The Faith of Atheists and Agnostics

[Kenny]

Ken: How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

But that is not the testimony of science and an enormous amount of scientific verification and data. Before the Big Bang, there was ZIP! Einstein even acknowledged that his former belief in the Steady State Theory was his greatest embarrassment and mistake. NO scientific observation or data supports ANYTHING that did not spring from something prior or have a prior cause. Ken, if you believe that, it's only based upon what you believe, and not on the extensive observations and tests that all agree that what you say is totally impossible! Before the Big Bang, NOTHING existed to SUBSEQUENTLY begin moving, and THEN (only AFTERWARD) to immediately begin organizing.

Science does not claim there was a point in history when absolutely nothing existed. They go back to the singularity that expanded aka the Big Bang to become the Universe as we currently know it.There may be a few people who guess this or that, but there isn't any scientific theory that claims a point when nothing existed.

Ken

[Kenny]

Having no belief that there is a God behind the universe is not just a rejection of religion, it's also an irrational rejection of massive scientific evidences and simple plain reason: NOTHING comes from NOTHING! NOTHING can't create, organize, design - ANYTHING! And, so, what can NOTHING actually DO? NOTHING!!! As Geisler says, "NOTHING is what rocks dream about!"

How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

Let's see...

1) eternal matter
Still have to answer what caused this eternal matter to become the Big Bang. Something cannot cause itself.

And if we don't have an answer, God did it right?

2) matter that's not just eternal, matter that's always been organized(with no organizer), and had design(with no designer)

Eternal, uncaused, organized, designed matter. That makes sense, but an eternal uncaused cause is less logical?

An eternal uncaused cause is what you just described!

3) matter that was never created(same as #1)

So...the Big Bang, in which all time, space, and matter came into existence, was created by eternal matter?

The big bang is not when all time space and matter came into existence, it is when all that existed (the singularity) expanded to become what we currently know as the Universe. Prior to the Big bang, science has no way of knowing. Science doesn't know everything ya know.

K

[RickD]

Ken: How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

But that is not the testimony of science and an enormous amount of scientific verification and data. Before the Big Bang, there was ZIP! Einstein even acknowledged that his former belief in the Steady State Theory was his greatest embarrassment and mistake. NO scientific observation or data supports ANYTHING that did not spring from something prior or have a prior cause. Ken, if you believe that, it's only based upon what you believe, and not on the extensive observations and tests that all agree that what you say is totally impossible! Before the Big Bang, NOTHING existed to SUBSEQUENTLY begin moving, and THEN (only AFTERWARD) to immediately begin organizing.

Science does not claim there was a point in history when absolutely nothing existed. They go back to the singularity that expanded aka the Big Bang to become the Universe as we currently know it.There may be a few people who guess this or that, but there isn't any scientific theory that claims a point when nothing existed.

Ken

Kenny,
Scientists claim that time itself began with the Big Bang. If scientists are correct, then there was no history before the Big Bang created time.
So, asking if there was a time where nothing existed, before the Big Bang, is kinda like asking what's north of the North Pole.

[Kenny]

Sorry Kenny, my reply was before I read what was after what you addressed to me.

I get it. I'm pretty sure. It's kinda cool, actually. Your every being lives in reality where all reality is, is what is. Which is composed of our experiences and physical surroundings and their interconnections. All that is is expressed through mechanical expressions of this material universe unfolding it's existence. I'm trying to understand your philosophy. Am I close? Could you expound for me?

Can you repeat that in English please?

Ken

[Kenny]

Having no belief that there is a God behind the universe is not just a rejection of religion, it's also an irrational rejection of massive scientific evidences and simple plain reason: NOTHING comes from NOTHING! NOTHING can't create, organize, design - ANYTHING! And, so, what can NOTHING actually DO? NOTHING!!! As Geisler says, "NOTHING is what rocks dream about!"

How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

Laws are contingent.

All laws in the Universe? Or just the laws that we know of.

Ken

[RickD]

Having no belief that there is a God behind the universe is not just a rejection of religion, it's also an irrational rejection of massive scientific evidences and simple plain reason: NOTHING comes from NOTHING! NOTHING can't create, organize, design - ANYTHING! And, so, what can NOTHING actually DO? NOTHING!!! As Geisler says, "NOTHING is what rocks dream about!"

How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

Let's see...

1) eternal matter
Still have to answer what caused this eternal matter to become the Big Bang. Something cannot cause itself.

And if we don't have an answer, God did it right?
There's nothing wrong with not knowing an answer. The problem comes when the answer is far less logical than another answer that is possible.

2) matter that's not just eternal, matter that's always been organized(with no organizer), and had design(with no designer)

Eternal, uncaused, organized, designed matter. That makes sense, but an eternal uncaused cause is less logical?

An eternal uncaused cause is what you just described!
Matter cannot be an uncaused cause. We've been over this ad nauseum. You basically said that eternal matter, which is organized, and designed(without an organizer and designer) is an uncaused cause of the universe. But you're still not saying any possible reason to what caused this eternal matter to act, thereby creating the universe.

3) matter that was never created(same as #1)

So...the Big Bang, in which all time, space, and matter came into existence, was created by eternal matter?

The big bang is not when all time space and matter came into existence, it is when all that existed (the singularity) expanded to become what we currently know as the Universe. Prior to the Big bang, science has no way of knowing. Science doesn't know everything ya know.

K
Actually Kenny, science doesn't "know" anything.

[Kurieuo]

Having no belief that there is a God behind the universe is not just a rejection of religion, it's also an irrational rejection of massive scientific evidences and simple plain reason: NOTHING comes from NOTHING! NOTHING can't create, organize, design - ANYTHING! And, so, what can NOTHING actually DO? NOTHING!!! As Geisler says, "NOTHING is what rocks dream about!"

How about if you start from the position that matter has always existed, always organized always had design, and never created?

Ken

Laws are contingent.

All laws in the Universe? Or just the laws that we know of.

If physics could be other than what they are then it is contingent.
Physics could have been other than what they are.
Therefore they're contingent.

Even if the physical world has been around forever in some shape or form, it is contingent.
And by contingent, it is dependent upon something other for either its existence or its shape and form.

The fact physics can be tweaked in virtual worlds like computer games (e.g., FPS, RPGs, Minecraft, etc), shows that they could be other than what they are. Of interest are many physicists, in particular those who posit multiple universes, note that other universes may contain very different physical laws and properties thereof.

So... take from that what you will.

[RickD]

Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

[Philip]

Kurieuo: The fact physics can be tweaked in virtual worlds like computer games (e.g., FPS, RPGs, Minecraft, etc), shows that they could be other than what they are.

Yes, and bats my fly out of my butt - that doesn't mean it's possible in the REAL world/universe! All scientific observation and analysis is based upon what is KNOWN to exist - not as to what MIGHT exist. Theoretical, unobserved things make fun chat, sell comic books, etc., but let's please stick to what we KNOW, not what we THINK is THEORETICALLY possible.

Kurieuo: Of interest are many physicists, in particular those who posit multiple universes, note that other universes may contain very different physical laws and properties thereof.

But this is also theoretical and without the slightest proof or data. It's like belief in the Tooth Fairy. And IF the multi-verse exists, it in no way solves the problem for non-theists, as even a chain of universes had to start with the first link/universe in that chain - and so, pray tell, WHAT started THAT theoretical first link in the chain, and all of the incredible complexity that would entail. So, with the multiverse, you've merely kicked the theological debate further back in time. It's like people that assert life on earth came from ancient aliens or from other worlds. But WHERE did the ORIGINS of such life come from. There HAS to be a beginning to EVERYTHING - or it has to spring from something else - and so, EVERYTHING also has to have a CAUSE.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

Ok. Then my next question would be...
What caused the singularity to expand? You do realize even if the singularity was eternal, something else had to have cause it to expand. Something cannot be the cause of itself. Any change has to be caused by something other than the thing being changed.

Think about it...this eternal singularity was just sitting there for eternity, until it expanded.
Understand what I'm getting at?

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

Ok. Then my next question would be...
What caused the singularity to expand? You do realize even if the singularity was eternal, something else had to have cause it to expand. Something cannot be the cause of itself. Any change has to be caused by something other than the thing being changed.

Think about it...this eternal singularity was just sitting there for eternity, until it expanded.
Understand what I'm getting at?

How do you know it was sitting there for eternity? Perhaps everything\ contracted to become the singularity, then expanded. The Universe could be in a constant state of contracting and expanding.

Ken

[RickD]

Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

Ok. Then my next question would be...
What caused the singularity to expand? You do realize even if the singularity was eternal, something else had to have cause it to expand. Something cannot be the cause of itself. Any change has to be caused by something other than the thing being changed.

Think about it...this eternal singularity was just sitting there for eternity, until it expanded.
Understand what I'm getting at?

How do you know it was sitting there for eternity? Perhaps everything\ contracted to become the singularity, then expanded. The Universe could be in a constant state of contracting and expanding.

Ken

I won't even get into how something eternal, and uncaused has to be unchanging as well.

So put that aside for now.
Kenny,
If everything contracted to become the singularity, you're still not answering what was the cause of its contracting.
I'm not necessarily arguing against a contracting and expanding universe. But even if we assume it is contracting and expanding, we need to address the little issue you keep avoiding! WHAT IS CAUSING THE UNIVERSE TO CONTRACT AND EXPAND?
Is the light coming on up there yet?

[edwardmurphy]

I wonder what edwardmurphy would make of the following argument I happened to stumble upon Ed?

1) Lack of belief on a subject entails one is unaware to that subject of belief.
2) The moment one becomes aware to a subject of belief, they conceive of something about that subject of belief.
3) If you conceive something about a subject, then that something counts as a belief about that subject.
4) Therefore, one has a belief on any subject that they become aware to. (from 1, 2, 3)

Let's extend this argument...

5) The person who claims "to lack a belief in the subject of a belief" shows an awareness of that subject of belief.
6) It is not possible for a person to lack a belief in a subject that they are aware to (from 4).
7) Therefore, it is a contradiction to say "I lack a belief on some subject" since such presupposes an awareness to that subject.

And finally...

Atheists who claim that they lack a belief of God are full of doodoo. (from 7)

Meh, more games. It's really important to some Christians that atheism be defined as "The belief that gods don't exist" because they think it will let them evade, or at least share, burden of proof. I think that the argument misses the point because it takes atheism - a belief about an unverifiable claim made by theists - and tries to turn it into a belief about gods. Theists have beliefs about gods. Atheists have beliefs about theism.

I'm not sure why you get to define what it means to be an atheist, but I'm not inclined to accept it.

Have you defined what it means to be an Atheist?

atheist - a person who does not accept the theistic proposition (that gods exist)

What would that look like?
For example, to someone who says to an Atheist: "I believe God exists as revealed in Israel and via Jesus."
The Atheist as you define would respond, "I do not accept... [insert words]"

...your claim because it is unverified and unverifiable, but if you can provide me with a sufficient empirical evidence then I will reconsider my position.

Also, atheism isn't a belief system. Religions are vast and complex belief systems. Atheism is the rejection of religions and the gods they're founded on. Calling atheism a belief system is akin to calling bald a hair color.

Is mere belief in God a belief system?
Does that count as religion?

1) No. A system is a bunch of parts that, together, form a whole.
2) It would be ridiculous, but I believe in freedom of religion so I if someone were to tell me that "I believe in god" was their entire religion I'd take their word for it.

I'm wondering what is it that defines religion to you?
Does one need to subscribe to a particular authority such as a church.
Dictionary definition is belief and worship of God, but I don't really consider myself religious.
I do believe in Christ, but that said, I don't subscribe to any religious body and consider myself quite free thinking.

The main point of difference I see between an Atheist and myself is that I believe in the truths Christ revealed.
Hmm, now I think on it that's not entirely true, because there's so much I believe points to God that I couldn't possibly believe God doesn't exist.
At the same time, short of Christ, I'd be lost about who the heck this God is.

In any case, just offering some further reflection here.
There seems to be a lot of baggage that I don't see of myself attached to the word "religion".
What are your thoughts?[/quote]

I think that a religion is best described as a system of beliefs based on the worship of a supernatural entity/entities. I don't know that one necessarily has to attend church to be religious, but I think they have to have some sort of consistent belief system. If they don't then they'd be more spiritual than religious, no? Then again, maybe not. Who knows. "Religion" is one of those words that gets used and abused quite a bit and it means different things to different people. I'm hardly an authority, you know?


I think the beliefs that you're describing are what people mean when they say they're "spiritual but not religious."

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I have a couple of questions regarding your theory that eternal matter created the universe. What happened to this eternal matter, after it created the universe?

Or, are you proposing that the singularity is that eternal matter?

I'm proposing the possibility of the singularity as the eternal matter.

Ken

Ok. Then my next question would be...
What caused the singularity to expand? You do realize even if the singularity was eternal, something else had to have cause it to expand. Something cannot be the cause of itself. Any change has to be caused by something other than the thing being changed.

Think about it...this eternal singularity was just sitting there for eternity, until it expanded.
Understand what I'm getting at?

How do you know it was sitting there for eternity? Perhaps everything\ contracted to become the singularity, then expanded. The Universe could be in a constant state of contracting and expanding.

Ken

I won't even get into how something eternal, and uncaused has to be unchanging as well.

So put that aside for now.
Kenny,
If everything contracted to become the singularity, you're still not answering what was the cause of its contracting.
I'm not necessarily arguing against a contracting and expanding universe. But even if we assume it is contracting and expanding, we need to address the little issue you keep avoiding! WHAT IS CAUSING THE UNIVERSE TO CONTRACT AND EXPAND?
Is the light coming on up there yet?

Perhaps eternal matter has always been in a state of motion; thus nothing caused it to contract and expand. The real answer is I do not know. I am just making stuff up that I feel could be possibilities. But just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to accept your explanation if it doesn't sound credible.

Ken