INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Atheists. Why. . .

For topics that are more about faith, religion and religious organisations than anything else.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#21 Post by Alan H » December 24th, 2012, 12:02 am

Latest post of the previous page:

lmbarre wrote:
Alan H wrote:No idea. But this is interesting (but needs a subscription to read all of it!): Before the big bang: something or nothing
Why do you have no idea?
Because it's not something I have spent any effort into thinking about.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

lmbarre
Posts: 56
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 5:19 am

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#22 Post by lmbarre » December 24th, 2012, 12:05 am

I see.
LM Barré

User avatar
anaconda
Posts: 219
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#23 Post by anaconda » December 24th, 2012, 1:24 am

lmbarre wrote:
Is a definition of God as Being or Existence warranted? Indeed it is, on the basis of the incomprehensibility of the vastness and complexity of the cosmos. How many electrons are there in the known universe? What is the temperature of the heat of all of the known stars? It is scientific knowledge that reveals Existence as God(dess). Retreating from this conclusion I think is a most irrational skepticism.
So what you are proposing is that there is an awful lot of stuff about, therefore there is a god. Also, what science discovers is further proof of god, and to not reach the same conclusion is irrational?

That's nothing more than a huge whopping leap of faith. 'Stuff'' does not constitute evidence of any god. Your view has fuck all to do with rationality.
John

lmbarre
Posts: 56
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 5:19 am

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#24 Post by lmbarre » December 24th, 2012, 2:49 am

I don't think you are understanding what I am arguing. First, to discuss the reality of God one must define God. The usual question is, Does God exists? However, this question implies that God is somehow distinct from existence. Pantheism identifies God with Existence, at least mine does. So the question becomes, is the definition of God as Existence warranted? Yes it is, merely by what science has shown to be an incomprehensive vastness and complexity to the observable cosmos. In fact, if God is existence, that every conceivable idea exists as God. If it is part of existence, then it is part of God. In other words, there is not one thing that is not God. Even Nothingness is a part of God. So I am making a radical ontological argument for Existence as God. God is existence and Existence is God and so is Nothingness.

Your unsuported claim that my view has nothing to due with rationality is worthless.
LM Barré

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#25 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » December 24th, 2012, 8:52 am

lmbarre wrote:... is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps because something is more probable state than nothing? Because "nothing" is inherently unstable? (Skeptical Inquirer, June 2006) It's all a bit beyond my comprehension, but then so many things are and it doesn't really bother me. And if some people want to call existence God, that doesn't bother me either. It's just a word.

Peace and love,

Emma

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#26 Post by animist » December 24th, 2012, 9:05 am

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
lmbarre wrote:... is there something rather than nothing?
I've always liked Sidney Morgenbesser's answer: " If there were nothing you'd still be complaining!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Morgenbesser

More seriously, though... I'm not sure that it's a proper question. Questions of the form Why are there...? are answered by reference to something else: tectonic plates for mountains, differences in food supply for varieties of tortoises in the Galapagos Islands, the presence of Neptune for perturbations in the orbit of Uranus, and so on. But this won't work for the universe as a whole, because there is no something else.
+1

lmbarre
Posts: 56
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 5:19 am

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#27 Post by lmbarre » December 24th, 2012, 9:31 am

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
lmbarre wrote:... is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps because something is more probable state than nothing? Because "nothing" is inherently unstable? (Skeptical Inquirer, June 2006) It's all a bit beyond my comprehension, but then so many things are and it doesn't really bother me. And if some people want to call existence God, that doesn't bother me either. It's just a word.

Peace and love,

Emma
It's more than just a word, it's a definition.
LM Barré

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#28 Post by Dave B » December 24th, 2012, 9:52 am

lmbarre wrote:
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
lmbarre wrote:... is there something rather than nothing?
Perhaps because something is more probable state than nothing? Because "nothing" is inherently unstable? (Skeptical Inquirer, June 2006) It's all a bit beyond my comprehension, but then so many things are and it doesn't really bother me. And if some people want to call existence God, that doesn't bother me either. It's just a word.

Peace and love,

Emma
It's more than just a word, it's a definition.
It may be a definition to them . . . The value of any word is that which the reader, speaker and/or listener puts on it surely? One person's God is another's imaginary supernatural entity.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
anaconda
Posts: 219
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#29 Post by anaconda » December 24th, 2012, 10:47 am

lmbarre wrote:I don't think you are understanding what I am arguing. First, to discuss the reality of God one must define God. The usual question is, Does God exists? However, this question implies that God is somehow distinct from existence. Pantheism identifies God with Existence, at least mine does. So the question becomes, is the definition of God as Existence warranted? Yes it is, merely by what science has shown to be an incomprehensive vastness and complexity to the observable cosmos. In fact, if God is existence, that every conceivable idea exists as God. If it is part of existence, then it is part of God. In other words, there is not one thing that is not God. Even Nothingness is a part of God. So I am making a radical ontological argument for Existence as God. God is existence and Existence is God and so is Nothingness.

Your unsuported claim that my view has nothing to due with rationality is worthless.
You see the leaps you are making again? This is rehashed intelligent design. You use loose philosophical thinking, inevitably in the absence of any tangible evidence, to reach what are therefore unsubstantiated conclusions ( im assuming you are an American student, this use or misuse philosophical extrapolations in debate is common currency, because it's held as a useable platform - in the absence of real empirical evidence) You are obviously entitled to form your own view but the lack of any proper critical assessment always surprises me. In the absence of evidence how can such a conclusion be reached? How you define god -as existence itself or as a creator of existence, really amounts to the same thing. Again it requires a leap if faith, which is where an absence of rationality shows.
John

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#30 Post by Altfish » December 24th, 2012, 11:02 am

lmbarre wrote:I don't think you are understanding what I am arguing. First, to discuss the reality of God one must define God. The usual question is, Does God exists? However, this question implies that God is somehow distinct from existence. Pantheism identifies God with Existence, at least mine does. So the question becomes, is the definition of God as Existence warranted? Yes it is, merely by what science has shown to be an incomprehensive vastness and complexity to the observable cosmos. In fact, if God is existence, that every conceivable idea exists as God. If it is part of existence, then it is part of God. In other words, there is not one thing that is not God. Even Nothingness is a part of God. So I am making a radical ontological argument for Existence as God. God is existence and Existence is God and so is Nothingness.

Your unsuported claim that my view has nothing to due with rationality is worthless.
To follow on from what Anaconda has said...if you change the word 'God' in your post to, say, 'Fred' it makes just as much sense (and that's not alot)
I soon as I hear the word 'ontological' I think of that creepy William Lane Craig - that is worrying :shrug:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#31 Post by animist » December 24th, 2012, 11:29 am

Altfish wrote:
lmbarre wrote:I don't think you are understanding what I am arguing. First, to discuss the reality of God one must define God. The usual question is, Does God exists? However, this question implies that God is somehow distinct from existence. Pantheism identifies God with Existence, at least mine does. So the question becomes, is the definition of God as Existence warranted? Yes it is, merely by what science has shown to be an incomprehensive vastness and complexity to the observable cosmos. In fact, if God is existence, that every conceivable idea exists as God. If it is part of existence, then it is part of God. In other words, there is not one thing that is not God. Even Nothingness is a part of God. So I am making a radical ontological argument for Existence as God. God is existence and Existence is God and so is Nothingness.

Your unsuported claim that my view has nothing to due with rationality is worthless.
To follow on from what Anaconda has said...if you change the word 'God' in your post to, say, 'Fred' it makes just as much sense (and that's not alot)
I soon as I hear the word 'ontological' I think of that creepy William Lane Craig - that is worrying :shrug:
yes, I think, Imbarre, that several of us are saying, in different ways, that your conception of God is so wide as to be empty. Existence and nothingness are contradictory to each other, so how can both be God?

User avatar
anaconda
Posts: 219
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#32 Post by anaconda » December 24th, 2012, 2:07 pm

Nick wrote:
lmbarre wrote:... is there something rather than nothing?
Why does there necessarily need to be an answer to that question? We would only be able to attempt to answer it in human terms anyway, which, given our consmic insignificance, would tend to suggest that we are quite likely to get it wrong anyway.

While we are at it, can I recommend Lawrence Krauss to you? A Universe from Nothing is on Youtube, and very good it is too. And as he says, "Nothing isn't Nothing, anymore....."
Thanks for posting that Nick, (or should that be saint Nic this time of year?). Very informative, though I'll need to watch it again to get to grips with some of the more complex ideas.

One thing that puzzled me was the explanation relating to movement of matter/ objects/space from its single point of origin, ie following the big bang. He was suggesting that from the point of view of any single item that all other objects would appear to be moving away from each single item, so in effect in our case it makes the earth look like the centre of all things, as it would from the point of view of any of the other single items. He used a grid to illustrate this with rows of dots representing each object. This didnt make sense to me. In my simple mind I would expect the expansion of the universe to involve objects moving not in a uniform way but in different directions, or at least different directions away from the central point. Has this guy never seen Die Hard with a vengeance....stuff firing off all over the place, different angles, velocities etc ;-) . Would everything be moving away In such a roughly uniform way? Wouldn't we see at least some objects getting closer to earth rather than everything moving away from us at different rates, or was the bang so long ago that anything that was going to pass us by (and so have a trajectory at least for a time getting closer to earth) has already done so. Also there didnt seem to be any reference to items expanding at a slower rate than earth and so appearing to be getting further away due to their moving slower than our speedy planet. Im sure this is the case and is just assumed for othe sake of the talk. Maybe I needed to pay more attention in physics classes.

I'm not expecting an answer to any of this. Best regards.
John

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#33 Post by thundril » December 24th, 2012, 2:35 pm

anaconda wrote:
Thanks for posting that Nick, (or should that be saint Nic this time of year?). Very informative, though I'll need to watch it again to get to grips with some of the more complex ideas.
Anyone who get to grips wityh Krauss's idea after watching that lecture just once or twice is doing pretty well. {This from a person who had to read 'A brief History of Time' four times.) Krause is a brilliant explainer, and an entertaining speaker, but the greatest talent people like him possess is the ability to clarify without simplifying. Those of us who don't get all of it at once can be grateful to the author for not misleading us.
One thing that puzzled me was the explanation relating to movement of matter/ objects/space from its single point of origin, ie following the big bang. He was suggesting that from the point of view of any single item that all other objects would appear to be moving away from each single item, so in effect in our case it makes the earth look like the centre of all things, as it would from the point of view of any of the other single items. He used a grid to illustrate this with rows of dots representing each object. This didnt make sense to me. In my simple mind I would expect the expansion of the universe to involve objects moving not in a uniform way but in different directions, or at least different directions away from the central point. Has this guy never seen Die Hard with a vengeance....stuff firing off all over the place, different angles, velocities etc ;-) . Would everything be moving away In such a roughly uniform way? Wouldn't we see at least some objects getting closer to earth rather than everything moving away from us at different rates, or was the bang so long ago that anything that was going to pass us by (and so have a trajectory at least for a time getting closer to earth) has already done so. Also there didnt seem to be any reference to items expanding at a slower rate than earth and so appearing to be getting further away due to their moving slower than our speedy planet. Im sure this is the case and is just assumed for othe sake of the talk. Maybe I needed to pay more attention in physics classes.

I'm not expecting an answer to any of this. Best regards.
Some objects are moving closer together, some are moving further apart, some may at some times be moving parallel to each other or in orbit. These are movements of objects through space.
In the expansion of the universe, it is the space between the objects that is expanding. This space is expanding everywhere ast the same rate. Therefore, the further away something is from any observer, the more expanding space there is between observer and observed objects. Hope that helps?
Jolly midwinter festivities!

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#34 Post by Lifelinking » December 24th, 2012, 3:56 pm

Nothingness is empirically demonstrated
Could you clarify what you mean by nothingness please? A reference for where this empirical demonstration can be found would also be useful. In the physical world even in the most 'vacuumy' (my new word for today) of vacuums there is still matter to be found. And even if one could have the 'perfect vacuum' things like quantum fluctuation and dark matter mean that we still cannot say that the space of our 'perfect vacuum' is entirely empty.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

User avatar
anaconda
Posts: 219
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#35 Post by anaconda » December 24th, 2012, 7:50 pm

Thundril, thanks indeed that's very helpful. I'm thinking too longitudinally!

Happy holidays (spoken in a George Dubya accent for maximum effect) :wink:
John

lmbarre
Posts: 56
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 5:19 am

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#36 Post by lmbarre » December 25th, 2012, 1:25 pm

Nick wrote:
lmbarre wrote:... is there something rather than nothing?
Why does there necessarily need to be an answer to that question? We would only be able to attempt to answer it in human terms anyway, which, given our consmic insignificance, would tend to suggest that we are quite likely to get it wrong anyway.

While we are at it, can I recommend Lawrence Krauss to you? A Universe from Nothing is on Youtube, and very good it is too. And as he says, "Nothing isn't Nothing, anymore....."
The inability of atheism to explain anything philosophically shows it to be intellectually bankrupt.
LM Barré

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#37 Post by Alan H » December 25th, 2012, 1:30 pm

lmbarre wrote:
Nick wrote:
lmbarre wrote:... is there something rather than nothing?
Why does there necessarily need to be an answer to that question? We would only be able to attempt to answer it in human terms anyway, which, given our consmic insignificance, would tend to suggest that we are quite likely to get it wrong anyway.

While we are at it, can I recommend Lawrence Krauss to you? A Universe from Nothing is on Youtube, and very good it is too. And as he says, "Nothing isn't Nothing, anymore....."
The inability of atheism to explain anything philosophically shows it to be intellectually bankrupt.
Who said atheism was supposed to explain anything, philosophical or otherwise?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#38 Post by Dave B » December 25th, 2012, 2:58 pm

^ +1
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#39 Post by animist » December 25th, 2012, 6:19 pm

Alan H wrote:
lmbarre wrote: The inability of atheism to explain anything philosophically shows it to be intellectually bankrupt.
Who said atheism was supposed to explain anything, philosophical or otherwise?
yes, surely atheism is indeed not an attempt to explain anything; instead it is a denial that postulating a god can explain anything (or at least that it can explain more puzzles than it creates)

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#40 Post by Tetenterre » December 25th, 2012, 6:43 pm

lmbarre wrote:The inability of atheism to explain anything philosophically shows it to be intellectually bankrupt.
That is exactly equivalent to asserting that the inability of a lack of belief in the tooth fairy or the gods of Valhalla to explain anything philosophically shows it to be intellectually bankrupt.

The only intellectual bankruptcy on display in this context is your utterly inane assertion. Did you really mean to write that?
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: Atheists. Why. . .

#41 Post by Altfish » December 25th, 2012, 7:13 pm

lmbarre wrote: The inability of atheism to explain anything philosophically shows it to be intellectually bankrupt.
A stunningly ignorant statement :deadhorse:
Atheism is the lack of something.... religion, sky daddies, gods, etc.
By the same argument non-stamp collecting is a lousy hobby because it doesn't gather anything.

Post Reply