Supposing He Doesn't Exist

2007-05-21 [iippo]: Has anyone actually ever explained in a non-religious way where matter came from? *not to debate but asking out of curiosity* Sure, you can say "big bang" but there had to be something to "bang" first, right (if I understand correctly, the big bang explains that everything in the universe was condensed into one place and then exploded outwards)?

2007-05-21 [thoughtfox]: I'm sure people have, although I myself have not come across such theories myself as yet. Will look into that when I get the time. One thing the atheist could argue is that it's just always been there - that there was no creation, and that there will be no end: matter is, has been for infinity, and will continue so.

2007-07-29 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: An athiest can say that, yes, but it lacks logic. Time is relative and difficult to explain, but matter can not have existed for infinity. We have scientific proof of Earth's toddler years - the primordial sea life emerged from. But what came before that? And what act forced life into existence?

2007-07-30 [thoughtfox]: The problem I have with creation arguments is always, what created the creator? So I could give you that before earth's toddler years was just pieces of matter floating about that collected into planets, such as the earth. You could ask what came before that, and before that, and before that, and you're again going back to infinity.

And if we assume that God can cause Himself, why can't the universe?

2007-07-30 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Now you enter a realm of things humans don't have the capacity to understand. We experience time as a linear entity - beginnning at a certain point and ending at a certain point - but even science questions that. We, as humans with limited intelligence, are not meant to understand all there is to life and time and the universe. We like to think we know everything, but we've hardly scratched the surface.

2007-08-01 [thoughtfox]: I'm not saying we know everything, and even if we will never understand everything, we ought to do everything to get as close as possible, no? We can't just assume God fills the gaps.

Granted, time travel could be possible. It could still be that the universe creates itself. The matter of time is but one issue, but causation quite another. It could be that through time-travel, the universe perpetuated itself.
The logical flaw is, if we assume that God could create itself , why could it not be that the universe, as it stands, in a chaotic and unconscious form as it may appear as far as we know, created itself?

2007-08-01 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: We ought to try to learn as much as possible, but humans have a habit of assuming we know more than we do. If current science cannot measure and explain something, we say it does not exist, but this is folly. Current science 50 years ago would have said that a computer that fits in the palm of your hand would be impossible, but we know today that it is not. In time, all we know of the world could change. All our assumptions undermined, all our "undeniable" scientific knowledge made obsolete.

And why do we require solid, tangible, measurable proof of forces larger than ourselves? Is it driven by an innate fear that no such force exists? Science and logic are great, we rely on them far too much. There is proof, even if there is no explanation.

The universe could not have gone back and perpetuated itself. If that is so, there would have been no time to go back to. Let us forget the matter of how the universe itself came to be, for as it is now, we can't understand it, but consider instead how mindless, chaotic matter came together in perfect harmony to create solar systems, stars, planets, the primordial sea of toddler Earth, the first life forms, the exponentially more complex life that grew from the unicellular beings. No coincidence of events could have perpetuated such events and led to the extremely complex, and flawed but amazing life forms that exist today.

2007-08-02 [thoughtfox]: You're attributing more to Science than it actually is. The real scientific position on God is agnostic - we just don't know. Anyone who tells you otherwise is going beyond the bounds of it.

And you've hit the hammer on the head: science and logic are great. They're the best we've got. I'm not saying science is flawless, but as a method, it provides information that is reliable and controllable. Through science, we've established everything in our civilisation. It's something testable and repeatable: it shouldn't matter where or who you are, you would be able to repeat a scientific experiment. No other source of knowledge can do that reliably. Even common-sense fails us - think about Galileo's experiment. It makes common sense that a cannon ball and an egg should fall at different rates, no?

As for your appeal to the design argument, while I will concede that the universe is in a Goldilocks position, to say it must be the product of intelligent design isn't necessarily true. If we consider the example of the watch on the heath, granted, one wouldn't believe that it just came to be by natural erosion. But watches haven't reached their complexity just by intelligent design either. It all started with sundials, noting the changing positions of shadows. Primitive, but effective. Then the vibrations of pendulums that could be kept constant. That's where we find gears from. Then springs came into the picture. It wasn't just an intelligent designer making our watch, it was a slow and chaotic process: inventions come about when someone tries something different, even though it might not work. The lightbulb wasn't just the product of intelligent design. It was the product of 900 attempts that didn't produce lightbulbs.
So assuming that chaos and gradual processes of change couldn't possibly account for the universe isn't completely true. Moreover, what if it's not that everything has come to fit so perfectly, but that things came to fit into the situations at play already? Planets came into a perfect range for orbiting as opposed to colliding by a gradual balancing of forces and explosions, for example.
I agree that evolution doesn't give a satisfying account for the diversity of life, but that doesn't mean that there has to be a watchmaker behind it.
And surely there seems to be an inconsistency between a perfect creator and flawed life-forms?

2007-08-23 [Nazarath.93]: If we were to prove the big bang theory right, and lets say there is some futuristic technology that proves god is non existent (Yes an impossibility I know) and the proof is evident to anyone who looks at it. Under this situation almost all of the largely devout people would still believe in god, even though they knew he was wrong. Not because they are Pragmatists, but because their subjective mind will cling on to their long held beliefs and thoughts, and to them God will still be real, because their subjective mind will almost always overrule their rational mind. This is a good example of this kind of situation if anyone is interested: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/rituals/pact/Egan-mystery.html
Just thought I would place that in the conversation, anyways I must applaud this wiki, very nice work thoughtfox.

2007-08-23 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Why do so many people insist on separating God and science? To some, the big bang and evolution disprove God, but why can't they be tools of God? And to Nazarath - ironic name, by the way - what if there is some futuristic technology that proves God exists? Will then the athiests tenaciously hold on to their beliefs?

2007-08-23 [Nazarath.93]: Because the bible, the foundation on which god is made into a character, has no evidence of evolution and science. It was written in a time when people had no knowledge of these things, so one disproves the other. I personally think the idea of god has changed so much over the ages, he doesnt match the idea of the god that is originally in the bible. People try to suit their Deity to their needs, and they try to incorporate that these sciences, that are proven, are a work of the god that made no mention of them in the very book that founds his entire existence.
And how is my name Ironic, if I may ask?

2007-08-24 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: So why can't our interpretation of the Bible change? They didn't have science back then, no technology. They had no explanation for where life came from. The Bible is founded on Truth - but not every word in the Bible is fact. Some people just can't get their minds around that - not every parable is true. But everything in the Bible has purpose. Teaches a lesson. And most of what is in the New Testament was not written to be part of a compilation of writings - they were written by certain people to certain groups for specific purposes at certain times. Therefore not every word would be applicable to our current times. Should the Bible - written thousands of years ago - be full of scientific explanations? Should it give technological, scientific evidence? Then how would the people back then understand? You can't change a Deity to fit your personal needs. God doesn't change for you. We must change our perceptions for Him. Interperet the Bible, find the Truth behind the words. Look deeper than face value. The Bible doesn't found God's entire existence. Long before the Hebrew Scriptures were bound together, long before the Church decided which scripture to include in the Bible - there were believers.

Nazarath, Nazareth - Your name makes me think of Jesus, so it's ironic to me.

2007-08-24 [Nazarath.93]: oh yeah, my name is actually and offshoot of the word, thats how I came up with it.
the bible: a two-thousand year psychodrama Try reading that. It explains the flaws of the bible.
And your insisting that we can change the bible, but we cant change god? My dear, God IS the bible. Every word in the Bible makes up god, without the bible there is no god. Therefore no Christianity, and there was a bible back before the Hebrew scriptures, it was transferred from person to person Orally. Then the scriptures were written, and satan only knows how much of the scriptures changed during the passing!
And yes, the Bible is an answer to all the questions of creation. Sure, it doesnt need to explain things that we have proven today. But in lieu of that, they told lies! things that are proven wrong today! Even more so, stolen lies from other religions!
Im sorry but the bible is seeming a little suspicious to me.

2007-08-24 [there's a bluebird in my heart]: Oh yeah, I'm going to trust an Elftown Wiki to have factual information. Of course the Bible has flaws. It was written by people!! "Every word in the Bible makes up God..."?? Makes up...okay, then. Jesus had the Hebrew Scriptures but no New Testament, therefore no Bible when he started Christianity - back then The Way. So, you're wrong. Christianity began, the Church was formed, and the Church put together the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures along with what would become the New Testament. The Bible as we know it is both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It was put together and packaged *after* the Church began. And the Church, historically corrupt back then, picked and chose which writings to include in the Bible. People. People are fallible. God's existence does not rely on people. They didn't tell lies, they told stories to explain the things they couldn't. The Bible is not all fact. It is all Truth. I'm sorry if you can't seem to understand that, but that's the way it is. Even some Catholics think the Bible is 100% fact - they are sadly mistaken and misinformed. They are typically the crazy - sorry, but they are a little crazy - zealots who persecute and hate because they think the Bible tells them to.

2007-08-24 [iippo]: And several people have had deeply religious experiences and experienced the presence of God having little or no experiences of the Bible. God does not only speak to the people who read the Bible, albeit they are better at recognising when he does so. Saying that the Bible makes up God is the same as saying that the things I write in Elftown make up me. It's only a fraction. The world around you also "makes up" God.

2007-08-24 [Nazarath.93]: They call them deeply religious experiences, when any realist or someone with logic would quickly apply them to any uncommon occurrence. Then they go to the bible after that because its the most owned and purchased book in history, and there is hardly a person in the world today that hasnt heard of Christianity. What any person who has a "Religious Experience" does is interpret an event wrong and then they go to the first religion they know about, and then I see them on the 700 club, or any random public access christian show.
And Jesus wasnt a christian, he was a Jew. Some guy named Abraham got a crazy Idea of monotheism and Jesus was raised believing in that one god, and that he was his son. So knowing the bible is corrupt, and wrong you still follow god? And you say you dont personalize your Deity?
Well I call that personalization really, which is a good thing in my opinion. I do respect the christians who dont follow the bible, at least fully, and look at god as a loving and caring guy. I respect your veiws, but the bible (however flawed it may be) has produced groups like the Westboro baptists.
But dont you think you could instead follow a different god? Since the bible was written by people, could you write your own god? Much like they did? Its just a god creating system, that all theistic religions have done, they made up their gods and had their stories. And today Christianity follows every word of the bible, if not they you are not a Christian, you just have similar views, and youve personalized their god. Half the people with those "religious experiences" only call them god's doing because they know of Christianity, and how prevalent it is, if Odinism was as prevalent then they would attribute their experiences to Odin. See my point?
The church today comes from the corrupt church back then, and now thats what the church is, and the church says if you do not go to it and follow its word then your not a member of the church therefore not a Christian. But as ive said, its good to have your different views and acknowledgment that the bible was written by man, and is flawed, I respect your views and I think all christians should be that way.

2007-08-25 [iippo]: The Bible has been edited by people - it's not everything that God has to say to us, that is why it's confusing. Several books have been left out, several passages from the books in there have been left out... But that does not mean that God is flawed like that. Otherwise it'd be like this:
GOD: "Love all people, hate is wrong."
People: "Did you hear that, God said 'all people, hate!' We must hate everyone now!"
It's not God's fault that people got it wrong. What he can do (and has done) is correct the message by continuing to talk to people.
And some religious experiences can't be interpreted the wrong way. When a 14-year-old boy, who has very little knowledge of Christianity and is spiritually confused, sees two glorious beings come from the sky and the other one says "this is my son, Jesus. Hear him" there is no room for interpretation.
The church today comes from the corrupt church back then
Most churches do, yes.

2007-08-25 [Nazarath.93]: Remember: your talking to one of the most god skeptical person to ever live. I dont believe in any deity so my natural instinct is to assume that when you say "God said this" I see it as "Some kook who says God said this"
Anyways, I must apologize. Ive been trying to not argue online, especially about religion. The way I see it debating online, especially about religion, is like racing in the mentally challenged olympics, if you win, your still mentally challenged. So ive been remiss about that, I just came here to state an opinion of mine. But if you want to talk about them more please feel free to message me.

2007-08-25 [iippo]: I apologise too, the net is indeed a bad place to discuss issues of religion or faith - it's better to just agree to disagree and keep the mutual respect of each others' opinions :) But thank you for the insightful chat ^^ And sorry to the owner of the wiki if this got off topic.

2007-08-25 [Nazarath.93]: yeah, especially with opposing veiws like satanism and Christianity. the two will never be able to agree, so talking about it around eachother is rather pointless.

2007-08-25 [The 5 Elements]: i just got one question...if you dont believe in the diety how can you argue against it?