Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2010, 03:53 PM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Well, there is always the rebuttal that anything the finite human consciousness can conceive or theorize as that what would be qualified to be called, "God" is limited by nature. And as such anything, even by that allocation as "God" as a designated higher power even in unproven title alone, would be outside of the realm of our conceptions in any case.

In other words, just because we cant think it, can't prove it, doesn't mean it isn't there. There's much that wasn't proven in the 17th century sciences, that is proven today thanks to our scientific and cultural evolution. So to say there is absolutely nothing supporting what our limited intellect deems to call, "God" now, while living in the midst of a universe the origins of which we can't wholly explain, is arrogance. Limited because we think, so we think we know.
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 07:14 PM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
What Gassy is getting at is what Dawkins refers to as the "God hypothesis", which has been discussed several times on these forums. It basically states that any thing we can't explain is where God is hiding. However, as we discover more and more about the universe, God has fewer and fewer hiding places. I think that logic would serve as a warning to anyone trying to make the assertions that started this thread, but I guess not.

And, I think Truth Addict nailed the problem with this whole argument: if everything has a beginning has a cause then who caused God?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 07:54 PM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 07:14 PM)BnW Wrote:  What Gassy is getting at is what Dawkins refers to as the "God hypothesis", which has been discussed several times on these forums. It basically states that any thing we can't explain is where God is hiding. However, as we discover more and more about the universe, God has fewer and fewer hiding places. I think that logic would serve as a warning to anyone trying to make the assertions that started this thread, but I guess not.

And, I think Truth Addict nailed the problem with this whole argument: if everything has a beginning has a cause then who caused God?

I think cause of, is a logical next step to asking the question behind every philosophy that posits some explanation as to why we exist. Atheists simply say, because.

Everything that exists has a source.

No thing can exist without something causing it to come into existence.

To affirm no thing exists that could be the cause, is vacant guess work.

To step along, theorizing and then discovering an answer that posits yet another query behind what caused that, and so on and so on, is to continue to seek out those "hiding places" for more theories or "God" for the answer. Be it what some people find as comforting to call God or what others affirm can't possibly be God, because they think because they can imagine what God is not it must be absolute proof there is no God while making claims all that can't be credited to some man made fiction called God, that's meant to be the answer to the unanswerable using the best guess work some people can come up with as a causative factor made in their image and likeness, just because no answer isn't acceptable.

Instead what is acceptable is to say everything came from nothing, which is no answer. While science simply keeps positing questions with every theory, every answer it affords the search for cause.
So while posing the subjective "Who" (caused god), (Who?) lets take the polar opposite of that and ask, from an atheist and science point of view;
if everything has an equal and opposite reaction, what caused the big bang to bang? And what made that bangable?
Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 02:21 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 12:23 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  The big bang almost single handily turns the table on the atheist by pointing very strongly towards a Designer.

Have you ever tried to think anything through?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 06:02 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 07:14 PM)BnW Wrote:  What Gassy is getting at is what Dawkins refers to as the "God hypothesis", which has been discussed several times on these forums. It basically states that any thing we can't explain is where God is hiding. However, as we discover more and more about the universe, God has fewer and fewer hiding places. I think that logic would serve as a warning to anyone trying to make the assertions that started this thread, but I guess not.

And, I think Truth Addict nailed the problem with this whole argument: if everything has a beginning has a cause then who caused God?

If I can be allowed to speculate about how theists might respond to such a challenge, they will posit that their deity had no beginning and will have no end, so s/he/it is 'beyond' (or 'outside of') the logic that postulates if something had a beginning, then there must be a cause. BnW is correct .. this is the 'god of the gaps' that is constantly being exorcised from particular gaps as science fills them with understanding that has no need for the god hypothesis.

I'm again reminded of the contradiction of theists trying to use logic and evidence to establish the existence/nonexistence of STCBCG. At least for Abrahamic versions of STCBCG, the idea is to take such things only on faith - as a little child (an appropriate metaphor, imho). To try to argue that logic can be used to justify their beliefs is a clear sign to me that their faith is weak.
Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 11:10 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 09:13 AM)gamutman Wrote:  First, it is NOT true that everything which exists has a beginning of that existence; according to the laws of thermo-dynamics, nothing begins to exist. Everything exists eternally but simply changes form.

Consider the car...

I had to write a 2500 word essay on the Kalam argument for my philosophy of religion class, and surprisingly this point didn't really come up. There was a single throw away comment on the laws of thermodynamics, but I don't think it was quite phrased in such a damningly obvious way. Bravo.
Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2010, 11:46 PM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 12:23 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  2 - The universe has a beginning
The big bang proves this

Actually, the Big Bang says nothing about the universe having a beginning. It explains how and why the tiny "particle" that contained everything, or the basic building blocks for everything, began to expand. We don't know what exactly came before the expansion or what created (if anything) that tiny particle. Although, new theories emerge as technology advances so who knows what we will discover tomorrow.

Nonetheless, I guaranty you the answers won't be found in a 2000 year old book written by primitive men. As is evident from history, people who think otherwise are just impeding the process.
Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2010, 12:04 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 09:13 AM)gamutman Wrote:  This is the Kalam argument for the existence of God. It fails on several points. First, it is NOT true that everything which exists has a beginning of that existence; according to the laws of thermo-dynamics, nothing begins to exist. Everything exists eternally but simply changes form.

Consider the car. The car did not begin to exist. Before it was a car it was the component parts; chassis, tires, fender, seat, engine, etc. Now, let's take one of those parts and follow it backward. Prior to being a fender, it was sheet metal. Prior to that, it was molten steel. Prior to that it was molten iron and other elements. Prior to that it was ore. Prior to that it was space debris. Prior to that it was what Sagan called star-stuff. Prior to that it was helium. Prior to that it was singularity. Prior to that there is no prior because there was no such thing as time (as we understand it) prior to the singularity.

So, yes, the universe has a beginning, but so does time, therefore to argue that the universe has a cause is nonsensical.

So, why then was there a singularity? We don't know. Nobody does. But there is no reason to default to a causal agent nor a designer, and even if there is a causal agent and a designer, that is not actually the definition of God. God - as man has always understood the concept - is concerned with our existence, made everything for us, loves us, and wishes for us to join Him. The causal agent you imagine for the singularity would in no wise fit that description. It would be a deistic causal agent. As Omar Kayam said, "the moving finger writes and having writ moves on."

well you seem to be an expert on the Kalam argument so you should also know that it shows time can't be eternal or else time and everything would have ended an infinite amount of time and permanently without hope of being restarted infinite amounts of time too.
Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2010, 02:32 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(11-11-2010 12:04 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  well you seem to be an expert on the Kalam argument so you should also know that it shows time can't be eternal or else time and everything would have ended an infinite amount of time and permanently without hope of being restarted infinite amounts of time too.

WTF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2010, 02:58 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(11-11-2010 02:32 AM)No J. Wrote:  
(11-11-2010 12:04 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  well you seem to be an expert on the Kalam argument so you should also know that it shows time can't be eternal or else time and everything would have ended an infinite amount of time and permanently without hope of being restarted infinite amounts of time too.

WTF

Simple if something has an infinite history everything has happened an infinite amount of times including the end of time.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: