant to quantify infinite space through an infinite amount of force. But that particle did not have any means of remaining stable inside this infinite space and therefor blew up expaning in matter as we know it, slowly stabalizing itself in lesser densities through forces on and in itself.



I could go on for a few more hours like this, but hey, it's all based on a hunch. We'll most likely never find out the truth.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Before I ask, I would like to say that I'm agnostic, and that I basically have my own philosophy/faith and I couldn't peg it on anything specific besides some form of Paganism (hence the jewelry if you would think to say something about that). That is a different topic though. You may like to note that I give science a lot of merit (I'm an evolutionist etc).

So, what makes science work? What makes reality able to function the way it does? I don't think anything could just *poof* here, not at all. What is it that started everything? If you say the big bang etc, what made THAT happen?

This is why I'm agnostic. Everything must have a cause, and the only thing that I can think of that could cause that would be some sort of higher being, or anything else (I'm unsure, but there must be something higher other than what there is). But something must be causing things to work/happen the way that they do.

I don't want to be flamed, I want answers. I have been curious about this for a while.

I think it's a great question. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that, though. Religion CREATES an answer, but it doesn't know that it's right. Maybe god is defined as the first cause, but that isn't much a god, just another property of nature. (Not to mention that the popular notion of God -- one with personality and intention -- has even less evidence and more problems.) It's also contradictory, since the evidence for god -- the observation that everything has a cause -- contradicts the conclusion that god, an initial causer, has no cause.

I leave the question open. If anything, I think it makes you wonder and makes you feel like the whole thing, the origin, the thing, the weirdness, and the reason it's here, deserves the same awe and respect as you'd give to a god.

 

[Virtual ghost]

If you think about it there is actually no problem with the big bang.

Because time did not exist before big bang. You intuintivly think that something must have caused but there is no logical need for that.


You can turn the question the other way around and ask: What did create God? (or how ever you want to call it). So if a God does not have a creator then why the same thing can't work for the universe/multiverse ?

 

[Fluffywolf]

So yeah to crudely say my view on this all in 5 easy steps.

1. 'Nothing' can't exist
2. Infinite space therefor must exist, to prevent 'nothing' from existing.
3. To quantify infinite space, an infinitely dense particle must exist that has an infinitely amount of force to support the structure of ininifte space.
4. Infinitely dense particle did not have the means to remain stable within infinite space.
5. boom

(And that all happened instantly, as far as time is concerned.)

 

[BlackCat]

That theory sounds good Fluffy, but what makes it all happen?

I can keep asking this, "what makes that happen" or "what makes this happen" and an answer will never be produced, since we can never know what makes anything happen.

It's for this reason that atheism in it's own sort of confuses me... people know that you will never know the cause for things yet they believe that there isn't a higher being or some sort of higher force at play here (to make those things happen).

Again, no flaming. I just want to see other points of view.

 

[Fluffywolf]

What makes it all happen? Well, one thing is for sure, we will never be able to recreate the birth of existance. Therefor I think we will never truely be able to know for sure how it all happened.

You can't create "nothing". So.

 

[ajblaise]

Atheists won't claim to know what started everything, or even if there was a start. That's why you'll find a lot of support for science in the atheist/agnostic community, because we want to know. We're not going to find out by staring at ancient texts, but by generating new ideas that can hold up to scientific scrutiny.

 

[BlackCat]

I think that I may have this confused... To clarify Atheism is denying that anything higher makes things work the way that they do, right? That's how I've had it described to me before. I've also had to described as simply not believing in a god, but that there may be some other thing at work influencing the universe.

If it's not believing in a god then that makes me an atheist too.

Aj, this is confusing to me because (according to the former definition I gave) Atheists don't think anything influences the way things work, but how can they deny that anything does? I just simply don't know how one could say that the universe works the way it does "just because".

I doubt anyone is going to find any answers via science... since you can't identify what makes science work through science.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Atheists won't claim to know what started everything, or even if there was a start. That's why you'll find a lot of support for science in the atheist/agnostic community, because we want to know. We're not going to find out by staring at ancient texts, but by generating new ideas that can hold up to scientific scrutiny.

I agree!

However, anything that happened before the birth of time (matter and its movement) is theoretically impossible to prove and will no doubt always remain a mystery. However, it may still be a quantifiable mystery. Just one that can never be put to a test.

It's not theoretically impossible to exclude everything but one logical assumption. to trail back to the very birth of time (matter and its movement). To track all movement in the universe to it's starting point once we've mapped enough of stars and calculated their every movement and gravitational forces. Not particularly an easy task however.




Blackcat, atheism as I see it is not believing in anything that has not yet been scientifically proven. So we create theoretical possibilities, and try to put them to the test. And look for means to trail back along time by putting all of nature's forces (gravitational forces) in one big model, and then start counting backwards. So, an atheist doesn't simply accept anything. But remains skeptical about such theories, until they are proven beyond doubt.

I have a theory, but I will not blindly believe in my theory. If possible, I will try to prove my theory however, or change it as I see fit upon discovering new insights.

 

[ajblaise]

I think that I may have this confused... To clarify Atheism is denying that anything higher makes things work the way that they do, right? That's how I've had it described to me before. I've also had to described as simply not believing in a god, but that there may be some other thing at work influencing the universe.

If it's not believing in a god then that makes me an atheist too.

Aj, this is confusing to me because (according to the former definition I gave) Atheists don't think anything influences the way things work, but how can they deny that anything does? I just simply don't know how one could say that the universe works the way it does "just because".

I doubt anyone is going to find any answers via science... since you can't identify what makes science work through science.

Atheism is just the absence of theistic belief. A-theism. So you can have atheists that are just atheists, and you can have atheists who also proactively deny the existence of God(s) on top of just having an absence of belief in them.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Atheists don't think anything influences the way things work". "Anything", as in, the supernatural?

 

[Fluffywolf]

I dislike the term 'supernatural'.

Supernatural is just a term that we use in attempts to understand that which we can not yet scientifically understand.

 

[BlackCat]

I've come to the conclusion- There is no conclusion to anything. Thank you.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Oh you're not there yet, first read up on the Chaos Theory.

You'll be blinking your eyes wondering why you're blinking your eyes.

 

[ajblaise]

I dislike the term 'supernatural'.

Supernatural is just a term that we use in attempts to understand that which we can not yet scientifically understand.

I think the label could actually help, because it creates added incentive for science to come forward and debunk it, and say "Nice try, nature might be complex, but it still makes sense."

 

[Fluffywolf]

I think the label could actually help, because it creates added incentive for science to come forward and debunk it, and say "Nice try, nature might complex, but it still makes sense."

Ofcourse, a little incentive never hurts (scientists).

 

[Jeremy]

I agree!
Blackcat, atheism as I see it is not believing in anything that has not yet been scientifically proven. So we create theoretical possibilities, and try to put them to the test. And look for means to trail back along time by putting all of nature's forces (gravitational forces) in one big model, and then start counting backwards. So, an atheist doesn't simply accept anything. But remains skeptical about such theories, until they are proven beyond doubt.

I have a theory, but I will not blindly believe in my theory. If possible, I will try to prove my theory however, or change it as I see fit upon discovering new insights.

That's the problem, though, just like Blackcat said. We don't even know how science works - it's just a given. Science relies on perception as much as anything else, including religion. There's no way to validate ANYTHING, because we don't even know if the tools we're using to validate our existence are what really matters!

If we can't validate what it is that we base all of our scientific experiments with, then how can we immediately assume that all religions are false? It seems to me like atheism is a philosophy that tries so hard to escape from religion that it backfires, and blindly follows "empirical" evidence.

I do have my own personal beliefs - basically what is called pantheism, but not naturalistic. I think that the universe as a whole is likely to be somewhat sentient, and that the development of life is most likely a way to figure out something. I don't really know what that something is, but to be honest, if individual people can be sentient beings, what keeps us from making the logical leap that the universe, as a whole, could be one as well? And if that is the case, then could it not be that the universe spurred its own development through the creation of life?

Oh, I'm getting into my philosophical mode. Either way, that's my feelings. Like Blackcat said, I don't think atheism is necessarily wrong, nor do I think Christianity / other religions are wrong either. But I do feel they're extreme, to the point of ignoring anything that disagrees with your own position on how the world works, so I avoid them.

 

[Fluffywolf]

So if you take one apple, and you put it next to another apple, you're saying that there is no way of knowing for sure there are two apples in front of you? We have eyes for that, and touch and taste to prove it!

Our senses are capable of scientific discoveries that you can't just deny.

Science is not omniscience, no. But it's also not subjective in the sense you suggest it is.

Science is everything that we have been able to explain within the parameters of our senses. Religion is nothing more then assuming without proof.

I'm not anti religion either, in fact, for many people I know religion has helped them in order to live happier, better lives. There's unfortunatly also extremists on the other end of that but that's too far off topic to go into right now. But science is nothing like religion. Science does not stop with theories and assumptions. But aims to test and prove its assumptions, and slowly but surely work its way to more knowledge. Step by step from scratch. Religion starts on the other end. Assuming a theology and being happy with that without questioning it.

 

[Jeremy]

So if you take one apple, and you put it next to another apple, you're saying that there is no way of knowing for sure there are two apples in front of you? We have eyes for that, and touch and taste to prove it!

Our senses are capable of scientific discoveries that you can't just deny.

Science is not omniscience, no. But it's also not subjective in the sense you suggest it is.

Oh, but that's the fallacy! It is objective, but only to US. We can't see the entire picture from where we stand, and that's the problem that scientists often seem to ignore. The basic principles that govern our universe may or may not be unique to our universe, and yet, they often assume that they are completely true regardless. We can't answer the question from within the box, because you can't see the whole box when you're inside it.

Now, to me, yes, I know that there is gravity. I know that there are 2 apples on the table. But that is only from my limited perspective. I can't apply my perspective, even when humanity agrees that it is an objective fact, to all situations, all of the time. Science often seems to do just that, even if that's not the intention.

 

[Fluffywolf]

So it's not okay to say the two apples on your table are in fact two apples according to science. But it is okay that to say there's a God almighty up in the heavens that governs our every movement?

Scientists at least try to see the big picture, but slwoly unraveling it piece by piece. The only way we have in trying to unravel it. Through trial and error. Religion cuts people off from that quest and (in my opinion) keeps them in the dark, leaving them with assumptions and beliefs that are unchangable.

I totally agree that we can't naturally assume we know everything. But I do think the best we is to at least give it our best by trying to utilize our senses to the best of our knowledge in puzzling it all together.

I have some philosophies about 'the big picture' that I put forward in another topic btw: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...mall-picture-philosophy-about-philosophy.html

It explains in pretty good detail how I think about that.