I believe philosophers of old referred to the entity you are talking about as "the unmoved mover". A being that caused something to happen, while nothing caused it.
The god of the atheists.
- Thread starter Robert Ewing
- Start date
Funny in a ... wow that person is really missing the point? Because ... that video made me slam my face on my desk. Oy.omega 616 said:
Firstly, if the thing that created the universe is as ignorant and powerless as humanity, then the start of the universe isn't the significant first step and the question of what caused that being needs to be answered. Whatever created the universe needs an existance inherent to reality, which is quite a bit more power than people can claim.Robert Ewing said:
Secondly, the question of why one God and not another is largely irrelevant. Making the assumption that there is a God that created everything and a religion exists, God created that religion (atleast transitively). There's no reason to ask why god would create any specific organization because clearly He did. In the case a religion being factually innaccurate, so long one is not acting contrary to their conscience, there's hardly anything deplorable about ignorance to the truths speculated on by religions. If someone is misinformed, is that bad? We are all ignorant to begin with, and as the man of science you claim to be, I'm sure you aren't opposed to people interested in truth, and since religious teachings are specifically on God, faith, and morals, it's a pretty slow moving experiment to try and find if one is wrong.
That's Deism. And it only exists because science is explaining gods out of existence. People choose an unknown and stick God in it. It's called the God of the Gaps Method, and it's a manifestation of ignorance.Robert Ewing said:
[HEADING=3]The Big Bang was never a "big bang" at all; and nearly all modern physicists acknowledge there was something before the "big bang", and also something that caused it.[/HEADING]
Every single thing you can observe, no matter the scale or time you observed it in, obeys a simple fundamental law:
Cause & effect.
The universe we live in is no exception. It is an effect to a cause. Almost every scientist studying the big bang will now agree that it wasn't a "big bang" at all, more of a rapid expansion; and that there was something before our very own universe of which we live in. This is backed by the sheer uniformity of our universe; if it was an explosion it should be messy, but on a clear night no matter where you look there are stars, hinting to a clean, uniform stupidly rapid expansion.
Pre-big bang is not a god in any way, however.
There are 2 popular theories/hypothesis at the moment; and they are:
1: An elastic universe, one that is constantly expanding & contracting; there is some mild evidence to suggest this.
2: A universe that expands and cools; then all matter drifts apart, loses all energy, all mass, any sense of being - until they are just cold, energy-less photons which forget their properties, so to speak. These then balloon into the expansion and slit into a new universe. It has some stronger evidence to favour.
EDIT: I Just recalled my favourite theory (and yes, it is a theory as there is evidence to back it). A lecturer devised a way to like both quantum & classical physics together, the greatest linkage together - it's got hints of speculation & requires rigorous testing before we even start seeing it in papers or in education, but she basically decided something along the lines of linking all matter and energy, the 3rd dimension, into wave form. and it worked. It covered both quantum and macro physics perfectly in every calculation, and allowed her to start making more plausible hypothesis about the pre-big bang.
There are some equally interesting theories almost as popular, but these two are the most popular. It's down to you to decide what one seems most viable until we get CERN over and done with and then we can start looking at pre-"big bang".
What you have suggested, OP, is theism/deism. Saying "if we don't know then maybe it's god" is as bad as giving up like the other theists of the last 2000+ years who hampered human advancements, if it weren't for those rebellious chemist/astrologists & whatnot. If we can't find an answer, we keep looking!
Every single thing you can observe, no matter the scale or time you observed it in, obeys a simple fundamental law:
Cause & effect.
The universe we live in is no exception. It is an effect to a cause. Almost every scientist studying the big bang will now agree that it wasn't a "big bang" at all, more of a rapid expansion; and that there was something before our very own universe of which we live in. This is backed by the sheer uniformity of our universe; if it was an explosion it should be messy, but on a clear night no matter where you look there are stars, hinting to a clean, uniform stupidly rapid expansion.
Pre-big bang is not a god in any way, however.
There are 2 popular theories/hypothesis at the moment; and they are:
1: An elastic universe, one that is constantly expanding & contracting; there is some mild evidence to suggest this.
2: A universe that expands and cools; then all matter drifts apart, loses all energy, all mass, any sense of being - until they are just cold, energy-less photons which forget their properties, so to speak. These then balloon into the expansion and slit into a new universe. It has some stronger evidence to favour.
EDIT: I Just recalled my favourite theory (and yes, it is a theory as there is evidence to back it). A lecturer devised a way to like both quantum & classical physics together, the greatest linkage together - it's got hints of speculation & requires rigorous testing before we even start seeing it in papers or in education, but she basically decided something along the lines of linking all matter and energy, the 3rd dimension, into wave form. and it worked. It covered both quantum and macro physics perfectly in every calculation, and allowed her to start making more plausible hypothesis about the pre-big bang.
There are some equally interesting theories almost as popular, but these two are the most popular. It's down to you to decide what one seems most viable until we get CERN over and done with and then we can start looking at pre-"big bang".
What you have suggested, OP, is theism/deism. Saying "if we don't know then maybe it's god" is as bad as giving up like the other theists of the last 2000+ years who hampered human advancements, if it weren't for those rebellious chemist/astrologists & whatnot. If we can't find an answer, we keep looking!
The problem is you think there is a beginning. Just because we don't know what happened before doesn't make it the beginning. and saying a wizard did it is just a reflexive handwave. There is no way to make a wizard strolling up and making existence anything less than retarded. How the fuck is there a wizard if nothing exists yet? If we're going on the presumption that beginnings exist, the wizard must've had a beginning too, so it comes down to existence just happening for no reason.
Think of religion, both theist arguments and meta-analytical arguments such as atheism and agnosticism, as the answer to an illogical question. Consider what questions religion answers, and you will find that each question makes at least presumption. Any unproven presumption makes the question faulty, and therefore any answer to the question is false, and thus any answer is equally valid. The correct action is rejecting the question entirely. Though, it doesn't really matter if you're right or not. All this religious shit only matters as far as the stuff people do in the name of whatever stupid beliefs they hold.
Think of religion, both theist arguments and meta-analytical arguments such as atheism and agnosticism, as the answer to an illogical question. Consider what questions religion answers, and you will find that each question makes at least presumption. Any unproven presumption makes the question faulty, and therefore any answer to the question is false, and thus any answer is equally valid. The correct action is rejecting the question entirely. Though, it doesn't really matter if you're right or not. All this religious shit only matters as far as the stuff people do in the name of whatever stupid beliefs they hold.
I'll just plonk this down here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_%28cosmogony%29].
Worship Chaos! We're not going to tell you there's some almighty git pulling the strings! We don't make any false promises about what might or might not happen if you do something, but we will guarantee this! If you do something, something else will happen and whenever something does happen the entirety of existence edges closer to perfect chaos. Fun, no?
Best bit is, our religion has actually been scientifically validated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy]
Worship Chaos! We're not going to tell you there's some almighty git pulling the strings! We don't make any false promises about what might or might not happen if you do something, but we will guarantee this! If you do something, something else will happen and whenever something does happen the entirety of existence edges closer to perfect chaos. Fun, no?
Best bit is, our religion has actually been scientifically validated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy]
I have a whole new and very disturbing perspective on Star Wars after reading that.CrazyJew said:
OP; the cause and affect god. Sadly it's the reason the majority of religion exists and the what they all use to justify their belief. "I don't know", damages people's psyche in many different ways. So thus is born the god of gaps! All praise its plot holes! For you shall walketh into its glorious hole and... you know what? I'm going to stop there.
If you want to be a militant atheist with a belief in science then learn the scientific method completely. If something does not fit within this method you, as a militant atheist, must abandon it completely. If you do not wave these things away as 'untestable philosophy' and try and embrace them then you must drop the line 'whom believes in science' from your sense of self.
For those who don't know, here is a quick list of how the scientific method works from wiki itself:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
Take a note at line number four: TEST! This test must also be designed to disprove the theory, not affirm it, as that is the only true way to test when your seeking truth. If you fixate on proving your theory correct, you will over look certain facts and the scientific community will kick you up the arse for it. After all, they are a very skeptical bunch and take a long time to change the thought patterns of.
If it doesn't sit in the scientific method it is NOT science. Religion does not... big bang theory does NOT... lot of the quantum stuff we are just starting to perceive does NOT. None of this stuff should be taught in the science class room, as it is not science. Till we have a way to test for all these things we have to consider them what they really are: Philosophy.
PS: Atheism is NOT scientific, it doesn't hold to the scientific method. I will leave you to get over that little self-existence puzzle.
For those who don't know, here is a quick list of how the scientific method works from wiki itself:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
Take a note at line number four: TEST! This test must also be designed to disprove the theory, not affirm it, as that is the only true way to test when your seeking truth. If you fixate on proving your theory correct, you will over look certain facts and the scientific community will kick you up the arse for it. After all, they are a very skeptical bunch and take a long time to change the thought patterns of.
If it doesn't sit in the scientific method it is NOT science. Religion does not... big bang theory does NOT... lot of the quantum stuff we are just starting to perceive does NOT. None of this stuff should be taught in the science class room, as it is not science. Till we have a way to test for all these things we have to consider them what they really are: Philosophy.
PS: Atheism is NOT scientific, it doesn't hold to the scientific method. I will leave you to get over that little self-existence puzzle.
What.Jinx_Dragon said:
Yes, science is well.. scientific. We provided a hypothesis and then compared what the hypthosis predicted with the data we have gathered. If it correlates, we have evidence towards it being as correct as we can ascertain. Yes, the 'quantum stuff' follows the scientific method.
OT: Atheism is the belief of no gods. You are describing deism.
I have a ton for Saturday Morning Breakdeast Cereal comics on that issue. Since I'm short on time: why would a god create a universe that runs entirely wirhout his doing. I for my grew up as a christian and lost every bit of faith when I got to the age of reason. It makes even less sence if you know the. Ible and when abd why certain parts were written.
Just because we don't know how something started doesn't mean some God had to start it. Even though there is the possibility that a god started the universe, there is absolutely no reason to believe as such. Here is a video that explains it better than I can.
I'm not sure what I am at this point, as I've seen a ridiculous number of explanations of what an atheist/agnostic/etc is.
I have no idea what is out there.
I don't not care in the slightest how the universe was started.
I do not believe that whatever may be out there is anything remotely resembling any man made notion of a "god" or "deity".
I know for a fact that "God" does not exist, because the very idea of it was created by man. This is basic historical fact. Although it is completely reasonable that we would have come to this conclusion at some point in our history of trying to figure things out.
I believe that people who believe in God, or follow a religion, are suffering from some kind of "mental disease". Much like alcoholism. Something that is a result of a combination of genetic predispositions and childhood environment.
I have no idea what is out there.
I don't not care in the slightest how the universe was started.
I do not believe that whatever may be out there is anything remotely resembling any man made notion of a "god" or "deity".
I know for a fact that "God" does not exist, because the very idea of it was created by man. This is basic historical fact. Although it is completely reasonable that we would have come to this conclusion at some point in our history of trying to figure things out.
I believe that people who believe in God, or follow a religion, are suffering from some kind of "mental disease". Much like alcoholism. Something that is a result of a combination of genetic predispositions and childhood environment.
I'm sorry? The Large Hadron Collider is just there to test "philosophy" of quantum "stuff"(as you so eloquently put it)? No-no sir. That's 17 miles of testing apparatus providing dick-slapping evidence via extensive testing. You have no idea what you're talking about.Jinx_Dragon said:
And the cosmological model for the Big Bang is extremely well-tested(http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence) and constantly evolving as knew evidence emerges, like a proper scientific model. Apparently you forgot the rinse-and-repeat part of the scientific method, where testing is continued, while you were busy preaching about it.
Where are you getting your information from?
While I don't think that such a being would have to be omnipresent or govern this planet, there is no proof that it is not, so you cannot say "He does not govern this planet, he is not omnipresent". Likewise, you cannot say that this "god's only contribution to the universe is the universe itself. Also, arguments that say that certain things in theories such as this are more "probable" than others are simply illogical. Either it knows about the milky way or it doesn't, there is no probability. What do you base the probability of a being who we do not know exists, who may or may not be omnipresent and may or may not govern our planet knowing that the milky way exists on?Robert Ewing said:
