I am not atheist...But...my answer is...I don't know...
I am not really concerned with how it got here but where it is heading...I am concerned with, will this planet still support life for my children and grandchildren, etc with the way we are currently doing things...Will Population overrun food source...air sources...drinking water sources...things like that...
I believe that there was a creator for our universe, but I don't think this creator carries the characteristics typically associated with the Christian God (all-knowing, all-present, all-good). For example, I am the creator of these words, but it does not logically follow that because I am capable of designing them that I am all-knowing, all-present and all-good. With that being said, I will answer your question about how I think the universe was formed. I believe that an intelligent being, much more evolved than we are, created us using technology that we aren't capable of imagining at this point in the growth of our species. I would go further out on a limb and say that our universe is cyclical, going through periods of contraction and expansion (big bang). Could it be possible that our creator(s) periodically refine their creation through this cycle in order to improve on their original design? I'm not sure that I can condense my ideas enough to fit into this little box, but that's my basic answer to your question.
Oh no, I just committed the chicken or the egg fallacy. We would have to then consider then, regardless of "what" started the chain reaction that became our universe, what came before that....and before that....and before that. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll have the technology in our lifetimes to gather the knowledge we would need about the universe to discover definitive proof of God's existence or non-existence. The worse news is that we may never know. We have 4 options - God exists and we believe in him, God exists and we don't believe in Him, God doesn't exist and we believe in him, or God doesn't exist and we don't believe in him. For each option there are consequences, but if (with the 50/50 chance given) God doesn't exist and there is no Heaven, there is the possibility that there is nothing so we would never know anyway.
What about the possibility that god does not exist and we don't believe whoever says god exist? Since we are only sure that the world exists and Since no human has seen matter spontaneously disappearing can't we just assume there never was a beginning and hence there never was a creator?
This is a tricky point for me and I have to admit I'm undecided. I could argue the point either way. Either time is a totally human concept and doesn't even apply in this situation (the beginning of the universe) or if something begins we have to assume that a force, even if it's just some crazy coincidental bumping of atoms had to set the wheels in motion.
No, I think the possibilities are endless as to the nature of whatever created us. For this particular discussion I was using the Christian God as an example for a point. All of the religions of the world hold equal weight to me. Without proof one way or another, any of them could be right, not just Christianity.
I think 50/50 only applies if the type of God discussed is limited to the Christian God. Of course, since more than one option exists for which God/s to believe in, your odds are spot on. Thank you so much for putting it that way. You made my day.
I was just reading a selection discussing Pascal's wager the other day for class and briefly considered that there were more options than just the Christian God to believe in, but didn't take the time to really work it out. Amazing!
Who's to say the universe wasn't here first and that God isn't just a natural part of it? Or... Who's to say that God isn't just a rationalization, an attempt to understand what was so hard to understand then?
Not a bad question, but they may like it better if you asked it like, "How did the universe come into being..." since we know it did come into being at one point, based on science. It has not always been. The "formed" part of the question, whether or not it was, may be distracting to some maybe as it suggests an intelligence doing something.
Or another question may be, what could possibly account for something (the universe we see) coming into being, and taking all the steps necessary to get to where we are, that we can even ponder it, ask questions of it?
Scientifically, we know it came into being, and we have no evidences for thinking there was anything before this universe. We do observe intelligence and complexity that we can't duplicate, even being the most intelligent of life forms. Can something that is not intelligent, set something like what we observe into motion, especially when there wasn't even the "elements" in place?
Do we see anything in science explain that? Where do these evidences lead, if we stay scientific and don't rule anything out in advance? I have seen at least Dawkins kind of think about such things when put such ways, though it wasn't comfortable for him.
Atheism and humanism doesn't answer it, nor does physicalism or materialism. What could "get it done?" We do know its here.
I think it has much to do with information. Like as in how some vertebrates have the ability to process information adequately. We have nervous systems that use electrochemical processes that send information that our brains interpret, like pain or temperature. I don't think we are actually "feeling cold or pain" it's just an interpretation of the electrochemical feedback. The reason I use that example of information is that it is being sent and received at such a minute level and even someone with the minimum amount of ability can receive that stimuli; despite the probable inability to interpret the information adequately.
If reality is somewhat finite, I believe that reality could be considered just- information. I think that as humans we have a tendency to personalize too much in that we could consider information as true-false-noise, whereas it probably is just "information" period. For me, information suggests intelligence.
Information, that our own intelligence cannot duplicate even with our science and technology today, indeed does suggest intelligence. It cannot be otherwise, which would be to side with illogic. We as humans can't do it, but we are told we are stupid if we don't buy the idea that non human intelligence COULD do it. Illogical and unreasonable.
What exactly did I lie about, and/or what did I say that you find me to be misinformed? If I did indeed lie or share misinformation, I would like to know. I don't claim to know everything, and could be in error. Thanks.
In the meantime, we do see intelligent beings (humanity) creating things that nature cannot do on its own. Yet, our very intelligence, cannot begin to duplicate the complexities we find in nature, and its not for lack of trying almost feverishly, daily by scientists world over.
Are these observably true facts, meant to be clues to us?
I believe in the big bang, or something like it. Science shows it did come into being at some point. The big bang is a way to describe that. Without sounding too cheesy, one way it has been put is, that you need a "big banger" for a big bang. Science, not having a disconnect with God. IF there is a God, AND he is the creator, then the science we see in the world around us isn't going to contradict that truth of God. I don't see a problem with the big bang. Time has been passing since. From what I understand, the universe (as we know it) isn't eternal as we know it, and all sides can agree on that. From the humanist to the devout Christian, it lines up with science that this all had a beginning and is going to have an end in the future.
You know, Jane, this is probably the largest, muted, response by science. Even science agrees, to a larger degree, that the very existence of the universe does not fit with its existence. Its very existence defies that existence. The more they view the non-optic world, using many kinds of mechanics/technology, the more it doesn't really make sense that the universe exists the way it does.
How intriguing that two completely different units, called subatomic particles, can collide, form an entirely different unit, and they themselves dissolve into 'thin air' as if they never were. This instance happens constantly, at 'speeds' unimaginable, yet, despite such constant changes in the position/existence/visibility of these units, the universe exists -and is believed to be increasing/decreasing simultaneously -some might apply mystics words like Om, Pneuma, Ruach meaning breath, breathing.
But, the most interesting thing is nearly all Theos application (meaning by sensationalism or science) lean toward precisely the same way the universe came to be. Mystic says: "He Said and it was" while science says "Bang! and it was." Could both be correct; both incorrect; both partially correct?
If universes don't just happen on their own, then more might be going on. In our own human history, we haven't ever seen anything like a universe just happen, but its not for lack of looking.
It is normal for humans to want to understand then, what might have happened...when there is nothing, then something that amounts to a universe eventually. Explanations of what is a sufficient cause then arise naturally I think. The things offered up ought to be scrutinized, but fairly. (Assuming knowing the truth of things is the goal. I am pretty convinced now, that not all want the truth of things.)
Not sure whatsa goin' on, but approaching the forum from my homepage, my comment was inresponse to someone else. Taken out of context, it wasn't meant for you, Jane. Here is my theory of the creation: David Copperfield, Chris Angel and Harry Houdini were hangin' around in the ether one day, when Chris said to Harry and David, "Watch this!" he reached down his throat, grabbed his butt, pulling really hard, and POOF! Here we are.
I could be wrong, but isn't an atheist just a person that doesn't believe in God? Is it so bad to require objective evidence before declaring belief? If someone approached me today and told me that they wanted to deposit a million dollars into my bank account, I probably wouldn't just fork over my routing and account number before investigating who they were and what their true intentions were. It's the same with religion for me. It's not that I don't want to believe in God, it's that I simply can't without proof. All I need is just one factual, objective reason......but I can't find anyone that can present it.
On the million in the acct/-intentions example. If they had bad intentions? If they had good intentions? You would allow it if you believed that they were good intentions. Their intent has no actual objective existence. Good intent and bad intent both weigh exactly the same- nothing. Your actions in regards to that intent- the entire experience itself weighs nothing, has no color, has no objective existence. I could ask you: was it a good experience or bad experience? How could I believe you? What if you got the million dollars, but "in my opinion" the money you got made you a different person. We have opinions we have experiences, we have a millions dollars bouncing around, but only some of all that can be shown to objectively exist. Qualia and experience seem to have literally a million dollar value, yet where is that intent? Can you show me the intent?
The most important part or the part that had the "most effect" was "you" deciding to "find the intent". Finding that intent and making a decision based on that intent is the difference between getting a million dollars or stopping a potential scam. But all those decisions have no color, have no weight, cannot be shown. Yet they made it all happen or not happen.
To afterward claim or assert that- I have to have objective proof- is simply not the case for things we take for granted.
You cannot apply the reasoning one place- then ignore it the next.
Among the scientific theories that all high school students should know before graduation are:1. The Big Bang Theory of the origins of the cosmos2. Hubble's Law of Cosmic Expansion3. Einstein's Theory...
The Copernican Principle as a philosophical notion posits that humans occupy NO privileged or exceptional position in the universe. This has been the prevailing/reigning paradigm of scientific and societal...
I have been noticing that Theists are usually stuck with the burdan of proof when it comes to their beliefs. This thread is about asking Atheists what they believe respectfully. It is for theists to get a better...
So many people insist that Atheism is detrimental to society while religion enhanced society. Hmmm, now let us see this objectively instead of subjectively. Religions have been the source of wars and other...