Family Man

In fact, in a number of recent threads, it has been pointed out that time is an attribute of this universe. Thus, at all times, this universe has existed. It is meaningless to talk about "before this universe".

However, atheism doesn't stand or fall on an "eternally existing universe". That's a strawman. There is nothing wrong with realizing that we don't have the means to determine what created this universe, if it was created at all. The question is whether there is enough evidence or a strong enough logical argument to conclude that there is a god. The first cause argument purports to do that, but it fails in a number of ways. And if you can't provide a strong reason to believe that God exists, then atheism is the obvious position.

Mageth

Family Man:

If I understand her correctly, the pre-modern view of religion was that of mythology -- religion was interpreted non-literally. Fundamentalism -- interpreting religious documents literally -- is a reaction to the rationalism of the modern world, a rationalism that wasn't there when mythos held sway. I would argue that, among the religious, mythos is still the dominant force. What arguments like the First Cause do is to put a rational veneer over what is a mythological position.

While I agree that what was originally intended as mythos has been misinterpreted literally in many religions, I think this phenomenon goes back a lot farther than the "modern world", as Fundamentalism does. Read the OT or the history of Islam to see how seriously (literally) some of the ancients took their religion. So I don't think this misinterpretation can solely be attributed as a reaction to the rationalism of the modern world, though that may certainly be part of an explanation for the modern phenomenon of Fundamentalism.

I prefer metaphor to "myth" - to someone in the past, the world appeared as if it was created, that the universe has a cause, a purpose; a metaphor (creation myth) is generated that poeticizes these thoughts, that says "It is as if a god had ..." The metaphor is useful for self-understanding, for putting form to feeling, for communicating the thoughts to others, and for passing down as a cultural myth.

A few generations later, the "as if" part gets dropped or forgotten, and you have "The God did, our God did..." The poetry gets turned to prose.

Volker

Atheism is compatible with the following views:

(1) We don't know if the universe was created or not.
(2) The universe exists eternally.
(3) The universe comes from nothing.
(4) The question about the universe has no meaning (and answers will be likewise).
(5) The universe was created by a universal force or law.
(6) A highly sophisticated technology from a civilisation from another universe created this one.
(...) More to imagine.

Christianity is only compatible with one view - god created the universe from nothing. I don't think there is a possibility to prove that.

Sandslice

>>However, atheism doesn't stand or fall on an "eternally existing universe". That's a strawman. There is nothing wrong with realizing that we don't have the means to determine what created this universe, if it was created at all. The question is whether there is enough evidence or a strong enough logical argument to conclude that there is a god. The first cause argument purports to do that, but it fails in a number of ways. And if you can't provide a strong reason to believe that God exists, then atheism is the obvious position.<<(Family Man)

Which actually misses my point. My point was that the "eternally existing universe" is not compatible with science, as its postulation stands *beyond empirical testing.* Did the universe exist twenty billion years ago, or even before the bang? We can't possibly know.

>>Yet, the problem of an "eternal existing universe" is that it cannot be used in science. By its nature, it cannot be empirically disproven, nor can reasonable attempts even be made. Whether this is a present limitation on our capacity to do so, or whether the big bang permanently removed any such capacity, to speak of such an eternal existence is as much a matter of faith as saying "godidit."<<(Slice)

I never once said, if you would check again, that EEU is incompatible with atheism. I only said that EEU is a faith statement, just as "godidit" is a creed, or "the Cosmic Egg hatched," or even "Yonder Angry Elf did urinate upon his Elven Hamster, transforming the Hamster into all of Existence." (Eeew.)

Philosoft

Oh, good gravy. "Eternally existing universe" is not a "faith statement." It's a tentative result of one or more mathematical models of the emergence of space-time. No one uses the EEU concept as a premise to conclude that God does not exist.

[mini-rant]
Really, why is there such a need to jam the f-word in edgewise every time a concept arises in the realm of science that has less-than-convincing empirical support? Is it because these concepts often contravene established theistic memes?
[/mini-rant]

Family Man

No, this universe could not have come into being "before the bang". Time is a property of this universe. If the Big Bang is the "cause", then there is no time "before the bang".

Nor is your point about an eternally existing universe being imcompatible with science particularly relevant, even if true. The point of this thread is that the cosmological argument, if we assume that it is correctly formulated, only points towards an uncaused first cause. Whether it was a conscious or unconscious cause is unknown and probably unknowable. That means that it is not a valid argument for the existence of God.

There are many things that we can't know. I don't need to know the cause of the universe to be an atheist. All I need is to be convinced that there is no solid evidence or logical argument for the existence of a God-like being. I am convinced.

Aravnah Ornan

Of course it can be. If the hypothesis of an EEU necessarily leads to certain predictions that can be falsified, then the hypothesis itself can be falsified.