SimplyAtheistic

I have been reading a few threads that kept mentioning the fact that our universe needed a creator to initiate the actual creation, such as the big bang or evolution. I am here to clear up the fact that our universe did not need such a creator. Logically speaking, you will have to stop somewhere and say that thing x just has always existed. Now you can't explain thing x's creation, but you take it for fact that it always existed. You WILL have to do this somewhere, whether it be that thing x is god or that thing x is a tightly compacted ball of matter. So, the question is, is thing x god or matter? A simple question that can be answered just as simply. Stating that there is this god that defies all laws of nature is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence if it is to be believed. We have no such evidence except books written by men that are easily dispersed as mere foolery. (of which I shall not go into great depth in this thread) So, we can assume thing x is matter then, the matter has just always existed. This theory has support and can actually be tested to a certain extent. So, our universe did not need a creator, nor is it at all likely that there is a creator. Do yourself a favor and live for the world you live in now, because after you die, you shall cease to exist.
Jake

Tercel

To your first sentence: Agreed. However you should be able to give a reason why that thing existed eternally and uncreatedly. You can't just make up something arbitrary and claim it as uncreated:
I can imagine a pink fluffy bunny rabbit which lays eggs which hatch into universes.

I can't just assert that as the ultimate thing which existed eternally and uncreatedly. Why? Because I can't give any remotely compelling explanation why that would be the first thing and not a blue fluffy bunny rabbit or pink fluffy elephant etc. Every single property or attribute I attribute to the first thing, I have to be able to justify why it has that property rather than not. ie The first thing must be necessary and not arbitrary: ie It must be something that could not have been different.

Yup. Matter is arbitary in its location, movement, number of particles and so forth. Hence it's ruled out before we begin.
A unconstrained and unlimited Being on the other hand seems to be entirely satisfactory on closer examination. Hence, the answer is: x = God
Simple. As.
(Or if you'd like a bit more detail , Christopher Langan spends 30 pages elaborating on the subject in his CTMU thesis. Note: Slower connections may take a couple of minutes to download the PDF file)

Er... how?
Stating that there is a god is simply a claim that the ultimate thing is a purposeful entity. We are fully familiar with such purposeful, willful, conscious entities -being one ourselves- and everything we have ever observed or done has depended on the existence of this purposeful consciousness we posses. We have never in fact, ever ever ever observed anything outside of consciousness- nor could we. Obviously, whatever it is that consistutes reality has something to do with consciousness, since we are composed of reality and are conscious willful entities. I fail to see how then the claim that reality itself is fundamentally of a conscious purposeful nature (ie that "God exists") can be thus construed as an "extraordinary claim"!
Surely the extraordinary claim is to claim that the ultimate reality is fundamentally not conscious or purposeful and completely different to everything we are, yet in some magical way capable of making us work?

Forget ancient books. Use your brain. (Okay, and a bit of knowledge of modal philosophy, quantum physics, advanced computational grammar theory and information theory wouldn't go to waste)

Er righto... which test would this be?
That entropy increases with time? (Hence implying a finite universe length) That the big-bang was the beginning of space-time as we know it? (Hence implying, well, the beginning of space-time - which matter presumably kindof needs to exist in)

And your evidence for this statement of faith is... ?

Demigawd

Actually observing the universe first hand, I would imagine. You know, lack of ghost and dieties exercising influence upon the world around us.

Tell me, Tercel, when was the last time that your diety set fire to demonstrate his supranatural prowess?

Amaranth

I disagree with this premise. I'm entirely uncertain why this first thing had to be necessary and not arbitrary, first of all, and why you present it without any backing. Sources? Logic? Secondly, assuming that that premise is correct, I believe matter still applies quite well enough. Although it may have arbitrary values, it is certainly necessary for existance. Why? Because it exists, therefore it is necessary. You obviously can't have the current universe without matter. God, on the other hand, is not necessary. It, unlike matter, has no evidence, nor the plethora of it existing all around us. The universe, as we percieve it, can exist without a god.

I realize that this is begging for a non causa pro causa reply. I'm off to prepare my "Circle of Protection: Logical Fallacies (1W)" now.

Simple observation: Your body will eventually decay and be destroyed. I suppose one could say that you exist as long as atoms that were a part of you still exist, which would certainly lend a lot of weight to the axiom "you are what you eat", but that still doesn't solve the problem. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has everything headed for eventual heat death, last I checked, meaning that only the most extremely loose definitions of existance would apply.

It seems to me that the statement "after you die, you shall cease to exist" is well backed by evidence.

Amaranth

[edited to add first rebuttal. not editted to flow well. it's 12am.]

Family Man

Actually, your choice of a God is just as arbitrary as any of the other choices. The unconstrained and unlimited being could just as well be "pink fluffy bunny rabbit which lays eggs which hatch into universes" as it would be the Christian god. It's just that the Christian god is a popular choice in our particular society (though less popular in others), hence the satisfaction you find in it.

Koyaanisqatsi

Tercel is asking for evidence to support faith?

Well knock me down with a communion wafer!

Woo hoo! Tercel, ol' bean, you've awakened!

And I can imagine a "necessary being" with "omnimax" qualities so mysterious as to never allow any questioning of its existence! A "Father" that moves in "mysterious" ways and is so incredible as to defy description or even simple definition! Why, one could even say it was necessarily that way to account for my imagination of it!

Why?

You heard me.

Well, ok, then how about a blue fluffy bunny rabbit who has omnimax qualities? How about that?

Different than what? Itself?

Do you offer an example of a necessary being with all of its properties justified?

Oh, goody! What is it?

Um, ok. So, because matter appears arbitrary to you in its "location, movement, number of particles and so forth," it's somehow "ruled out before we begin?" Why would that be?

Matter is necessary for our existence, right? So what has the perceived arbitrariness of its "location, movement, number of particles and so forth" have to do with anything?

Do you have full knowledge of "Matter's" patterns to make such a claim? After all, Matter moves in mysterious ways....

But you still haven't said what your version of a necessary imaginary being would be like or justified it yet.

"Unconstrained" as in we wouldn't know its "location, movement, number of particles and so forth?"

"g" "o" and "d?" What does that mean?

Oh well, I guess you'll now justify what that means and define all of the necessary parts for us, right?

Oh. You're not going to and I have a slow connection, so, that sucks. I thought you were going to do it to demonstrate how easy it is. But, heck, if it only takes 30 pages to explain how simple it all is, then I guess I'll have to make time.

Oh, ok! Then my necessary imaginary being is a purposeful blue fluffy bunny rabbit with omnimax qualities and we can never know the "location, movement, number of particles and so forth" about its existence.

Hey, that was fun!

We're necessary imaginary beings? Cool. What are our necessary qualities and how are they justified?

No wait! Let me try this time. We're tangible, in that we're made up of matter, and that's justifiable because if we were not made up of matter, then we couldn't exist in this universe (except, perhaps, semantically; i.e., as a part of some sort of mythological fiction, let's say) and....um....we're....

Perhaps you'd better take over. I'm not as good at it as you are yet.

Oh, wait! Wouldn't this mean that your "god" thingy would have to be tangible and part of this universe, too, right? Oh, no, that can't be if it created the universe. Sorry. It would have to be outside the universe, somehow...and that would probably mean intangibility, too, like a...um...well like a part of some sort of mythological fiction, I guess, right?

Wow! An intangible necessary imaginary being that exists outside "all that is?" I mean, the universe. Sorry, didn't mean to complicate matters.

No wait! I've got it! It could be something completely illogical, like an "uncaused" cause that spontaneously wills itself into....itself....by not being prior to it being....

No, you're going to have take this one, too.

Except being born. Oh, and dying. And when we're unconscious. Oh, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt.

Hey, maybe the being born and dying part is the result of your necessary imaginary being that created itself by willing itself to be created prior to it being created by it willing itself....no, I'm lost again.

Except for all of those trillions of things we observe and filter out through our sub-conscious on a daily basis. Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt again.

I'm just so curious!

And let's not forget tangible! Sorry, sorry. Mum's the word.

Yeah, me neither, especially since you went to all that trouble to clearly define what you meant by stringing the letters "g" "o" and "d" together like that!

It's perfectly ordinary to me! "God" is an intangible necessary imaginary being that purposefully willed itself into being prior to there being anything to purposefully will itself into being so that it could will itself.....lost again.

And don't forget the animals, too! All of the hundreds of millions of different sentient life forms on this planet! Wow, just think!

So there's proof positive that the universe was created by my blue fluffy bunny rabbit, since bunny rabbit's exist and I've actually seen some of them that were blue and certainly all of them were fluffy!

So by your very logic, Q.E.D.!

Ahhh, thanks Mr. Tercel!

Sage advice! By the way, I've been meaning to ask, do you know what "irony" is?

Oh....ok. Not to be rude, or anything, since you've taught me so much about using my brain and all, but where exactly did you apply that "bit" of knowledge in regard to justifying the attributes you attributed to your necessary imaginary being? The intangible, illogical, magical "uncaused" first cause?

I know I'm not using my brain as well as you are, because I can only make out a slight, erroneous allusion to a misunderstanding of guantum physics in any of that. But then, you did say to use just a "bit" of that knowledge, right .

Gotcha! When you say, "use your brain," you mean, "don't use your brain." Smart!

But actually stating that systems break down into different systems and therefore not actually implying a finite universe in the slightest, but more of a dynamic universe? You know, like loop quantum gravity theory?

Funny! Just like your uncaused cause! I wonder what little Billy of Ockham would say to that? I'll ask him at study break.

Gee, this was just swell Mr. Tercel (tee hee, that rhymes ). I can't wait for your next installment of A Necessary Imaginary Being That Cannot Be Justified Due To Its Very Necessary Nature, Only Asserted!

Tercel

Koy, just so you know, I never bother to read your posts, so you needent expect a reply.

PS. Just so others don't think I'm being excessively rude or anything, I have responded to Koy many a time in the past. However he has never shown any inclination to serious discussion, and merely spends his time insulting people (in between call Christianity a "cult"). Like most other Christians on this board, I now ignore him. ("now" being for the past several months)

Tercel

Its backing was the "pink fluffy bunny" example.
Clearly the fluffy bunny is a damn stupid first thing. There has to be some reasonable rule to stop people asserting wacked out things as the first thing. Fluffy bunnies are not allowed. Why? Because they are arbitrary. I believe a pink fluffy bunny is not a "good" first thing because it there is no way to demonstrate its superiority over a blue fluffy elephant etc. The obvious rule to impose is non-arbitrariness: Anything that "could have been different" is simply ruled out of court because the question "why like that and not like this?" is unanswerable. Now, okay, I accept that it may be the case that we might actually not be able to answer that question in reality - it might have no real answer in the real world.
However if we can produce any system which actually answers that question, surely that system should win hands-down against any competing system that doesn't.

We don't allow fluffy bunnies to magically appear in general and to assert them to be the "first thing" makes them no more palatable. If there is some proposed first thing that has an answer to the question of "why like that and not like this?" then it is indefinately preferable to the fluffy bunnies - however loveable they might be. "The universe" falls squarely in the fluffy bunny category. Even if you could compress the entire universe to a Complete Grand Theory of Everything (One mathematical formula capable of explaning the location, motion, attributes etc of every particle in the universe and every other property of the universe) I'd still ask "why was that formula the 'first thing' and not a slightly different one?". (Wouldn't that just ruin the day of the discoverer? )
Matter can't escape the fluffy bunny test, mathematical formula can't escape the fluffy bunny test. Only a simple awareness in all it's unified and unconstrained glory that is nothing other than Being itself - a single thing that is nothing other than awareness that it IS - escapes the fluffy bunny test because other than a self-referential reality it doesn't have attributes.

It meets the necessity criteria nicely, solves the problem of causality (ie why what the first cause causes isn't necessary - in this case because it was a choice made by a Volition void of constraint) as a bonus, and (just in case we needed another reason to like the hypothesis) neatly solves the problems of consciousness (ie Why we are conscious) and the nature of information (eg how propositions can be really true and yet non-material, how you can have "concepts" etc, how mathematical non-material laws can govern matter etc) by giving us the paradigm of Idealism where reality itself is simply information dealt with by a mind. (I call God a "Mind" only for want of a better word, though there is no reason to think this Mind has things like memory or emotions as we know them or even thought necessarily. Before anyone thinks I'm getting carried away and not a Christian, I would point out that many Christian theologians have generally held the view that God the Father is an incredibly simple Being along these lines and some have thought that the generation of the Son -often called the "Wisdom" of God or the "Word" of God- "through whom all worlds were created", was an intermediate being necessary to add something to God - the Father presumably not being sufficently complex in Himself)

Er, wrong type of "necessary". I'm thinking of the Modal Logic "possible-world necessary":
Imagine all the different logically possible realities. Propositions which are true in all possible realities are "necessary". eg 2+2=4. Propositions which are true in some possible worlds are "contingent". eg "The wallpaper in this room is cream". Propositions which are false in all possible worlds are "impossible". eg 2 * 3 = 5.

Hence to say the first cause could not have been different is to insist that it is necessary rather than contingent. Which is what I meant by the word.

Can I "Counterspell" it? Or lacking that a "Disenchant"? (Are they even still around? It's been about 5 years since I played, way back in 4th Edition...) Anyway you're supposed to be one of them "evil" atheists remember, so you should be playing Black, not White!

To have evidence for that statement you would have to have evidence for both the following propositions:
1. It is not the case that ( God or some really powerful being exists AND He/it will create new bodies for us in the future ).
2. There is no non-material part of you that lives on after you die.

I sincerely doubt your ability to give any real support to either of those propositions, nevermind both.

Godot

Tercel, how very expedient it is of you to not have to respond to your critics! Are you not aware that there may be lurkers in the forum that could potentially be swayed one way or another by your dialogue? That maybe, just maybe Koy could have soething valid to say regarding your claims?
Also, I find it interesting that you felt the need to declare in public that you do not respond to Koy's posts. Wouldn't this selfsame point be equally demonstrated by not addressing that post in the thread while maintaining a dialogue with the other participants? I think so. Rather juvenile of you, it is. I also noticed that you have yet to respond to the other criticisms of your post so far. Are they too, not exhibiting an "inclination to serious discussion" and "spend[ing] [their] time insulting people"?
Thanks for the pout though.

Ronin

Hrmmm...yes, I see what you mean.