The god of the atheists.

[HK_01]

You're not an atheist, you're a deist. Just saying.

Anyway, for an atheist like me, a gap in knowledge and just substituting "God" into this gap doesn't do it for me. We don't know what happened to create the universe and maybe we never will, but saying "God did it" really has no basis in any evidence and I could just as well make any other claim as to how it came to be that is completely unfounded and it would be just as valid.

Your theory also begs the question: how did this creator come to be? And if he is inexplicable and doesn't need a cause, then we haven't really gotten anywhere.

 

[Erttheking]

God, I can tell just by the way that the OP was worded that this that I don't like this guy. I really hate ahteists, not all of them mind you, just the ones that run around reminding me that because I worship a god of any kind I'm on par with a caveman in terms of intelligence. Seriously, I don't shove my belief down your throat, why must you shove your lack of a belief down my throat? Are you so insecure that you must publicly state "I think that releigion is a bronze age curse" in order to solidfy your flimsy viewpoint? Or are you just trying to get under people's skin, either way I don't care for it or your attitude. You're giving other atheists a bad name, SOME want to not go to church on Sundays and just go on with their lives, and SOME people who aren't just want to go to church without someone ranting at them "YOU'RE STUPID, THERE IS NO GOD" But there are militants like you on both sides that refuse to DROP THE FUCKING SUBJECT! Ever hear of live and let live pal? No you haven't, if you had you wouldn't have opened with that bronze age comment, and yes I tell take a shot at you for your opinion, because it is one of intolerance, half of your post was you basically saying "No, you're not right, you're not right" dude, all you need to say that is that you are an atheist and we get the idea, are you trying to annoy people? God, I really hate people that think that they are smarter than the majority of the people on this planet, they're just like that one kid in high school who thinks that everyone around him is an idiot and his stuck up nature and tendancy to remind himself of how stupid everyone except him leads him to becoming an outcast of society.

Also shouldn't this be under releigon and politics?

 

[Something Amyss]

What I'm saying is that the big bang throws up so many questions. Many questions that can be answered with complicated physics, so whats to stop the physics bringing up an answer like my theory? That a being started the big bang.

Nothing.

However, ANYTHING beyond "there could be something" is just as idiotic as the usual religious rhetoric of "I don't understand it, SO GOD."

A decent example is the Bill O'Riley meme of "Tide goes in, tide goes out."

He claims we cannot explain this. Simply having a basic understanding of the way our solar system works will explain how "tide goes in, tide goes out."

His reasoning for God existing is "I don't understand gravitational pull, SO GOD."

Science does not preclude God. But the flip side to this is "lack of evidence doesn't prove God."

Call God what you want. call it a thing. Call it Sally. I use God because it's a commonly understood term.

In the meanwhile, let me direct you to Occam's Razor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

I'm apathetic agnostic myself. I believe the likelihood of a deity existing is just as likely as one not existing, but it likely doesn't matter all that much in the end.

One thing I've always been curious about though is how, if so many equally valid records of different Gods exist, anyone can say with any absolution that their God is the only real one?

 

[not_the_dm]

As a physicist I'm an apathetic agnostic (not that all physicists are, it just makes sense to me, given what evidence we have) but recently I've been looking a great deal at Quantum theory and I've come across the Anthropic Principles, which have some interesting conclusions.

Spoiler: Let me see if I can explain...

The Participatory Anthropic Principle states that intelligent life, including human life, is the very means by which the universe is created. That arises out of the principles of quantum physics. Quantum systems create wave-particles with inherent uncertainty. There are situations where a single atomic process can produce, for example, two photons of light with opposite polarisations. Under quantum theory they remain part of the same mathematical equation and in an indeterminate state until the polarisation of one of the photons is observed, and in a very real sense they exist in both polarisations simultaneously. But the moment one photon is observed, the polarisation of the other becomes fixed. There has been no communication between the two, yet, by observing one, we are influencing the atomic process which produced both. This holds true both in the lab and out, ergo it is possible to concieve such an atomic process taking place in a galaxy on the far side of the universe and the photons taking billions of years to reach us. We would thus be influencing processes within that galaxy by pointing our telescope at it. It is arguable that an observer, be it a mouse, an astronomer or even a computerised detection system, could have the same effect. In some real sense the act of observation is a creative one.

That leads to the Final Anthropic Principle. If the universe is dependent on conscious observers deducing knowledge of it for its very existence, then knowledge and consciousness must come to pervade the entire universe, for without its place in consciousness nothing in the universe can have existence. Tis is basically saying what mystical religions have been saying for centuries - that the universe is held in consciousness.

This is the best argument for deitic beings I've come across yet. Note though, it makes no coment on divine interference or the existence of an afterlife or anything else normally part and parcel of religion. And I've always had a certain fondness for the old polytheistic religions, they had their own gods without denying the existance of other pantheons.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

--

 

[monkey_man]

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup?feature=watch#p/u/21/Zn4DT5sHNWs (wrong subject, but has many videos related to this thread, just browse a bit, there are many sides he tackles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg (45 minutes)
these videos are good. one is from Stephen Hawking, and the other from "QualiaSoup".He pretty much tackles statements against atheism, and is very interesting and well argumented. I personally believe in the Stephen Hawking's thing, I think it's logical. That said, If irrefutable proof of a god or divine being does come to light, I'll instantly start with his/it's/her bidding.
I don't think it will be the case though, watch Qualiasoup why, he really explains a lot in my opinion.

 

[doggy go 7]

basically, what you've described is the only way I could accept a god/higher being, but it's equally lickely there's just infinite regression, whith a fucking massive black exploding to create the universe. tbh it really doesn't matter.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

That's called deism, and while not falsifiable (as most hypothesis are), it isn't really embraced by the scientific community. To put it bluntly: there is no proper evidence for it. It's blind speculation usually made by people with very little interest in finding out the actual mechanics that could have created the universe, but rather simply signing it off to something they know they have no chance at really explaining. It's not inconceivable, and I certainly can't say it's impossible, but it's very unscientific, especially when we have theories such as string theory that explain the beginning in a way we can actually learn from.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Personally I'm a fan of the theory that the birth and death of the universe are an infinite cycle. The universe expands, entropy sets in, universe collapses into a singularity, triggering another big bang.

I, too, am a fan of this philosophy.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Right because assuming God exists, He couldn't possibly be the Christian God (sarcasm). Only 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ, many of whom went to martyr's deaths, but whatever. Btw, read the Bible before you go talking about Christianity- the fact that you said "war god" shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, Science and Religion don't come into conflict if you're rational about it. For instance, Genesis was written by Moses, while Evolution is more or less proven fact.

 

[The Dutchess]

I too am an athiest and the only room I have for any "higher being" is the same as yours - it, if it even exists, might have tipped off the big bang. However I don't think of it as a being but more of a force. It is omnipresent and it may well be omnipotent but I doubt it would have the fickle emotions of the "gods" people worship today. In fact I don't think it would have any emotion at all, it would just be THERE, like gravity.
People attach so much power and mystery to their gods and often say they can never be understood and yet they are forever giving them human characteristics, sort of like anthropomorphism. You can't have omnipotency AND a great personality! Gravity doesn't care who falls off a mountain, it just does it's job and that's the only sort of "god" I can imagine is out there.

 

[RagTagBand]

OP, you, called it a theory

Others corrected you by calling it a hypothesis

I officially disagree with those who think you have a hypothesis, I think to call what you wrote in the OP a Hypothesis is generous to a degree which I refuse to be. A hypothesis is still based on evidence, with the possibility to test (if not proposed tests mentioned) and investigate.

What you have is not a theory, nor a hypothesis, it is barely a complete sentence, it is literally nothing more than "Maybe something did something". It's a god of the gaps argument - We don't know so maybe God did it; It is idle, useless, supposition based on nothing. I mean its not even that, at least people committing that fallacy have the backbone to be specific in what they're putting in the gaps...you just go "Maybe it was a thing". How deep of you, how long did you sit in your philosophers armchair to come up with that nugget?

OP you are not a man of science, neither are you a man of reason, as no one who valued Science or Reason would ever say

Also, this thread is completely MY opinion, so don't try and second guess or correct my way of thinking.

You may as well be a blind believer. You've got a trumped up view of yourself, you have a baseless opinion because you thought about it for 10 minutes, and you're neither looking for nor accepting criticism. You're intellectually embarrassing.

 

[RagTagBand]

Double post. Ignore.

 

[Hoplon]

I think any hypothesis of what happened pre our universe is meaningless speculation since it's like trying to remember before you where conceived.

I'd say this but then I'd be cautioned.
But it makes sense. We can never be sure unless a time machine is build.
... Right?

Even then it could be difficult if what we think of as time doesn't exist before that point (which would make sense if it's a spacial dimension like the three we all can perceive really easily)

Impossible? probably not. Very very difficult to comprehend? certainly.

 

[ultrachicken]

Even if some being existed before everything other than itself, and then created everything other than itself, that still wouldn't mean it created the universe. Because the word "universe" encompasses all things that exist, then whatever being may have created everything is still a part of the universe, and therefore there was a universe before it created so much.

If there ever was a pre-universe state, that would mean that there was a time when there was nothing at all, and therefore the universe would have had to spring from nothingness, which is impossible as far as physics is concerned. So maybe the universe never even had a beginning, at least as we understand beginnings.

Of course, with less than a high school science education, I could easily be missing quite a bit.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Of course, theists believe that it was created by some sort of all powerful, all loving war god.

You're mistakin' certain religions or religious systems with theism in general.
Therefore, your thread applies only to those following such religion and i'm not sure if - across Mankind's history - they are in majority.

Also, this thread is completely MY opinion, so don't try and second guess or correct my way of thinking.

Even if it's based on false beliefs and more or less wrong ? Nicely done sir. Nicely done... Your attitude is closer to inquisition than to scientific research.

 

[thom_cat_]

Where is the test for god that you had to have so thoroughly carried out to come to the conclusion god does not exist? If you are going to support the argument that Atheist = scientific you need to bring forth these tests that back you up within the scientific method.

Well, atheism (firstly, not capitalised) is a rejection of the claim that there is a god. It's not making the claim that "a god does not exist" it's saying that to believe in one is unfounded.
This is scientific. We don't believe every claim out there. If a claim has no evidence to support it then it should not be believed. That's it.
It's the scientific burden of evidence. Atheism is the default position.


As to the OP:
This whole thing is useless. What you have here is a conclusion that is baseless. Might as well say that the whole universe is another's imagination, or that we are in the matrix.
Both bring as much to the table as yours does. If you come to that conclusion then the same questions need to be asked toward that too! You've gotten nowhere. And you gotten there without any reason to either. A useless and unfounded step.

Even if some being existed before everything other than itself, and then created everything other than itself, that still wouldn't mean it created the universe. Because the word "universe" encompasses all things that exist, then whatever being may have created everything is still a part of the universe, and therefore there was a universe before it created so much.

If there ever was a pre-universe state, that would mean that there was a time when there was nothing at all, and therefore the universe would have had to spring from nothingness, which is impossible as far as physics is concerned. So maybe the universe never even had a beginning, at least as we understand beginnings.

Of course, with less than a high school science education, I could easily be missing quite a bit.

The Lawrence Krauss video has been posted at least twice previously in this thread. Somewhere in there he states that something NEEDS to come from nothing.

Right because assuming God exists, He couldn't possibly be the Christian God (sarcasm). Only 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus Christ, many of whom went to martyr's deaths, but whatever. Btw, read the Bible before you go talking about Christianity- the fact that you said "war god" shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And the evidence behind what you've just mentioned there is VERY solid /sarcasm
But seriously, these "500 eyewitnesses" are not recorded in history until a long time after the events allegedly occurred. In fact the entire series of events have the same issue. Even Jesus' existence has that issue. I've read the Bible, and it is not evidence.