Atheism does not work...

[Xenopsyche]

...a philosophical argument on why it is rational to accept the possibility of a creator.

I am agnostic and I have had more than a few heated debated with some athiest collegues of mine. I am a person is is constantly fascinated by the universe around us. Most athiests seem to think that there is no explanation for the universe, that its existence is just a brute fact, or that the universe can be fully explainded scientifically.

The existence of something is comprehensible only if it has an explanation. By the definition of intelligibility, the universe must be unintelliglbe or have an explantion. If we are constantly searching for an answer or explanation to the question of why the universe exists, The nature or a rational person would be to seek an explantion for the universe.

There are two possible explanations for the universe:

1. A scientific explantion

2. The aregument that the universe is abrute fact and it exists out of necessity.

In order for there to be a true scientific explantion of the universe, there would have to be an obserivation of the intial physical conditions of the universe and then the application of laws that would explain the universe as it is today. An athiest will postulate that the universe is governed by natural laws. But if the universe is made of certain circumstances and laws, there cannot be any conditions, laws out side it. So there is no possible way for there to be an independent set of intitial physical conditions which are needed to have a scientific explanation. Therefore science cannot explain the universe.

Another argument is that the universe is essential, it exists because it must and there is no answer to the question why?. But, the universe consists of objects that could have not existed or been extremely different from what they are now, (like the chair you're sitting on or the moon) All of those objects existed beucase of a set of circumstances in the Big Bang. If the Big Bang had somehow functioned differently its possible that none of us could have existed. So if its possible that parts of the universe could not have existed, than couldn't the universe itself have not existed? Could it be random chance? The universe is non-essential.

So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator. So, a rational person who is seeking an explanation should accept the fact that it is possible there is a God.

Thoughts?





[This message has been edited by Xenopsyche (edited 12-02-2006).]

[boozehound420]

i agree, but i tend to think of GOD as a person who should be worshiped

the creator of the universe could be a being we cant even comprehend in its size and intelligence

i also believe if there is a creator that it doesnt interfier in the universe at all, atleast nothing that we can comprehend, or notice on our pinner little scale

[Martini]

Most atheists don't deny there is a possibility of a God (depending on the definition of God), they just haven't been convinced of the actual existence of such an entity. See "An Introduction to Atheism". http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html

Reasonably plausible hypotheses for the physical laws that appear to govern the universe have been proposed and tested. That not every 'i' has been dotted or 't' crossed does not mean that there is no scientific explanation for the universe.

The universe does not, strictly speaking, require an explanation. It, or something that to our senses has the properties of a universe, clearly exists. It has not yet winked out of existence due to anyone's failure to provide an adequate reason for its existence.

Some sort of God is always a possibility. Currently, however, it would appear that there is no testable hypothesis that could verify the existence of such a figure, thus that possibility is a vanishingly small one. Furthermore, if you are going to argue that there must be a creator of some sort simply because current scientific explanations for the history and behavior of the universe are lacking in some way, how do you explain the creator itself, for which there is essentially no scientific evidence whatever? In addition, who created the creator, and the creator's creator, and so on? Personally, I prefer to stop at what is actually observed (the universe), but you are welcome to go as far back in the chain as you like. I'm curious, however, why you would stop at the immediate creator?

[Hexadecimal]

Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...and that includes the big bang 'theory'...which is currently being shot to shit (Back and to the left)...turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.

For any valid theory to exist on the beginnings of the universe, we would have needed to be present at the creation of this universe...or somehow create a second verse...and that's under the assumption that our verse is the only one in the universe (which could hypothetically be a multi-verse without contradicting current mathematics).

Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began...nor can we figure out if a 'who' was involved, or if there even is a 'why'.

It's a pipe dream to think we can establish a working theory to the beginning.

[CreamOfWarholSoup]

What does it count as if I just don't care about the origins of humanity and the universe?

I'm not siding with a creator or science and it's not a matter of being undecided. I'm just not interested whatsoever.

[among_the_living]

Technically everyone who is an Atheist is actually Agnostic, they realise you can not prove nor disprove a 'God' so thats why they are technically Agnostic however Atheists weigh up the evidence on both sides and decide that they dont believe in any god or gods due to what they have seen/read/heard and such.

Its the same using the teapot round the sun analogy.

Anyone who is of a certain religion has to be technically agnostic about other religions gods but they aren't, they're atheists about all but their own.

[This message has been edited by among_the_living (edited 12-02-2006).]

[xray]

Xenopsyche, you make so many illogical leaps it's scary. Okay, where do I begin?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

In order for there to be a true scientific explantion of the universe, there would have to be an obserivation of the intial physical conditions of the universe and then the application of laws that would explain the universe as it is today.

First of all, what you stated is in no way axiomatic, and actually makes no sense. The lack of a witness to the impetus of a process does not negate the abilty to ultimately explain said impetus and resulting process scientifically.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

An athiest will postulate that the universe is governed by natural laws. But if the universe is made of certain circumstances and laws, there cannot be any conditions, laws out side it.

The universe is not made of circumstances and laws. The universe "follows" laws, including those that have yet to be discovered or understood, and its current condition is the "result" of circumstances that shaped it. Anyway, what's your point?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

So there is no possibel way for there to be an independent set of intitial physical conditions which are needed to have a scientific explanation.

What do you mean by "independent set of physical conditions?" Independent of what? And why would an independent set of anything be required to explain the universe scientifically?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

Therefore science cannot explain the universe.

:blink: What? Precisely how does this follow your previous assertions?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

Another argument is that the universe is essetial, its exist beucase it must and there is no answer to the question why?.

A valid argument could accurately be made that the universe is not essential. It exists, however, because it's essential to our existence, only because we couldn't exist without it. But even that doesn't make it essential, because there's no mandate that we must exist.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

So if its possible that parts of the universe could not have existed, than couldn't the universe itself have not exiseted? The universe is non-essential.

Where in left field are you suddenly getting "parts" of the universe from?

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

So, since the universe cannot be explained scientifically and it is non-essential, the only other possible explanation is a creator.

You haven't made the case, at all, that the universe can't be explained scientifically, and its essential nature has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, as far as I'm concerned. Even accepting the absurd proposition that all your flawed logic magically aligned and made sense, none of it would exalt the idea of a creator as the "only" possible explanation above all other possibilities. Think about it. You posit a creator for no other reason I can see than that it's what you believe. "Science can't do this, and the Universe isn't that, therefore the only thing that makes sense is an creator." That's essentially your argument right there. Surely you see the illogic.

quote:Originally posted by Xenopsyche:

So, a rational person who is seeking an explanation should accept the fact that it is possible there is a God.

Your house of cards doesn't hold up, I'm afraid, my friend. You either have a lot more 'splainin' to do to get your points across better, or you need to reread the sources of the claptrap you posted so you can understand it a little better yourself before responding.

[Martini]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe.

No one can really claim they know George Washington was first President of the United States under the present Constitution. After all, everyone who was actually there is long dead. Maybe George Washington wasn't even a real person, just a figurehead artificial intelligence simulation and REAL power was held by a triumvirate consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Dolley Madison. It's all just hypotheses at this point.

It is not necessary to travel into the past, to conclude scientifically events from the past. We have proof for the past existence of George Washington, dinosaurs, etc., and it's never been necessary to travel into the past to see them ourselves.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...and that includes the big bang 'theory'

Incorrect. The Big Bang theory is a valid scientific theory; it is not a hypothesis. It is backed up by Hubble's Law, red shift, microwave background radiation, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

...which is currently being shot to shit (Back and to the left)...turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.

Bullshit. Evolution and an old Earth are currently being "shot to shit", but only by idiots who know nothing of real science. In professional circles, there are only a few old scientists that still question standard Big Bang theory, and they drift further from the mainstream as time goes on.

[Martini]

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Technically everyone who is an Atheist is actually Agnostic,

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but it's absolutely incorrect. Plenty of atheists believe that they have valid proof for the impossibility of God's existence. That technically means that they are not agnostic. I guess it could also be said that some atheists believe that God can be proven.

If next Tuesday the heavens open with a great shout, and a brilliant yet somehow not blinding Light suffuses the entire world, and we are all filled with a wonderful sense of peace and joy and a great Voice--heard by everyone in the world in the language of his birth--says "Behold, My children, I have come again to you at last", and then we all live for the next ten thousand years unaging in a world of perfect peace and justice and beauty, then us atheists--who don't believe in God because no one has persuaded us that such a belief makes sense--can all say (with perfect consistency with our previous beliefs)--"Oh, er, well, I guess we were wrong then. Heh. Sorry about that" while the agnostics will still have to be standing over in the corner saying "Well, this is all very nice, I'm sure, but I'm still not convinced."

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

they realise you can not prove nor disprove a 'God' so thats why they are technically Agnostic

Why don't you believe by this logic that everyone is agnostic?

quote:Originally posted by among_the_living:

Anyone who is of a certain religion has to be technically agnostic about other religions gods but they aren't, they're atheists about all but their own.

They technically have to be, but they aren't? That makes no sense.

They are usually atheistic regarding all other gods, but their agnosticism is unknown.

[boozehound420]

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

...and that includes the big bang 'theory'...which is currently being shot to shit (Back and to the left)...turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.



Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began...nor can we figure out if a 'who' was involved, or if there even is a 'why'.

one second you say the big bang theory isnt correct, and the next second you explain how its impossilbe at this point in time to know what happend before the big bang.

i havent read anywhere that the big bang theory is being disproven, all i can find is that the theory is favored by almost all of the science community, and theres no evidense to say thats not what happened