The god of the atheists.
- Thread starter Robert Ewing
- Start date
Recommended Videos
We DO know how the universe was created. Watch this lecture by Laurence Krauss which explains how the universe was created out of nothing. This is a proven theory and has essentially eliminated God from every aspect of our universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
I hope people read this post and don't just read the first one and then write a reply like I do.
EDIT: Turns out I could have saved some time just by spending 8 seconds scrolling up the page slightly. Lesson learned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
I hope people read this post and don't just read the first one and then write a reply like I do.
EDIT: Turns out I could have saved some time just by spending 8 seconds scrolling up the page slightly. Lesson learned.
I think you've got this pretty well thought out.kuyo said:
But it does leave one problem; everything (and I do mean everything, science, math, the idea of there even being an 'objective universe' that can be measured, and so on) rests on unproven assumptions.
The very definition of a mathematical axiom for instance, is "Assume this is true." - Which can then be used to deduce logical consequences, but that doesn't make the axiom itself any less arbitrary.
The very idea of what constitutes 'proof', can pretty much only be taken to be fairly arbitrary, because how do you 'prove' that what you are using as 'evidence' is valid, without first defining what constitutes valid evidence? (Which is entirely circular, and thus unprovable.)
So... Congratulations. You've rendered it entirely meaningless to ask any questions of any kind. XD
Because that wouldn't make much sense? Let's do a thought experiment.Robert Ewing said:
We know nothing about 'gods' or 'the thing' as you're referring to it, but we have got quite a lot of reference as to what 'creators' are like, because, as it happens, quite a few human beings create things.
And you know what? Very few humans create things they don't care about at all. And as powerless as a human? That's odd, because if that were true this thing wouldn't have been able to create the universe to begin with. We can't do so, after all.
Now, there's no reason to believe such a thing would be all-powerful, but it's unlikely it'd be incapable of influencing it's own creation.
The closest thing to creating a universe human beings are capable of at this point in time, is, ironically perhaps, computer simulations. (Of which computer games are in fact a subset... So the closest thing we have to gods among humans are game developers, which do this solely to entertain other humans...)
But the thing about a computer simulation, is you can design it any number of ways. You can design it so you can mess around with it later, or you can design it to be difficult to mess with.
But either way, you can still hack it. (as can anyone else that knows enough about how computers work.)
So if you infer that the thing that created the universe did so in a manner we could actually conceive of doing ourselves, then there is no reason to assume the creator can't mess around with their creation after the fact. - destroy it outright, change things... Mess with various bits of it...
But it may not have been designed with alterations in mind though. Yet, one thing that is very unlikely, using a human-like reference point, is a creator that is totally disinterested in their creation.
That doesn't mean they'd want to mess with it, but leaving your creation alone, isn't the same as being uninterested in it.
But still, that's all arbitrary speculation derived from a very human perspective. There's no reason why the creator would be even remotely similar to us. But it's the only reference point we have, so if you're going to engage in meaningless speculation, you might as well relate it to something we do actually know something about.
Didn't Arther C. Clarke say something along those lines? Any form of sufficiently advanced technology is comparable to magic?winginson said:
Nope.Ruwrak said:
Even with a time machine, you can only go back to just after 'the beginning'.
You cannot go to before time, as that doesn't exist.
In fact, it doesn't even make sense.
And even assuming you could, how would you even experience it?
Our perception is dependent on the flow of time, so how would be perceive non-existence in the absence of time?
It's an area of science that will be theorized about a lot, probably even accurately, but never fully understood.
It's likely beyond human understanding in the first place.
This is a little ignorant, I love Krauss and that video (I have it downloaded :3) but it's not a theory, it doesn't explain much except the reasons for having to exist. And the nature of the universe and the big bang. It doesn't explain how the universe was created, it explains how things must exist and the nature of the existence of OUR current (generation) of the universe.milna64 said:
Mmm that doesn't sounds like a theory but a rather big guess
A theory is the highest thing something in science can get. It means there is an explanation [the theory] that has ALLOT of evidence backing it up and NO evidence discounting it.
Yes you can beat abiogenesis if somehow you could proof SCIENTIFICALLY that something created it. Yes creationists say that they have evidence but lets just say their standard of evidence doesn't meets the worlds standards of science.
look so we don't know yet or maybe never know what there was before or IF there was anything before the big bang event. We might never know... scientifically that is extremely acceptable. It just says "we don't know yet"
And yeah how can you test something that has no mass, no energy no connection with anything that defines this reality we are in?
For something to be scientific it has to be testable..red light shift is testable. It is measurable
Maybe one day we can measure what lies beyond. If we never then well. so it be. Science makes no attacks on religion. Though sometimes it might feel that way for a religious person! Religion tends to claim things that in the past we couldn't test understand. But now we can.. and we have answers. Which are different then the religious ones. Now the religious person might feel attacked due to the nature of this but point si that the religious idea is ungrounded.. it is an explanation that doesn't explains. It is so because I say so doesn't means anything in the end. Your parents can be wrong.. the persons the heroes you looked up to in the past can be wrong.
And that pain of finding out your idea of how things are being not true can hurt. But shouldn't Truth matter? Shouldn't it matter that you are able to say "Well looks like we we're wrong"
A theory is the highest thing something in science can get. It means there is an explanation [the theory] that has ALLOT of evidence backing it up and NO evidence discounting it.
Yes you can beat abiogenesis if somehow you could proof SCIENTIFICALLY that something created it. Yes creationists say that they have evidence but lets just say their standard of evidence doesn't meets the worlds standards of science.
look so we don't know yet or maybe never know what there was before or IF there was anything before the big bang event. We might never know... scientifically that is extremely acceptable. It just says "we don't know yet"
And yeah how can you test something that has no mass, no energy no connection with anything that defines this reality we are in?
For something to be scientific it has to be testable..red light shift is testable. It is measurable
Maybe one day we can measure what lies beyond. If we never then well. so it be. Science makes no attacks on religion. Though sometimes it might feel that way for a religious person! Religion tends to claim things that in the past we couldn't test understand. But now we can.. and we have answers. Which are different then the religious ones. Now the religious person might feel attacked due to the nature of this but point si that the religious idea is ungrounded.. it is an explanation that doesn't explains. It is so because I say so doesn't means anything in the end. Your parents can be wrong.. the persons the heroes you looked up to in the past can be wrong.
And that pain of finding out your idea of how things are being not true can hurt. But shouldn't Truth matter? Shouldn't it matter that you are able to say "Well looks like we we're wrong"
Scientific theories make no claim to veracity, they simply haven't been disproven. The assumption is kept in mind and the theory is open to challenge and modification as new evidence is found. With religion, the assumption is taken as true. Where Science attempts to reconcile all the information into a theory, Religion attempts to fit new information into the old. So, in general, I support the scientific method.CrystalShadow said:
My push for the religious question to be rejected is more utilitarian than ideological. If you question the question, you'll find no reason to answer it because it only serves itself. Any practical benefits gained would be better found with more specific questions, so ask those instead.
It's great to have views on religion but don't go whipping them out. Most people don't like to see that.
You cannot have a creator existing before the big bang, because all evidence currently says that before the big bang there was no such thing as space OR time. There is therefore no room for a creator.
Physics offers an explanation as to why the big bang happened, its the only explanation which has any evidence, therefore as an empiricist that's the explanation we take as fact until contradicting evidence is found.
Physics offers an explanation as to why the big bang happened, its the only explanation which has any evidence, therefore as an empiricist that's the explanation we take as fact until contradicting evidence is found.
Sorry for being a little bit tangential but I just wanted to state my opinion on the big bang theory. The big bang theory is just that, a theory. There is little actual evidence of the big bang theory, sure there is some, but I can make a theory that all life came from unicorns then they all transformed into different things and that's where humans and animals come from, there is a little bit of evidence to support that but it doesn't make it any more likely. I personally find issue with that fact that many people simply believe something because someone else thought of it first, not saying its impossible, but I'm just saying it shouldn't be chalked up any higher than any other theory in lieu of a lack of evidence.
Now that being said, I will go ahead and point out that there is little to no evidence of the creation theory so people don't come out of the woodwork to say that I'm shooting the big bang theory in the knee to make it equal with a theory that they would also say I'm partial too.
Discuss in my little tangent bubble here if you wish, otherwise ignore me.
Now that being said, I will go ahead and point out that there is little to no evidence of the creation theory so people don't come out of the woodwork to say that I'm shooting the big bang theory in the knee to make it equal with a theory that they would also say I'm partial too.
Discuss in my little tangent bubble here if you wish, otherwise ignore me.
Could your theory hold up? Dunno, you pretty much just said "This thing that might not even be a thing may or may not have done this thing that we don't/may never understand, but it certainly doesn't sound like anything written in the bible and it may even be explained by physics someday".