Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RJS · 09-10-2002, 05:28 PM

Quote:

The Big Bang theories, inflation, cosmic strings, et. al. seem to me to be anything BUT writing off the universe as "unexplainable." "Unexplained", perhaps, but not "unexplainable." Science has successfully explained so much more about the workings of the cosmos than has religion, it doesn't seem unreasonable to guess (hope?) that it will eventually uncover explanations for whatever we can think to ask questions about.

Okay, I think we are getting somewhere now. I guess I am trying to figure out whether, as we now (i.e. not "hope to") understand, the "atheistic explanation of the origins" is as big a leap of faith as the "theistic explanation". I mean no offense by this question, I am just wondering what questions still exist in an atheist's mind regarding the First Cause or the Origin of the Big Bang or whatever.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: RJS ]

RJS · 09-10-2002, 05:38 PM

I really dont mind being moved to another forum, but I am really trying to find what questions remain for an atheist regarding the EOG. Maybe it all boils down to whether or not there is a clear and agreed explanation of First Cause for an atheist - or is it still unexplained?

In other words if I asked a million atheists whether they felt the First Cause was either (1) currently known or (2) currently unknown, which would win?

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: RJS ]

ageofreason2000 · 09-10-2002, 06:34 PM

But "atheism" isn't a specific series of rules and ideas - its just the idea of - there is no God/s or if there is they cannot be proved or disproved either way so why worry.

The Big bang theory MAY be right if it is empiricely proved so then good if not then so be it, move on hopefully but not nessecceraly we will find an answer

Arrowman · 09-10-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RJS:
In other words if I asked a million atheists whether they felt the First Cause was either (1) currently known or (2) currently unknown, which would win?

Define "First Cause". There is a theistic assumption implicit in this term (and in particular, in its capitalisation).

RJS · 09-10-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

But "atheism" isn't a specific series of rules and ideas - its just the idea of - there is no God/s or if there is they cannot be proved or disproved either way so why worry.

But what if I asked, noting that all atheists are not the same, the following question -

"Do you believe the origin of the universe (taken back to first cause if you must) can currently be proven beyone a reasonable doubt?"

would I get more "yes" or "no" answers?

RJS · 09-10-2002, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Define "First Cause". There is a theistic assumption implicit in this term (and in particular, in its capitalisation).

Dont think I can answer this. The capitalization was out of ignorance, if nothing else. I guess I was just trying to avoid getting the Big Bang as an answer (unless one felt convicted that they KNEW what caused the BB in the first place).

Queen of Swords · 09-10-2002, 06:56 PM

That website is Nutwatch gold.

K · 09-10-2002, 08:53 PM

RJS:

Is it reasonable to keep cramming God into the narrowing (although still huge) gaps in our understanding? We clearly don't know beyond a reasonable doubt how or if the universe started. Why should that compel anyone to believe that a guy who lived 2000 years ago did it? The universe is certainly much older than 2000 years. Plus, Jesus never even claimed to have started the universe. Nor did he ever provide one detail about when or how it started. I'm much happier to look at theories that are advanced, refined, and replaced than to chalk it up to a guy who came along well after the whole thing started.

wade-w · 09-10-2002, 10:08 PM

Claiming "godidit" doesn't answer anything. Now, instead of asking "How did the universe come to be?" we have to wonder "Where did god come from?" All you've done by making such a claim is redefine the question.

The existence of god is not a necessary assumption to explain the universe. Applying Occam's Razor, we then conclude that there is no god.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]

joedad · 09-10-2002, 10:19 PM

RJS,

Aren't gods just cosmic magicians? What's logical about believing in that?

But just for the sake of discussion, are we talking about creator gods that make things from nothing, or gods that just keep things puttering along for some reason?

And why does one need a first cause? Why does matter/energy need a first cause? The stuff seems damn ubiquitous. Know where any isn't? I don't. Where's that nihility we need to have the gods unmake?

And what causes gods to happen into existence anyway? Why don't any gods need a first cause? Or do they? Who or what decided that gods don't need a first cause?

Atheism is rational. God-belief is arational. Gods require far too many assumptions to be logical.

joe

09-10-2002, 05:38 PM	#22
RJS Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Tampa Posts: 303	I really dont mind being moved to another forum, but I am really trying to find what questions remain for an atheist regarding the EOG. Maybe it all boils down to whether or not there is a clear and agreed explanation of First Cause for an atheist - or is it still unexplained? In other words if I asked a million atheists whether they felt the First Cause was either (1) currently known or (2) currently unknown, which would win? [ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: RJS ]</p>

09-10-2002, 10:08 PM	#29
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	Claiming "godidit" doesn't answer anything. Now, instead of asking "How did the universe come to be?" we have to wonder "Where did god come from?" All you've done by making such a claim is redefine the question. The existence of god is not a necessary assumption to explain the universe. Applying Occam's Razor, we then conclude that there is no god. [ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-10-2002, 06:34 PM	#23
ageofreason2000 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: UK (London) Posts: 103	But "atheism" isn't a specific series of rules and ideas - its just the idea of - there is no God/s or if there is they cannot be proved or disproved either way so why worry. The Big bang theory MAY be right if it is empiricely proved so then good if not then so be it, move on hopefully but not nessecceraly we will find an answer

09-10-2002, 06:56 PM	#27
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	That website is Nutwatch gold.

09-10-2002, 08:53 PM	#28
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	RJS: Is it reasonable to keep cramming God into the narrowing (although still huge) gaps in our understanding? We clearly don't know beyond a reasonable doubt how or if the universe started. Why should that compel anyone to believe that a guy who lived 2000 years ago did it? The universe is certainly much older than 2000 years. Plus, Jesus never even claimed to have started the universe. Nor did he ever provide one detail about when or how it started. I'm much happier to look at theories that are advanced, refined, and replaced than to chalk it up to a guy who came along well after the whole thing started.

09-10-2002, 10:19 PM	#30
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	RJS, Aren't gods just cosmic magicians? What's logical about believing in that? But just for the sake of discussion, are we talking about creator gods that make things from nothing, or gods that just keep things puttering along for some reason? And why does one need a first cause? Why does matter/energy need a first cause? The stuff seems damn ubiquitous. Know where any isn't? I don't. Where's that nihility we need to have the gods unmake? And what causes gods to happen into existence anyway? Why don't any gods need a first cause? Or do they? Who or what decided that gods don't need a first cause? Atheism is rational. God-belief is arational. Gods require far too many assumptions to be logical. joe

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.