Thread: Atheism...

I used to be an Atheist. I read Richard Dawkins from cover to cover and found it fantastically written and brilliantly argued, on the whole. Despite the fact I was raised in a Catholic family and go to church, I've always found the theological side of believing in God to be quite obviously flawed. It seems that one need only look at the contradictions in the Bible, the multitudes of varying faith that exist, and the strange and often dark world views they contain to know deep down that the Christian God, like the Muslim and Hindu God(s), is essentially fictitious. But I'm not an atheist. Not even really an agnostic. I believe in God and here's why:

Firstly, it is important to clarify what God is. It's clearly not a man in the clouds, it's clearly not something that impregnated a virgin or raised the dead or any of those things. But the problem I have when I consider atheism, at least of the ilk Dawkins and, to an extent, Christopher Hitchens espoused is that as good as their arguments may be when it comes to criticizing religion and the traditional concept of God they don't actually offer any alternative that seems plausible.

In Dawkins' case, I know he acknowledges this and I give him credit for that. He says that he is a scientist and therefore relies on evidence and that there is no more evidence for a divine spirit than there is a flying spaghetti monster, etc. But the problem I have is that I can't wholeheartedly deny the existence of God until there is a proven scientific alternative. Why? Because it's against science, ironically. It's against science to presume there's no creator for something when everything we know requires one. That's not the same as saying you 'know' there is a God. We must be honest and say we do not know either way. But the teleological argument (the argument for design) still stands, because when we look at science we find a kind of regressive process going on:

1) We were created by evolution from apes.
2) The apes were created by smaller organisms, which were created by the formation of a hospitable planet.
3) The hospitable planet was created by the formation of a star system, which it orbits.
3) The star was created by an explosion of matter.
4) The explosion of matter was the big bang.
5) The big bang was created by---?

We do not know what created the big bang. Most atheists, at least intellectual ones, are honest about this. Once again, I give them credit for that. Indeed, an atheist who says 'we don't know how we came to be here' is infinitely preferable to a crazed Christian fundamentalist. But the problem is they don't offer a decent alternative and, like I say, if there is no known alternative it makes sense to assume we were created by something, and that something must be everlasting - i.e beyond the limits of time and space - because otherwise we would not be able to end the regress. Ultimately it must all lead back to something. Whatever we feel about Religion, does it not make sense to call that something God?

As weird as it probably sounds, I often find myself remembering that scene at the end of the movie Men In Black. The part where they zoom out on the universe and see that it's just a marble being rolled by a massive alien. Jokes aside, is that not extremely possible? That we tend to think we, the universe, is such a 'big, big thing' when in reality it forms just a minuscule part, an atom-sized entity perhaps (i like to think of the universe as being of an atomic significance in something larger, based on the fact the laws of physics are so different inside an atom than outside of it, rather like perhaps our laws of physics dont exist in the world of the 'alien throwing marbles). if we can accept that this hypothesis is likely, let alone possible, wouldnt it be fair to say that we all believe in 'God', and that we simply haven't realized the nature of what He is?

I don't find it weird. I am an agnostic and at times can turn into a frothing atheist, but I think you've managed to effectively phrase what a lot of people mean when they say, 'I'm not religious, but I am spiritual.' It sounds like a cop-out, but I think many people feel it to be true.

Religion was created by men, but as you say, life as we know it, must have been created by something else. I just don't feel comfortable calling that something else 'God' because of all the religious connotations attached to the word. I don't think the 'Something Else', as I shall now name it, has anything in common with the way it's been personified in the Big 3 religions, but in the words of Mr. Dawkins himself, reality is magic. I don't have a scientific bone in my body, so more things probably seem magical to me than to others. There is so much that we have yet to discover and the fact that with each passing generation, we want to discover these things makes me feel like we are all trying to define, as clearly as we can, what that 'Something Else' is.

It's funny, I clicked on this thread expecting to argue, but I agree, I do believe in Something Else. But I'm not going to call it God until that definition applies equally to the shapeless, nameless energy I believe in, as it does to the man in the clouds.

If you believe that aliens came here and played gene manipulation, that's still atheism.

And if you want to ask where did the big bang come from, you still have the same problem with any god. Where did this alleged God come from?

At some point you have to come to grips with the fact that there is something eternal; which has no beginning or end. The finite attempting to grasp the infinite needs a little help.

Ever since I heard of the Big Bang, I imagined it to be a recurring event, like the throbbing pulse of a jellyfish over billions of years, in which after the Big Expansion there would follow a Big Implosion.. Currently scientific theory shows that I was half right (and, of course, half wrong).. the Big Bang is a cyclical event, but there is no implosion, as dark energy is pushing everything apart at an accelerating rate.

So how, then is the Big Bang is a cyclical event, which repeats endlessly into the future, and infinitely into the past?

The current beleif is thus:

It's not, as scientists previously believed, the result of an exploding super particle, but rather, the collision of parallel universes, as our universe (outerspace) is really part of a larger multiverse. (imagine a ream of paper, or sheets hanging on a clothes-line.. with each sheet being a seperate universe. The sheets float parallel to each other, but every now and then they touch, and this contact results in a supernova explosion which births a new universe).

So the big bang is the result of parallel universes colliding. This event happened, and will continue happen, endlessly throughout time, birthing new universes after the previous universe has expanded into nothingness.

Don't believe in it....

Just wanted to correct a couple of facts in the following section.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

1) We were created by evolution from apes.

Sort of. Humans are apes by definition, we share a common ancestor with every other type of ape.

2) The apes were created by smaller organisms, which were created by the formation of a hospitable planet.

Again, sort of. But it's worth noting that evolution does not mean getting bigger. Chickens evolved from dinasaurs.

3) The hospitable planet was created by the formation of a star system, which it orbits.

This just doesn't make sense. The Earth does not orbit a star system, it orbits a star. Are you saying that the Earth was created from the Sun's gases? Because it wasn't. The Sun, and all the planets, were created from the debris of previously existing stars that went supernova.

3) The star was created by an explosion of matter.

See above.

4) The explosion of matter was the big bang.

The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of matter. The Big Bang was the expansion of space-time. Existence got larger, things didn't increase to fit existence if you understand what I mean.

5) The big bang was created by---?

We do not know what created the big bang. Most atheists, at least intellectual ones, are honest about this. Once again, I give them credit for that. Indeed, an atheist who says 'we don't know how we came to be here' is infinitely preferable to a crazed Christian fundamentalist. But the problem is they don't offer a decent alternative and, like I say, if there is no known alternative it makes sense to assume we were created by something, and that something must be everlasting - i.e beyond the limits of time and space - because otherwise we would not be able to end the regress. Ultimately it must all lead back to something. Whatever we feel about Religion, does it not make sense to call that something God?

I'm a believer, but your argument is faulty. The problem with calling that something: God, is that you could just as easily call that something: Yeti, or: Vishnu or: Zeus and know just as much as you did before. We don't know what caused the expansion of the universe, we don't even know where the universe came from, but that does not mean we will never know. Saying: God caused the big bang is a way of cutting yourself off from searching for an explanation, because it's an intellectual dead end.

The existence of both us, and the universe in general, is totally illogical. Before the big bang there was nothing - As that fundamentally contradicts one of the major principles of thermodynamics, the Big Bang is clearly nonsense.... Hold on you say, but we do exist.... Don't we? Or do we, can we? If there is matter and antimatter then nothing can exist, so there must be more matter than antimatter and the universe is assymmetrical; if the universe is assymmetrical, then it can't have started from a singularity as a singularity must, by definition, be symmetrical and from nothing came energy but, I hear you say, energy can neither be created nor lost... Oops here we go again, going round in circles....

Everything we understand can be put in a bag - Except the existence of the universe. Why? Who holds the bag that holds the universe?

I don't believe in the concept of a personal God, especially the tyrant of the Abrahamic religions, simply because doing so wouldn't offer me anything. Being an Epicurean with a dash of Advaitanism, the very notion of it is laughable.

People can believe whatever they want, and I'm not going to express any resentment toward them, even if provoked. To parrot the most favourite truism of many Christians: 'everyone is entitled to their own beliefs'. Right they are.

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

The existence of both us, and the universe in general, is totally illogical. Before the big bang there was nothing - As that fundamentally contradicts one of the major principles of thermodynamics, the Big Bang is clearly nonsense

What in the name of all that is holy are you on about? I just explained that the Big Bang does not explain the origin of existence, it explains the origin of the universe, two completely different things.

.... Hold on you say, but we do exist.... Don't we? Or do we, can we? If there is matter and antimatter then nothing can exist,

What?

so there must be more matter than antimatter and the universe is assymmetrical; if the universe is assymmetrical, then it can't have started from a singularity as a singularity must, by definition, be symmetrical and from nothing came energy but, I hear you say, energy can neither be created nor lost... Oops here we go again, going round in circles....

... See this is the problem right here. You're talking about things that you don't understand and you come to faulty conclusions and say things that flatly make no sense and then try and build them up as the arguments of physicists. It's strawmanning, very bad strawmanning.

The matter-antimatter problem is a flaw in the current model that we have to explain the Big Bang, but the existence of said flaw does not invalidate what we already know to be true. We know for a fact that the universe is expanding, that means that regardless of whatever else, we know that it used to be smaller. Go back far enough in time and you see that the universe would have to be a singularity. At some point for whatever reason the universe began expanding aka the Big Bang. That is all the theory says. It doesn't say energy came from nothing. It doesn't even talk about what happened before the Big Bang.

To use an analogy, what you're saying isn't that much different from the following:


My table is made out of wood.
What is wood made out of?
Carbon and some other elements.
What are those made out of?
Fundamental particles.
What are those made out of?
We aren't completely sure, but there are various theories which say different things.
AHA! You do not know what fundamental particles are made out of therefore your table cannot be made out of wood.

At some point you have to come to grips with the fact that humans can imagine something eternal; which has no beginning or end. Despite there being nothing otherwise considered evidence to demonstrate its existence.

Originally Posted by ppsage

At some point you have to come to grips with the fact that humans can imagine something eternal; which has no beginning or end. Despite there being nothing otherwise considered evidence to demonstrate its existence.

I think we're all familiar with the Harry Potter novels. For a minute there, it was touch and go, and I thought they'd never end (this may still be the case).

Originally Posted by Chirios

Just wanted to correct a couple of facts in the following section.



Sort of. Humans are apes by definition, we share a common ancestor with every other type of ape.



Again, sort of. But it's worth noting that evolution does not mean getting bigger. Chickens evolved from dinasaurs.



This just doesn't make sense. The Earth does not orbit a star system, it orbits a star. Are you saying that the Earth was created from the Sun's gases? Because it wasn't. The Sun, and all the planets, were created from the debris of previously existing stars that went supernova.



See above.



The Big Bang wasn't an explosion of matter. The Big Bang was the expansion of space-time. Existence got larger, things didn't increase to fit existence if you understand what I mean.





I'm a believer, but your argument is faulty. The problem with calling that something: God, is that you could just as easily call that something: Yeti, or: Vishnu or: Zeus and know just as much as you did before. We don't know what caused the expansion of the universe, we don't even know where the universe came from, but that does not mean we will never know. Saying: God caused the big bang is a way of cutting yourself off from searching for an explanation, because it's an intellectual dead end.

firstly, i'm aware that my 'list of occurences' wasn't technically absolutely correct, mainly because i was short-cutting the scale. of course i'm aware that the planet does not orbit a 'star-system', but a star. i should have probably taken more time to ensure the terms were watertight but it'd take me forever. the point i was making is that there is a causality to everything, which roots back to one thing.

secondly, yes you can call it Yeti or Vishnu or whatever. i dont have a problem with any of that. you can call Him whatever you want. i don't mean to suggest any conscious being necessarily caused the big bang, simply that it makes sense given our understanding to suppose SOMETHING did. that's just my point though. atheists spend a lot of time (understandably) demonstrating how much of religion is tied up in semantics, but unfortunately that means they get tied down to semantics often themselves when the real issue is existence itself. if we can call him vishnu we can just as easily call him God just as we can easily call it 'the first mover' or 'the bigger bang'. the terms don't matter, the concept does.

essentially all human opinion on the matter (excluding the absurd) boils down to one of three alternatives:

1) the big bang had a creator
2) the big bang had no creator, or came from a source that had no creator. either just came into existence for no reason. along with time, space and all else.
3) we don't know, so we are going to completely with-hold any and all definite opinion on the subject.

all three positions have their potential strengths, but also their weaknesses. to say the big bang had a creator brings up the issue of the nature of that creator (what caused the aliens to exist & own such marbles). to say it came from nothing brings up two issues a) what is the nature of 'nothing' and b) how can something come from nothing. this is completely absurd given our understanding of causality, but does have the benefits of being an absolute rejection of God and the problems associated with Him. to say we don't know is probably the most intellectually honest approach to the subject, and is essentially agnosticism. aside from faith, which i have based on personal experience, the feeling that there's something there (which is the main source of my personal faith, while admittedly not a basis for scientific discussion) the reason i lean towards alternative #1 is because:

1) all things we can comprehend are caused by something.
2) the second alternative does not explain, with our current knowledge, how the big bang happened and therefore
3) it makes sense to work with the presumption that there is a creator. be it God, the Yeti, Vishnu or Jimi Hendrix.

even if one dismisses my 'jump' to assuming creation as mere conjecture, which to a degree it is (but based on a real-world premise of course, namely causality) then that would seemingly put them in the 'we don't know camp'. my problem then with atheism is that while it doesn't usually say WE DO KNOW FOR A FACT THERE IS NO GOD it is biased against the possibility (atheism by definition is the theory that God does not exist). it seems to me that it should be the complete opposite. we should be biased if anything in favor of the God hypothesis because it is the only one based on causality and the laws of physics as they exist in our world, that all things require something else to exist, with the understanding that we may one day learn that there is no eternal being and that matter and energy can indeed come from nothing, or at least from something that does not fit the definition of the eternal.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

secondly, yes you can call it Yeti or Vishnu or whatever. that's just my point though. atheists spend a lot of time (understandably) demonstrating how much of religion is tied up in semantics, but unfortunately that means they get tied down to semantics often themselves. if we can call him vishnu we can just as easily call him God. i dont have a problem with any of that. you can call Him whatever you want but that still means you believe in Him (or It, more appropriately), at least until you understand the scientific alternatives, which nobody does and possibly never will. i don't mean to suggest any conscious being necessarily caused the big bang, simply that it makes sense given our understanding to suppose SOMETHING did.

My point is that there is a difference between something and someone, and also that you are confusing the origin of existence and the big bang.

A few centuries ago, a very stupid Muslim philosopher declared all scientific study Haraam and claimed that God was responsible for each individual thing that happened. You strike a match, God sets the match on fire. We know that this is wrong, you strike a match, you transfer energy to it which leads to a fire. Another Muslim philosopher wrote a response which boiled down, pointed out that assuming God is responsible for whatever we don't know is an intellectual dead end. We need to look at things and study them and see if there is a natural explanation.

Let's say that tomorrow, a theory was devised to explain what caused the Big Bang. Twenty years later, a powerful enough particle accelerator was built which could test said theory. The predictions of the theory were shown to be correct and whoever devised the theory won the noble prize. Then you would be asking: What was the origin of energy then? And physicists would respond: We don't know. But then a hundred years later people might discover the origin of energy and so on and so forth. You see what I mean when I say that assuming God to be the origin of whatever we can't currently explain isn't helpful? Just because we can't explain it now doesn't mean that we won't ever be able to explain it, and assuming that God is responsible for whatever happens deadens our ability to find out what really happens.

There are, btw, several hypothesise for what caused the Big Bang. As of this post, there is no particle accelerator in the world powerful enough to test their predictions.

Originally Posted by Chirios

What in the name of all that is holy are you on about? I just explained that the Big Bang does not explain the origin of existence, it explains the origin of the universe, two completely different things.

What?

... See this is the problem right here. You're talking about things that you don't understand and you come to faulty conclusions and say things that flatly make no sense and then try and build them up as the arguments of physicists. It's strawmanning, very bad strawmanning.

The matter-antimatter problem is a flaw in the current model that we have to explain the Big Bang, but the existence of said flaw does not invalidate what we already know to be true. We know for a fact that the universe is expanding, that means that regardless of whatever else, we know that it used to be smaller. Go back far enough in time and you see that the universe would have to be a singularity. At some point for whatever reason the universe began expanding aka the Big Bang. That is all the theory says. It doesn't say energy came from nothing. It doesn't even talk about what happened before the Big Bang.

To use an analogy, what you're saying isn't that much different from the following:


My table is made out of wood.
What is wood made out of?
Carbon and some other elements.
What are those made out of?
Fundamental particles.
What are those made out of?
We aren't completely sure, but there are various theories which say different things.
AHA! You do not know what fundamental particles are made out of therefore your table cannot be made out of wood.

If we are a result of the big bang then it explains the existence of US which is what I said, I did not say that it explained existence. A very authoritative scientist explained to me last night that there is about 80% as much antimatter as matter, and that if equal amounts of each existed we wouldn't be here because they would cancel each other out - Sounded perfectly reasonable to me.

If you can explain to anybody's satisfaction within what the universe is contained I should be very happy - It is illogical that the universe exists as an entity because anything which exists is physical, and anything which exists must exist within something, which must exist within something, which must exist..... We can't even say that we are figments of our own imaginations because even imagination must relate to the concrete, or it is not imagination. Even if the universe grew from a singularity that singularity must have been contained in a void.... Oh dear, we're back to the bag within a bag problem - Perhaps it is all turtles as Terry Pratchett says...