A question for Atheists

[Jeremy]

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.

Nah, I'm not saying that either way is right - religion is just as based in our perceptions as science is. I like science and I like religion, I just don't like how extreme people take them to be - my main point is not that one is inherently right or wrong, but both have the potential to be so. I dislike it when people are so stuck to their ideas and beliefs that they reject anything the other side says - and both theists and atheists can have a tendency to do just that. My posts are basically just my justification for taking the middle road - those of us who realize that there is a reason to have aspects of both religion and science when constructing one's worldview, because both have good aspects - but also avoiding the worst of them as well.

The weakness of this, however, is the lack of certainty. If you take the middle road when it comes to issues like this, you can't convince yourself of the truth, because you understand that the truth is too complex to understand. Some people find that hard to swallow.. when I tell both deeply religious and deeply scientific people about my views, they both react in similar ways - they struggle to understand (as one friend of mine put it) "How I stay sane".

 

[Fluffywolf]

I can totally respect that and I have no intention of changing your opinion.

But as a rationalist, your view simply doesn't work for me though. I am driven towards a certain extremes. That said, I do take a lot of inspiration from religions, such as buddhism and the like, to form my opinion of what I Believe is important to me. So in that regard, I am like you. But I would never be able to rest myself with just that. And will always seek for more.

 

[Jeremy]

I can totally respect that and I have no intention of changing your opinion.

But as a rationalist, your view simply doesn't work for me though. I am driven towards a certain extremes. That said, I do take a lot of inspiration from religions, such as buddhism and the like, to form my opinion of what I Believe is important to me. So in that regard, I am like you. But I would never be able to rest myself with just that. And will always seek for more.

Yay for understanding each other! It's what we wanted from this post, right? Blackcat, we're done here.

 

[Frank]

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.)

String theory has some interesting ideas on the origin of the big bang. If I remember correctly they posit that something did in fact exist and our entire universe is the result of a dimensional membrane collision. Something that happens quite often in the theory.

 

[Frank]

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.

Sounds like the universe is a scientist. There is something about that I like.

 

[Fluffywolf]

If I remember correctly they posit that something did in fact exist and our entire universe is the result of a dimensional membrane collision.

Altho it's just as likely that our universe is a result of a reaction in another dimension of sorts and that there is existance beyond 'ours' as we know it. That would still not explain how that other existance came to exist.

 

[Frank]

Altho it's just as likely that our universe is a result of a reaction in another dimension of sorts and that there is existance beyond 'ours' as we know it. That would still not explain how that other existance came to exist.

I know. It's one giant rabbit hole. I think it is because of this that theists assume the positions that they do.

 

[Jeremy]

Sounds like the universe is a scientist. There is something about that I like.

Yeah. That's one way of looking at it I guess. The universe is experimenting with itself to figure out.. something. Who knows what though?

 

[nozflubber]

very good question, and the answer is simple: science works because there IS some sort of order to the world, and the human mind is capable of picking up on that order in primitive yet sufficient ways.

Science works because we are our own Godsthat can exert themselves on the world, and if you're a non atheist you might consider the possibility the God wants us to be Gods. If you doubt the bolded proposition, I would gladly introduce you to the atom bomb and the basic mechanisms of how and why it works the way it does.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I would gladly introduce you to the atom bomb and the basic mechanisms of how and why it works the way it does.

U(235)+n -> Kaboom.

 

[ptgatsby]

Altho it's just as likely that our universe is a result of a reaction in another dimension of sorts and that there is existance beyond 'ours' as we know it. That would still not explain how that other existance came to exist.

These dimensions wouldn't "exist" as you are thinking. Humans concepts fail to describe them in any sense. They would involve all possible outcomes of all possible initial conditions of all possible mechanics. Given 11 or 16 dimensions, the result is much the same - they are everything. There would be no "came" to exist, no start or end... time or creation doesn't mean anything here - all creations exist at the same 'time'.

 

[Fluffywolf]

These dimensions wouldn't "exist" as you are thinking. Humans concepts fail to describe them in any sense. They would involve all possible outcomes of all possible initial conditions of all possible mechanics. Given 11 or 16 dimensions, the result is much the same - they are everything. There would be no "came" to exist, no start or end... time or creation doesn't mean anything here - all creations exist at the same 'time'.

But there is a starting point of reference for all matter as we know it. If you put all natural forces in one big model and trace all forces and movements back you will get to a point of reference in which all movement and time as we know it, came into existance. Ofcourse, that's not enough to explain everything. But it's a good first step for us to take to get some insight. And scientists of today are already tracing back celestial movements and have in fact come to the conclusion that matter as we know it is expanding. But all these forces have to have come from something, somewhere.

But like I said, it's theoretically impossible for us to find 'all' answers with the limited senses and perceptions that we have. But we might be able to create systems and methods able to communicate and translate other dimensions back to ours for a better understanding. And slowly map out existance as we know it, explained in our context. And I believe we can get quite a few answers in the long run. Even though we'll always stumble on more questions.

What I mentioned earlier in those easy steps bit, is that we have to assume there was once upon a time (fairytales. ) a point in which there was nothing but that laws of physics make it impossible for that nothing to exist, and counterbalanced that with infinite space. But as far as time and existance is concerned, that never 'existed' and therefor there wasn't a real starting point.

Doesn't mean there wasn't a beginning however. Just not a beginning that we can describe. But we can describe what happened after that 'beginning'.

 

[ptgatsby]

But there is a starting point of reference for all matter as we know it. If you put all natural forces in one big model and trace all forces and movements back you will get to a point of reference in which all movement and time as we know it, came into existance.

There doesn't have to be a start for everything... Can we define a starting point for a circle?

Remove time from the equation - that's a human reference. What does "start" mean then? If a being one dimension up can see the entirety of time, the concept "start" has no meaning, however he could only see one possible outcome at a time of all possible outcomes... What would "start" mean then?

What we sit in is just one small slice of that. It's like taking a tube, slicing it into a 2d object and us walking along this path saying there has to be a start. The "start" doesn't have to exist... and what we see is virtually meaningless in defining the overall conditions of the universe.

I use the tube analogy because whether or not there is a start and finish depends on which way you cut the tube... and that's exactly what happens from the higher universes.

What I mentioned earlier in those easy steps bit, is that we have to assume there was once upon a time (fairytales. ) a point in which there was nothing but that laws of physics make it impossible for that nothing to exist, and counterbalanced that with infinite space. But as far as time and existance is concerned, that never 'existed' and therefor there wasn't a real starting point.

The problem, however, is that the "laws of physics" are only our set of physics. If you go up many dimensions, every possible set of physics exist. It's entirely possible that some of those "slices" (one set of physics) are circular, in which it has "always" existed (to use a lower dimension set), or linear.

For instance,consider that gravity might be weaker or stronger in those universes - would a universe undergo heat or cold death then? Back in our universe, we might be linear - matter expands once from some set of initial condition, and continues outwards forever. In another, the universe may contract and re-expand over and over.

 

[Fluffywolf]

For instance,consider that gravity might be weaker or stronger in those universes

Actually, gravity's strength is based on the density of the matter. Gravity itself can't be weaker or stronger. Density of the present matter however can be different that has an effect on gravity's influence to our perception.

 

[ptgatsby]

Actually, gravity's strength is based on the density of the matter. Gravity itself can't be weaker or stronger. Density of the present matter however can be different that has an effect on gravity's influence to our perception.

It can't in our universe. One theory goes that in higher dimensions, every possible set of universal constants exists.

(Hence in a parallel universe* gravity might be different, and that "2d" slice of the universe might be a circle, with no start or end, while another "2d" slice of another universe may have start and end.)

* It would be a parallel universe different than the one normally referred to -every single possible outcome of our universe - but three sets of dimensions removed... giving all possible different constants, and within each, giving all possible initial conditions, giving all possible outcomes of each condition.

 

[Nocapszy]

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?

First two mistaken assumptions:
You assume either,

• All atheists prefer science
• All scientists are atheists

And that this is a question of science.
If not, you probably would be best off having the thread title changed, or avoid directly referencing science.

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?

Everything you say about the universe can be said about God.

That's how ultimate entities work.

I imagine most responses to this thread will be met with a reiteration of your original question. You'd go back to the premise that something had to create the universe. But then, who created God? Like you said, nothing can just "poof" here.

But at some point, there had to be an ultimate creation. But that's impossible (right?)! From there we have to conclude that God always existed. But then, why couldn't the universe have always existed?
The big bang idea has actually evolved into what's called the big bounce, meaning that the universe expands and contracts, and was never actually created: It just always was. Like "god" was.

Third mistaken assumption:

Everything must have a cause...

But something must be causing things to work/happen the way that they do.

Standing only on the fact that everything you've seen and experienced thus far had a cause doesn't prove that the universe had to be caused by something.

Cause and effect could very well be a fixture exclusive to this sector of existence.

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

Fourth mistaken assumption:
People on this site are flamers.

 

[Jeremy]

Science works because we are our own Godsthat can exert themselves on the world, and if you're a non atheist you might consider the possibility the God wants us to be Gods. If you doubt the bolded proposition, I would gladly introduce you to the atom bomb and the basic mechanisms of how and why it works the way it does.

The atomic bomb, regardless of the way it works, is the testament to the foolishness of mankind, not to it's "godliness". I'd rather think of how people have learned more and more over time as a testament to godliness as opposed to having the ability to destruct. The ability to destruct may inflict awe, but it is not something I would consider godlike.

 

[ptgatsby]

The ability to destruct may inflict awe, but it is not something I would consider godlike.

Wrath does seem fairly important to most religions.

 

[Mole]

I find it hard to believe in the Big Bang because I can't find the centre of the Bang.

Wherever I stand seems to be the centre.

And so the centre of the Big Bang is everywhere and nowhere, just like God.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I find it hard to believe in the Big Bang because I can't find the centre of the Bang.

Wherever I stand seems to be the centre.

And so the centre of the Big Bang is everywhere and nowhere, just like God.

Is this in reference to the cosmic microwave background?