A hypothetical question, especially for the atheists and skeptics in the audience...

[Aurora Firestorm]

Actually no we're not tired of it, especially if we feel that your entire livelihood is based around the manipulation and deception of a body of people, in order to milk money out of them. Sorry but I'm going to say that I think your profession (assuming you mean people with religious livelihoods) is dishonest, deceptive, and ultimately detrimental to human society. If you don't like the fact that I am saying that, well, too bad. And I happen to care about a lot of people on the internet, but not people who make silly comments that are worded to be somewhat insulting and confrontational towards me in the general sense, like yours was. That type of post does not engender warm fuzzy feelings from me towards you. Shocking I know.

I guess then if people don't get tired of taking potshots, I get tired at people being really condescending about these things. I suppose I have too much faith in humanity if I expect the Internet to be kind, but once in a while I would hope it could be the case, and we could all have a reasonable discussion about something, even if people like you don't agree or consider it to be silly. I have discussions about silly things all the time. I'm on the Internet, after all.

Also, please do not peg every religious individual to be the same kind of scumbags as the people who milk money out of others, claim to do TV-recorded "miracles" to attract followers, etc. Really, now, those are the minority, loud and irritating though they are. And you're making quite a terrible accusation by saying that every religious person, or every clergyman, is out to get your money. And your insults don't engender warm fuzzy feelings from me to you, either. Shocking, I know.

I personally am not clergy at all. I'm an electrical engineer. Anyway.

And that is a typical Argument from Ignorance. The "I don't know how it could've been done, so God Did It" argument.

Well, the OP *said* to pick an event. So I picked the least explainable one. It's better than "your question is moronic," which is really the jerk thing to say. Also, I really have no problem with science trying to explain everything -- that's why I went to a scientific university and read a whole lot about science and think science is basically the coolest thing. To me, science is the source code God used for the universe. Just because I think there's a God who wrote the source code, doesn't mean I think the source code is wrong.

The term often used for what you're talking about is God of the Gaps, where people continue to reduce God to a smaller and smaller role in the active workings of the universe as we find out that science seems to generally run itself. Whether you assume that there is no God or that God is lurking where we can't explain something is really a point more of philosophy than science, and at that point, calling someone ignorant for disagreeing with your philosophy is a little silly.

And if science ever explains entirely why the universe exists, I'll be the first to read that textbook. (Probably not understand the physics, because physics is not my major, but I can damn well try ^^; )

No, sorry you don't get to give yourself props for this. The OP's post is logically flawed, and since he specifically targeted the question to athiests and skeptics, we're going to call him on the idiocy of his post and it's structure. The very question is illogical, and is contrary to our method of thought. It's like asking "So tell me the one thing you think the Purple Narble Fairy didn't vote into existance by taking a poll of her sentient fingernail clippings." It is a flawed thing to ask, that makes no sense.

I said props from, not for. I don't blow my own horn like that. I am pleased that the OP was willing, in such a sometimes-hostile environment, to ask a question like this. Even if you don't like the question, it promotes dialogue.

Just to pull your chain, I suppose, I would answer that question if someone asked it. Why? Because I don't like to think of myself as an inherently superior thinker. It drives me absolutely bonkers, the number of people who seem to place ultimate value on being Vulcans. If you want to ask me a hypothetical question, I'd at least try to give it the time of day and a response that isn't denigrating. If you want to ask me about the Purple Narble Fairy, at least I'll be a decent person about it. If you want to believe in it, I will probably think that's silly, but you think I"m silly, and we're all allowed to think anyone is silly without also being allowed to be a dick about it.

 

[Therarchos]

This discussion reminds me of an Albert Einstein quote:

?There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.?

It is a shame that the prevalence of atheism and scepticism seems to completely remove most peoples sense of anything miraculous in our existence.

I find love miraculous. Even with all our knowledge of the chemical process and the biological reactions I still find it miraculous that so different people as family friends and lovers can spark such a reaction in a person. It reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote (paraphrased) in voyage of the Dawn treader: That's just what it's made out of. It is not what it IS.

With that Einstein quote, I think you're missing his point.

His point isn't that you can either view things as facts and statistics, and science, and find it boring, or you can view it as divine and find it miraculous.
Its that you can view the science and facts behind it as boring and mundane, and allow that to cloud your wonder of the world, or you can wonder at the facts and science behind everything, and laugh at the odds of it all happening.

That's the view a lot of atheists take. We find it boring and un-miraculous to see something and just explain it as "God did it" or "Its divine influence" or "Supernatural". That's the easy way out. There's no wonder there. Its someone saying "This is how it is", and then that's how it is.
Science on the other hand, is amazing. Its miraculous. It gives the universe wonder. What are the odds that we're all made out of tiny cells, individual life forms in their own right, rather than just a whole being? Who would believe that we could make everything that exists in this universe with just 18 or so different particles? Who would believe that that bright light in the sky isn't some divine light, but a giant ball of blazing gas that has been alive for billions of years, and is the size of a million Earths. And then we can harness this power, control it, and replicate it on a smaller scale here on Earth to give electricity - a form of energy controlled by a few particles with miraculous properties - to millions around the globe [Or soon will be anyway. We use similar principles at the moment, though we aren't quite at fusion yet].
Understanding how the universe works is what makes it wonderful. The interactions of different Bosons, of light and dark matter, of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. The odds that 13.8 billion years ago a singularity of everything existing in the universe would explode, leading to the formation of stars, planets and people are just miraculous, as is the fact that everyone on the planet was made by the death throes of an ancient star.

Viewing things as an Atheist or Skeptic doesn't remove the marvel and wonder from the universe, it simply allows you to truly see it.

I get your point but feel a little misunderstood. My point is not to say that I don't believe you can't marvel at the wonders of the universe if you are an atheist or a skeptic but that so few do. When faced with the hypothetical question if something could be divine most on this site replies that it is impossible because they already believe to know the scientific answer. That's what I find sad because even if we knew all the science behind this universe which we would be arrogant to believe we do it is still a marvelous thing that is incomprehensible for a single mind.

 

[happyninja42]

I guess then if people don't get tired of taking potshots, I get tired at people being really condescending about these things. I suppose I have too much faith in humanity if I expect the Internet to be kind, but once in a while I would hope it could be the case, and we could all have a reasonable discussion about something, even if people like you don't agree or consider it to be silly. I have discussions about silly things all the time. I'm on the Internet, after all.

You mean like the way you were condescending in your comment? Seriously look at the way you worded your post that I replied to and tell me you weren't being condescending and taking potshots at us. I simply responded in kind. You don't get to reverse it and act like you were being civil and polite and I'm the one who started with the snark. And if you truly don't see how your post was condescending and insulting in it's wording, then you are apparently dillusional, not surprising since you believe in a supernatural being. You are already conditioned to be delusional.

Also, please do not peg every religious individual to be the same kind of scumbags as the people who milk money out of others, claim to do TV-recorded "miracles" to attract followers, etc. Really, now, those are the minority, loud and irritating though they are. And you're making quite a terrible accusation by saying that every religious person, or every clergyman, is out to get your money. And your insults don't engender warm fuzzy feelings from me to you, either. Shocking, I know.

Actually I will claim every clergyman is dishonest and deceptive in their job. I didn't say scumbag, you did. And they DO milk money out of people, it's called the church tithe, and the collection plate they send around so they can keep their tax free business open, selling an invisible product that has been consistantly proven to be factually incorrect, contradictory to it's own preachings, and inherently bigoted and misoganistic. They ARE out to get your money, that's their job, how they make their living.

And that is a typical Argument from Ignorance. The "I don't know how it could've been done, so God Did It" argument.

Well, the OP *said* to pick an event. So I picked the least explainable one. It's better than "your question is moronic," which is really the jerk thing to say. Also, I really have no problem with science trying to explain everything -- that's why I went to a scientific university and read a whole lot about science and think science is basically the coolest thing. To me, science is the source code God used for the universe. Just because I think there's a God who wrote the source code, doesn't mean I think the source code is wrong.

The term often used for what you're talking about is God of the Gaps, where people continue to reduce God to a smaller and smaller role in the active workings of the universe as we find out that science seems to generally run itself. Whether you assume that there is no God or that God is lurking where we can't explain something is really a point more of philosophy than science, and at that point, calling someone ignorant for disagreeing with your philosophy is a little silly.

Wrong, what YOU mentioned is an Argument from Ignorance, it's the name of a logical fallacy, look it up. And I don't use a God of the Gaps argument at all, since I don't believe in one, and that particular fallacy has no bearing on what either you or I said either. And no, it's not a philosphical point, when people state that a god exists, and can make things happen in the world, that is a testable claim. And the fact that you think I was calling you ignorant because I used the term "Argument from Ignorance", is not the same thing as me calling you ignorant or silly. The fact that you can't tell the difference says it enough.

And if science ever explains entirely why the universe exists, I'll be the first to read that textbook. (Probably not understand the physics, because physics is not my major, but I can damn well try ^^; )

But until then you'll just be happy to believe your personal theory on how it started, despite evidence to the contrary, because it makes you feel good? Well I can't argue with that, because it's an appeal to personal enjoyment, and that isn't something to be debated. Keep believing what you want 'cause it makes you feel good, whatever.

No, sorry you don't get to give yourself props for this. The OP's post is logically flawed, and since he specifically targeted the question to athiests and skeptics, we're going to call him on the idiocy of his post and it's structure. The very question is illogical, and is contrary to our method of thought. It's like asking "So tell me the one thing you think the Purple Narble Fairy didn't vote into existance by taking a poll of her sentient fingernail clippings." It is a flawed thing to ask, that makes no sense.

I said props from, not for. I don't blow my own horn like that. I am pleased that the OP was willing, in such a sometimes-hostile environment, to ask a question like this. Even if you don't like the question, it promotes dialogue.

Ah, yes you are right, I misread your comment slightly, my apologies. However I don't see how the OP's comment is admirable. It was a poorly structured question, specifically addressed to a group who would find it contrary and illogical. That's not an admirable attempt at dialogue, that's an error on his part that needs to be addressed. The first person to reply to this thread put it pretty beautifully.

Just to pull your chain, I suppose, I would answer that question if someone asked it. Why? Because I don't like to think of myself as an inherently superior thinker. It drives me absolutely bonkers, the number of people who seem to place ultimate value on being Vulcans.

And it drives me absolutely bonkers, the number of people who hold up their ignorance and gullability as some form of virtue, calling it faith, when all they are doing is switching off their brain and just accepting whatever they're being told. I find it WAY more "superior thinking" on the part of theists who try to appeal to some "better logic" that explains why their supernatural mumbo jumbo makes sense, and explains the universe, despite evidence to the contrary, as if they are clued in to some secret knowledge, when really all they're doing is going "yeah, that idea makes me happy, and so I'm going to believe it, for no other reason than that."

If you want to ask me a hypothetical question, I'd at least try to give it the time of day and a response that isn't denigrating. If you want to ask me about the Purple Narble Fairy, at least I'll be a decent person about it. If you want to believe in it, I will probably think that's silly, but you think I"m silly, and we're all allowed to think anyone is silly without also being allowed to be a dick about it.

Actually we ARE allowed to be a dick about it, as is evidenced by your passive aggressive comment initially, where you implied that we didn't understand the OP's comment, and how you just now implied that I am not a decent person because I didn't give the OP's irrational question a rational response. If you make a ridiculous comment or statement, then you are opening yourself up to ridicule, that's sort of the origin of the word. You aren't free from being insulted by what others say. I am free to call someone stupid if they say something stupid, I am free to call them dishonest if they are being dishonest, as are you. You might not like it, but that's reality.

I am however, going to step away from this thread at this point, as it's obviously veered away from the thread topic, and I dislike contributing to further thread derailment.

 

[Edl01]

How does Yahtzee move his head when he has no neck?

 

[K12]

Spontaneous combustion.

I really can't think of a single thing from human history that fits, but if i look at all history the answer would obviously be the creation of universe.

What if the universe was not created but instead has always been?

The scientific consensus seems (afaik) to be that there was a beginning of the universe(not that i understand the topic enough to really argue about it). Or do you mean "always been" in the sense of that there was another universe before ours, and another one before that one, and so on for all infinity?

Always been, as in, it has no beginning. But I also haven't researched the topic enough to argue it.

I have thought about the universe as a cycle though, in regards to the big bang. Like it starts with the bang, then after it expands for a long time, it is sucked back in to create another big bang. But nothing created this cycle, so yes to your last question as well.

I'm struggling
People don't seem to truly grasp what this actually means. Can you truly conceive of the infinite? Because that is what is required for something to have no beginning and no ending, unless there is some completely alien concept which our minds have be made utterly blind to. And to be infinite and at the same time nothing, as nothing can arrive from nothing. This should reduce everyone to a quivering pool on the floor that could do no wrong to its fellow man, were that all men more than mere animals.

How can you speak of such things so casually? Ask yourself this.

I think the main thing about the universe is that it has either existed infinitely or finitely and both those options are mind boggling and counter intuitive.

Finite doesn't mean that it has a beginning and an end necessarily, just a finite length. The Equator has a finite length but no beginning or end and I think that the universe is kinda the same over a larger number of dimensions (beyond 3D space and 4D spacetime) but I'm not going to pretend I understand what that means.

You can do anything in a computer simulation, but at some point in the causal chain you arrive at a place where existence cannot possibly exist because the definition of to exist, to be, necessitates an origin. That's the problem. You have to take existence out of the equation, and in order to do that you must wave you hand and proclaim "infinity" (as infinity is boundless, consider Zeno's paradox) or you must be resigned to the conclusion that existence is an illusion.

Our brains don't seem equipped to imagine a paradigm where existence has no meaning, or at least no bearing, and how something like our reality, where existence is front and center, could arise from conditions where existence must be fundamentally impossible, merely an abstract concept that can be programmed into a simulation.

The only thing our brains do seem well equipped for is putting these quandaries aside to go about our loathsome business as if none of this is of any consequence. Try to do that in reverse. Make a simulation where existence is not a rule. Who can even conceive of that? Unless you think you can, you have no business casually brushing these problems away. That's only a kind of denial that is no different from that of the intellectually divested religious adherent.

I don't really know what you are talking about or what point you're making over all.

"To exist" does not require an origin. To have an origin implies that something existed at some point or another but existing doesn't imply an origin. There is no contradiction in saying that something exists without a beginning to its existence.

Infinity isn't completely boundless, something can be infinite and still have boundaries. An infinite line can have a starting point and then stretch to infinity, it has no boundary on only one end.

It makes no sense to claim that existence is an illusion (consider Descartes Cogito)and there's no reason to think that the only other option is claim everything is infinite. The universe's existence is finite or infinite, and it can be each in several different ways.

I think the idea that we shouldn't brush these problems aside in everyday life is silly. There's a quote from Buddha which I can't remember exactly but someone asks him when his teaching is going to explain the origin of the universe. He responds that you don't need to know something like that to live a good life (I'm sure the original quote was more poetic than that) and I agree. We may never get a satisfactory answer to those kind of questions and that's fine. We shouldn't stop asking the question but we can operate perfectly well without an answer to it.

You can't exist without having a starting point and arguably an ending point. The only thing like that is abstract mathematical precepts, addition for instance. That's called an axiom in the abstract, most people would not call that existence. You have people who understand addition and agree upon what it entails who do exist. But not addition itself.

Similarly to say that you exist where there was no starting point, is to concede that something pseudo exists eternally. You're not really thinking this through. PS: Infinity doesn't have boundaries by definition. A pure line really doesn't have a starting point. It has an infinite regress into an infinitely precise number. And complexity really doesn't matter, because in a reality with only the simplest rules you can build an arbitrarily complex simulation. If you have basic senses and just a lot of stuff to compute with you'd fashion any kind of existence you can imagine. If reality isn't enough to convince someone not to do stupid unhelpful shit then there's probably no helping them.

This is definitely off the original topic but I'm play ball for a bit anyway.

There is nothing in logic which requires an existent thing to have a beginning and/or an end. If you are only talking about physically existing objects then there's a pretty decent reason to think that the physical universe had a beginning or some kind (and therefore every physical object does as well) but it isn't a certain truth.

It's also important to understand the difference between something that has always existed and something having existed for an infinite amount of time. The second one doesn't really make sense but the former simply means that tracking back in time from the current position you will never get a time where the thing you are talking about doesn't exist. This can be true of the universe without the universe needing to have existed for "an infinite amount of time".

An infinite line starting at point X has a starting point at point X. It has a starting point and has therefore a boundary. If you take a plane in space (plane as in cross section not the type with wings) then there is an infinite amount of space on each side of that plane. The only way that isn't true is if space is finite, then the concept of infinite space doesn't really matter except hypothetically anyway.

The point about the infinitely precise thing is strange. You are aware that in mathematics the sum of an infinite sequence can have a finite number? The sum of this series: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16,..... is said to tend towards 1, it never reaches one with a finite number of items but with an infinite number the sum of series equals 1 not just a bit less than one. In the same the number 0.999999 recurring = 1. It doesn't equal something slightly less than one.

If by "infinity" you mean a grand infinite space rather than the concept of the infinite in measurement then maybe we were arguing past each other. I was talking about infinity as a concept in measurement and scale while you were talking about it as some all encompassing concept everything which I don't see any value in.

I have no idea what the last few things you said were supposed to mean or relate to.

This is central to the Topic because there is nothing that is more evident of the supernatural than the existence of stuff.

Anyway, I work in the field of simulation. What you are describing is all well and good inside of a simulation, but it doesn't describe the reality in which the simulation is necessarily embedded. And its simply wrong to say something can always exist. That's like saying that the memory in your computer always exists because its there for the duration of a program's lifetime. But this is oblivious to the memory having been manufactured before the program ever began, and so on (its atoms were manufactured too.)

What does the senses have to do with anything? Well they are phenomenon that science cannot even reason about, they are an example of something which though not necessary would also be required along with a primordial non-existence for reality as we know it to have come into being. Along with awareness, you can think of the firmament of reality as a kind of computer that cannot by definition exist that at its minimum has some sensory inputs and some fundamental component that communicates senses by way of some computational substrate either as a single phenomenon on a spectrum or separate phenomenon with separate spectra, that all together gives rise to or at least complements awareness, or conscious awareness.

And no amount of hand waving can change any of that. Try though you might.

Spontaneous combustion.

I really can't think of a single thing from human history that fits, but if i look at all history the answer would obviously be the creation of universe.

What if the universe was not created but instead has always been?

The scientific consensus seems (afaik) to be that there was a beginning of the universe(not that i understand the topic enough to really argue about it). Or do you mean "always been" in the sense of that there was another universe before ours, and another one before that one, and so on for all infinity?

Always been, as in, it has no beginning. But I also haven't researched the topic enough to argue it.

I have thought about the universe as a cycle though, in regards to the big bang. Like it starts with the bang, then after it expands for a long time, it is sucked back in to create another big bang. But nothing created this cycle, so yes to your last question as well.

People don't seem to truly grasp what this actually means. Can you truly conceive of the infinite? Because that is what is required for something to have no beginning and no ending, unless there is some completely alien concept which our minds have be made utterly blind to. And to be infinite and at the same time nothing, as nothing can arrive from nothing. This should reduce everyone to a quivering pool on the floor that could do no wrong to its fellow man, were that all men more than mere animals.

How can you speak of such things so casually? Ask yourself this.

I think the main thing about the universe is that it has either existed infinitely or finitely and both those options are mind boggling and counter intuitive.

Finite doesn't mean that it has a beginning and an end necessarily, just a finite length. The Equator has a finite length but no beginning or end and I think that the universe is kinda the same over a larger number of dimensions (beyond 3D space and 4D spacetime) but I'm not going to pretend I understand what that means.

You can do anything in a computer simulation, but at some point in the causal chain you arrive at a place where existence cannot possibly exist because the definition of to exist, to be, necessitates an origin. That's the problem. You have to take existence out of the equation, and in order to do that you must wave you hand and proclaim "infinity" (as infinity is boundless, consider Zeno's paradox) or you must be resigned to the conclusion that existence is an illusion.

Our brains don't seem equipped to imagine a paradigm where existence has no meaning, or at least no bearing, and how something like our reality, where existence is front and center, could arise from conditions where existence must be fundamentally impossible, merely an abstract concept that can be programmed into a simulation.

The only thing our brains do seem well equipped for is putting these quandaries aside to go about our loathsome business as if none of this is of any consequence. Try to do that in reverse. Make a simulation where existence is not a rule. Who can even conceive of that? Unless you think you can, you have no business casually brushing these problems away. That's only a kind of denial that is no different from that of the intellectually divested religious adherent.

I don't really know what you are talking about or what point you're making over all.

"To exist" does not require an origin. To have an origin implies that something existed at some point or another but existing doesn't imply an origin. There is no contradiction in saying that something exists without a beginning to its existence.

Infinity isn't completely boundless, something can be infinite and still have boundaries. An infinite line can have a starting point and then stretch to infinity, it has no boundary on only one end.

It makes no sense to claim that existence is an illusion (consider Descartes Cogito)and there's no reason to think that the only other option is claim everything is infinite. The universe's existence is finite or infinite, and it can be each in several different ways.

I think the idea that we shouldn't brush these problems aside in everyday life is silly. There's a quote from Buddha which I can't remember exactly but someone asks him when his teaching is going to explain the origin of the universe. He responds that you don't need to know something like that to live a good life (I'm sure the original quote was more poetic than that) and I agree. We may never get a satisfactory answer to those kind of questions and that's fine. We shouldn't stop asking the question but we can operate perfectly well without an answer to it.

You can't exist without having a starting point and arguably an ending point. The only thing like that is abstract mathematical precepts, addition for instance. That's called an axiom in the abstract, most people would not call that existence. You have people who understand addition and agree upon what it entails who do exist. But not addition itself.

Similarly to say that you exist where there was no starting point, is to concede that something pseudo exists eternally. You're not really thinking this through. PS: Infinity doesn't have boundaries by definition. A pure line really doesn't have a starting point. It has an infinite regress into an infinitely precise number. And complexity really doesn't matter, because in a reality with only the simplest rules you can build an arbitrarily complex simulation. If you have basic senses and just a lot of stuff to compute with you'd fashion any kind of existence you can imagine. If reality isn't enough to convince someone not to do stupid unhelpful shit then there's probably no helping them.

This is definitely off the original topic but I'm play ball for a bit anyway.

There is nothing in logic which requires an existent thing to have a beginning and/or an end. If you are only talking about physically existing objects then there's a pretty decent reason to think that the physical universe had a beginning or some kind (and therefore every physical object does as well) but it isn't a certain truth.

It's also important to understand the difference between something that has always existed and something having existed for an infinite amount of time. The second one doesn't really make sense but the former simply means that tracking back in time from the current position you will never get a time where the thing you are talking about doesn't exist. This can be true of the universe without the universe needing to have existed for "an infinite amount of time".

An infinite line starting at point X has a starting point at point X. It has a starting point and has therefore a boundary. If you take a plane in space (plane as in cross section not the type with wings) then there is an infinite amount of space on each side of that plane. The only way that isn't true is if space is finite, then the concept of infinite space doesn't really matter except hypothetically anyway.

The point about the infinitely precise thing is strange. You are aware that in mathematics the sum of an infinite sequence can have a finite number? The sum of this series: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16,..... is said to tend towards 1, it never reaches one with a finite number of items but with an infinite number the sum of series equals 1 not just a bit less than one. In the same the number 0.999999 recurring = 1. It doesn't equal something slightly less than one.

If by "infinity" you mean a grand infinite space rather than the concept of the infinite in measurement then maybe we were arguing past each other. I was talking about infinity as a concept in measurement and scale while you were talking about it as some all encompassing concept everything which I don't see any value in.

I have no idea what the last few things you said were supposed to mean or relate to.

This is central to the Topic because there is nothing that is more evident of the supernatural than the existence of stuff.

Anyway, I work in the field of simulation. What you are describing is all well and good inside of a simulation, but it doesn't describe the reality in which the simulation is necessarily embedded. And its simply wrong to say something can always exist. That's like saying that the memory in your computer always exists because its there for the duration of a program's lifetime. But this is oblivious to the memory having been manufactured before the program ever began, and so on (its atoms were manufactured too.)

What does the senses have to do with anything? Well they are phenomenon that science cannot even reason about, they are an example of something which though not necessary would also be required along with a primordial non-existence for reality as we know it to have come into being. Along with awareness, you can think of the firmament of reality as a kind of computer that cannot by definition exist that at its minimum has some sensory inputs and some fundamental component that communicates senses by way of some computational substrate either as a single phenomenon on a spectrum or separate phenomenon with separate spectra, that all together gives rise to or at least complements awareness, or conscious awareness.

And no amount of hand waving can change any of that. Try though you might.

You comments are getting gradually less clear as to your meaning.

It's relevant to the topic only because "what does anything exist at all?" is a question that people are most likely to try and explain with reference to something supernatural, since it seems weird to expect something in the world to explain why the world is here at all.

This is assuming that there is some kind of satisfactory explanation to the question, which there may not be. The existence of anything at all may be fundamentally contingent.

The more fundamental problem with it is that supernatural explanations are never actually explanatory. They involve processes that we cannot investigate, replicate or comprehend by definition. The best you can say is "X did it" (X being ghosts, god, psychics, telepathy, thetans etc.) that's not an explanation, it's at best a place holder.

It isn't necessarily wrong to say something can always exist, your analogy is completely missing the point. If time began at the Big Bang (which is the what most physicists say) then there is no such thing as "before the big bang", therefore there has never been a time that universe did not exist without the universe needed to have existed for an infinite length of time.

Even if some or all of the Big Bang theory is wrong it still doesn't show that something could not have always existed. It may be possible to prove that point, but you haven't and until you do it isn't something that we rule out completely.

I have no idea what point you were making with all the stuff about unfathomable senses and computer simulations. What is your point and how are you defending it?

 

[DazBurger]

Spontaneous combustion.

I really can't think of a single thing from human history that fits, but if i look at all history the answer would obviously be the creation of universe.

What if the universe was not created but instead has always been?

Yeah, and what if we are in fact, more related to house-cats than apes.

In both points, evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Well I don't consider anything to be divine but I must say that software engineers seem like wizards to me.

 

[Serinanth]

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

Douglas Adams

 

[DataSnake]

Which of these circles is the least round?

 

[Joccaren]

I get your point but feel a little misunderstood. My point is not to say that I don't believe you can't marvel at the wonders of the universe if you are an atheist or a skeptic but that so few do. When faced with the hypothetical question if something could be divine most on this site replies that it is impossible because they already believe to know the scientific answer. That's what I find sad because even if we knew all the science behind this universe which we would be arrogant to believe we do it is still a marvelous thing that is incomprehensible for a single mind.

Simply because something is marvelous and wondrous does not make it divine, however, and this is where most people's answers in that regard will be coming from. And its not so much knowing the scientific answer as it is knowing that there will be a scientific answer. If we're sitting at home and suddenly the lampshade next to us begins to shake, we won't think "Oh, a ghost", we'll look around, search for the cause of the shaking, discover that hot air from the heater beneath the fan was creating convection currents that were rattling the lampshade and have found an answer. Of course, this is a very everyday example and I'd be surprised if many people would see a lampshade shaking and seriously think it was a ghost, but its a similar concept with the divine.
When we see a strange phenomenon, we don't think of it as divine. We acknowledge that we do not yet understand it, and we endeavour to understand it. Through understanding it it is no longer a strange, supernatural phenomenon. This does not, however, detract from its marvel and wonder.

That's where most people saying something can't be divine are coming from. Not a lack of a sense of wonder about the universe, but a wish to understand why it is so wonderous.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

My birth because it is obvious to everybody that I am the Jesus Christ himself incarnate. Yet nobody believes me, probably because I lost the hippy beard and carpentry.

 

[dementis]

The stupidity of the extremely religious, there is no way that level of ignorance can be a natural occurrence.
That or a question asking atheists to choose something for the divine to be responsible for, even if it is a hypothetical question it's still dependant on putting our logical reasoning aside to say that a big fairy in the sky made it happen.

Why does anything have to do with divine creation? The idea that anything in this universe was created detracts from the brilliance of an entire universe and all life within it being a complete accident.

 

[itsthesheppy]

To the OP: Please pick your favorite breed of cat. You are not allowed to include any breeds of cat that actual exists. Go.

This guy gets it. Thread could have stopped right here, really.

What a silly, loaded question. So you will get a silly answer. Chis Brown still has a career. Ergo, Satan is real and has an active presence in this world.

 

[DANEgerous]

Ehrrrr... Quantum Physics? I mean it is the most unknown idea that we are sure exists so as far Arthur C. Clarke and the quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" that is as close as we can get.

Things that can spin clockwise and anti-clockwise simultaneously is rather insane.

As far as something common, lightning. It is hard to create and control and with electricity can just look as if it comes out of nothing.

 

[DANEgerous]

That hypothetical question doesn't go to one of my core believes.

And neither does this one as lack of belief is not a belief in and of itself. That's the rhetoric that the religious try to use to get atheism classified as a religion.

Edit: Thinking about it more, I guess people could honestly not come up with anything, but it blows my mind that on a site devoted to activities that stretch the bounds of our imagination that this is our Achilles' Heel.

I have to think it is people are just not fully grasping the question.

We are less people with no imagination and more so people that people that even imagined things will have an explanation. As we by the nature of this questions are limited to things perceived in history they all feel very mundane especially when you can just look it up. When you derive a system that is literally magic like say write lore on how alchemy and warp drives function even the most fascinating parts of nature feel far less magic and divine though at leas for me no less awe inspiring.

 

[Naeo]

Uh...

I'm gonna be one of the many "that guy"s who says the question is flawed.

The notion of something having a supernatural explanation is dependent on NOT having a scientific explanation. As time progresses, fewer and fewer things remain unexplained, so the supernatural/divine is increasingly irrelevant in explaining or attempting to explain real-world phenomena. The question is flawed, in that it assumes that atheists/skeptics/whoever else you want to lump together accept that certain things are unexplainable (which I reject--lack of present explanation does not make something forever unexplainable). The question, to me, reads sort of like "If you HAD to pick from the following list, which number is most likely to equal 5+5? 1, 74, 6, 3." The answer is "none". Just as you would say "none of those numbers are 'most likely' to equal 5+5," I say "no phenomenon is 'most likely' to have an exclusively supernatural explanation".

 

[Amir Kondori]

It flabbergasts me that so many people still believe in God and all the associated myths and holy books in modern, industrialized countries. You read things like the bible and you see something that was obviously the product of its time, that contradicts itself, that puts forth ideas that most today would find reprehensible, and yet people still believe. I remember reading about the ritual killing of twins by the Kikuyu people of Kenya and thinking "it must suck to live in a place where superstitious belief rules your life and can lead to the death of infants". Of course even in the US many people believe things just as out there.
The trends all point to religion dying out, especially in the developed world, so there is hope that many generations from now no one will believe these harmful myths and base their lives on them.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Did anyone notice that the OP's user name is from the bible and is synonymous with extreme devotion to God?

From Wikipedia:
"Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are men recorded in the book of Daniel Chapters 1?3, known for their exclusive devotion to God. In particular, they are known for being saved by divine intervention from the Babylonian execution of being burned alive in a fiery furnace."