sieg's second philosophical post on atheism

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

-Sir Isaac Newton, Puritan Wackjob.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what an idiot.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
1) My friend makes the common argument that science and religion are diametrically opposed.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're not.

[ QUOTE ]
2) My friend also likes to argue by asking the age old atheistic query, "Who created God?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If anything need not have a cause, then the universe is just as good a candidate as God. Positing a God, therefore, in order to answer the question, "Who caused the universe?" is just plain silly. Who caused God?

By the way, we don't know whether the universe had a beginning. Either possibility -- that it did, or that it didn't -- is consistent with Big Bang theory. Big Bang theory says that the universe has a finite age, but that's not the same thing. An infinite chain of causes and effects can be fit into a finite period of time in much the same way that an infinite series can have a finite sum (e.g., 2 = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ...).

Moreover, even if the universe did have a beginning, that does mean it was caused. At the quantum level, uncaused phenomena happen all the time. Perhaps the universe began as an uncaused quantum tunneling in a true vacuum.

[txag007]

Logically, there are only three alternatives for the origin (or lack thereof) of the universe:

1) The universe has always existed.
2) The universe created itself.
3) The universe was created by an outside being of a 4th dimension. (presumably an intelligent being, i.e. God, but that is a separate question in and of iself.)

Nuclear fusion discounts the possibility of the universing having always existed. If it had, there would have to be an infinite amount of hydrogen or some source thereof. To my knowledge, there isn't.

That leaves either two or three. Is there another example under our laws of physics where something has ever come from nothing?

[David Sklansky]

Why not the fifth dimension?

Anyway the main point I want to make here is that the points you bring up have been brought up myriad of times in the past. And if they were strong arguments for the existence of God, physicists would be forced to admit it. If they didn't, mathmeticans would call them to task. I don't know all the counterarguments but I do know that physicists have them, and that they are, like it or not MUCH more intelligent than the average theologian, especially when it comes to topics like this. So I trust them.

Meanwhile, what's to stop that third dimension universe creator from being a fourth dimensional toddler with blocks?

[KeysrSoze]

1. Sure religion has influenced scientists. In medieval Europe alchemists spent more time petitioning angels in their work than observation and experimentation. The renassance was people trying to pigeonhole various observations into a preconceived natural holy law. Intelligent people are very good at rationalizing what has been ingrained into them since childhood to conform with what they observe. Its just that at the rate we're going there are fewer and fewer gaps "god did it" will fill up.

2. This is better used to refute the claim often made by the religious that complexity cannot come from something less complex. When an anti-evolutionist claims that we couldn't have evolved because of irreducible complexity, a counter arguement is that God could not exist then, because he would be the ultimate irreducibly complex system. And "God has always been" or "God is beyond beginnings and time" is not a response, because then why can't other complex systems "have always been", why would a first cause need to be sentient anyway?, a whole slew of other whys I can think of.

3. See, you're rationalizing a contradictory point and incorporating it into your own world view. "We aren't at the center of the universe as it was believed only a few hundred years ago, we're a speck in an average galaxy in a universe of 100 billion other galaxies? Well, I can live with that, in fact now that I think of it it coincides with my beliefs all along!"

[txag007]

"I don't know all the counterarguments but I do know that physicists have them, and that they are, like it or not MUCH more intelligent than the average theologian, especially when it comes to topics like this. So I trust them."

I understand what you're saying, and I trust you. I realize there are people smarter than me out there, as well. However, I'm trying to learn so I tend to evaluate things for myself. Until I hear an effective counter-argument I have no choice but to believe the things I do.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend makes the common argument that science and religion are diametrically opposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics chopping.

[ QUOTE ]
Who created God?"

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason why everything needs to have been created. This is not an argument against God.

[ QUOTE ]
why God would create so much unnecessary 'junk', making this incomprehensibly vast universe with billions of stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Why would there be so much waste?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really! Invent an all-powerful figure beyond ones understanding, then ask dumb questions like that. If there were an answer, I doubt human motives have anything to do with it.

Again I seem to agree with what you say, which is curious, as you would almost certainly perceive me as an atheist.

[txag007]

"I don't know all the counterarguments but I do know that physicists have them, and that they are, like it or not MUCH more intelligent than the average theologian, especially when it comes to topics like this. So I trust them."

The more I think about this, the more important I think it is. Thoughts like the one above are a dangerous, dangerous way to plan your future. Everyone really needs to evaluate each argument for himself, especially since it could affect your eternal destination. Trusting the words of a scientist without evaluating his data/argument would be fine if you're deciding what kind of shingle to put on your house, but risking Hell on the words of others might get you in trouble.

[siegfriedandroy]

Yeah, great scientists can be wrong. But for whatever it is worth, some of those considered the 'greatest' (whatever that means) believed in God, and even the Christian God at that. If I was an atheist, it would at least make me think, instead of merely pointing out that these great scientists were indeed fallible. Perhaps, Zabt, youre life work would also have been to study the alchemy-gold relationship if you lived at that time. As for your second post, how do you get 'God is nothing'?

[siegfriedandroy]

Ok. You don't know the arguments, yourself, but you trust the physicists who are not convinced by the arguments I stated. Surely there are physicists who are convinced by them, no? Mr. Sklansky, please direct me to some place where I can find the physicists take on these arguments, and some of their typical responses. Also, how do you define 'intelligence', when stating taht the average physicist is far superior to the average theologian in terms of intelligence? Who is an average physicist? Who is an 'average' theologian? I met a Christian physicist last night at the bike. Dont know if he was good at poker (perhaps we coudl have used that to determine his 'true' intelligence.