Atheists, do you really believe there is no god?

  • 99 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by sonicare (53432 posts) -

I'm not the best writer, so I will try to explain. I don't mean believing in one of the gods of the organized religions. I mean anything. Some organized force or energy, behind the universe. It's just hard to accept that everything came about just randomly. That all these laws of the universe and space-time, so orderly, just came out of chaos. I'd have no idea what this force would be about, but maybe there is something out there. I often think about the beginning of the universe, before time started, when the laws that govern what we know didnt exist. Where did all that matter that caused the big bang originate from? That kind of stuff.

This isnt an anti religion or anti atheist thread. Just curious what a lot of scientific minds think about this stuff.

#2 Posted by deeliman (2221 posts) -

Of course, I can never say with 100% certainty that there is no 'god'. Just like I can't say with 100% certainty that leprechauns don't exist. Personally, I believe that the idea that an all powerful being created this universe is both a simplistic answer and illogical.

#4 Posted by sonicare (53432 posts) -

@deeliman: I dont mean a god like in the organized religions, though. Something different.

#5 Edited by toast_burner (21121 posts) -

Do theists really believe in god?

#6 Posted by thegerg (14344 posts) -
#7 Posted by toast_burner (21121 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@toast_burner: Yes. That is what defines a theist.

So if it's so easy to understand that theists believe in god, why it hard to understand that atheists don't?

#8 Posted by sonicare (53432 posts) -

@toast_burner: Again, I dont mean the christian god or one of those other religions. How do you think everything started? Where did all the matter in the universe come from? What existed before time? That kind of stuff.

#9 Edited by TheFlush (5412 posts) -

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.
There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.
Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

#10 Posted by toast_burner (21121 posts) -

@sonicare said:

@toast_burner: Again, I dont mean the christian god or one of those other religions. How do you think everything started? Where did all the matter in the universe come from? What existed before time? That kind of stuff.

Something that isn't god? It's not that hard to understand.

#11 Posted by thegerg (14344 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@toast_burner: Yes. That is what defines a theist.

So if it's so easy to understand that theists believe in god, why it hard to understand that atheists don't?

I don't know. Keep in mind, though, that this thread isn't about atheists not believing there is a god, it's about atheists believing that there is not a god. Those are two very different things.

#12 Posted by WAJ (725 posts) -

No I do not believe in god or anything "supernatural", at all, since there is no evidence that anything even remotely like that exists...

#13 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

#14 Posted by toast_burner (21121 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

I never understood this argument. It's nothing more than wishful thinking.

#15 Posted by Lone_Wolf_Lance (121 posts) -

I won't believe in any superior being or force until its existence will be proven.

#16 Edited by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

So you're saying life can't possibly come from super-subatomic cells, or some unknown DNA ancestry gene, but only something all knowing?

Sounds like you're using God as a way to "fill" an empty part of your life, or to justify questions you can't comprehend the answers to.

#17 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

I never understood this argument. It's nothing more than wishful thinking.

The point I'm trying to make here is not the factual necessity of the absolute assertion of the existence of a God no. What I'm getting at is if you believe in the possibility of the existence of any force or entity behind the universe, how can you deny its sentience and omnipotence and instead choose to define it or portray it as vague, unaware of itself and its creation, and non-sovereign.

#18 Posted by toast_burner (21121 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

I never understood this argument. It's nothing more than wishful thinking.

The point I'm trying to make here is not the factual necessity of the absolute assertion of the existence of a God no. What I'm getting at is if you believe in the possibility of the existence of any force or entity behind the universe, how can you deny its sentience and omnipotence and instead choose to define it or portray it as vague, unaware of itself and its creation, and non-sovereign.

Because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the universe was created by a sentient being.

#19 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@toast_burner said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

I never understood this argument. It's nothing more than wishful thinking.

The point I'm trying to make here is not the factual necessity of the absolute assertion of the existence of a God no. What I'm getting at is if you believe in the possibility of the existence of any force or entity behind the universe, how can you deny its sentience and omnipotence and instead choose to define it or portray it as vague, unaware of itself and its creation, and non-sovereign.

Because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the universe was created by a sentient being.

ok

#20 Posted by deeliman (2221 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

#21 Posted by foxhound_fox (86821 posts) -

No, but I do not try to explain away an absence in knowledge with a conveniently easy out.

#22 Edited by Tqricardinho (340 posts) -

I believe in a superior being, but I am not religious whatsoever.

#23 Edited by TheFlush (5412 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order.

Ehm no it isn't.

#24 Edited by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@TheFlush said:

@GazaAli said:

The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order.

Ehm no it isn't.

oh rly

#25 Posted by TheFlush (5412 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

@GazaAli said:

The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order.

Ehm no it isn't.

oh rly

yes.

#26 Edited by foxhound_fox (86821 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Why can it not be random? Why must we presume "harmony, balance and order" where there is evidence to suggest otherwise? Quantum physics is opening a lot of doors that suggest there is no harmony, balance or order at all. There is even a hypothesis that says the big bang was caused by a random quantum event (quantum vacuum fluctuation) that happened for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Once we can come to terms with the fact there is no special, overarching purpose of humanity, or life, we can start living it in the moment, and taking advantage of the especially wonderful, and rare opportunity of life.

#27 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

My post is not attempting to be an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God or the God of any of the organized religions. It is merely trying to show what I perceive as irrational to believe in the existence of a creating force/entity that is behind the universe and everything else then the proceeding to make the claim that it is not sentient and omnipotent and everything that goes with it (all controlling, seeing, knowing, hearing..etc).

If I show you a work of great sophistication and complexity and we both agreed on the notion that it has a creator, what would be the more rational and plausible profile of that creator? That is what I'm trying to validate here.

#28 Posted by deeliman (2221 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@deeliman said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

My post is not attempting to be an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God or the God of any of the organized religions. It is merely trying to show what I perceive as irrational to believe in the existence of a creating force/entity that is behind the universe and everything else then the proceeding to make the claim that it is not sentient and omnipotent and everything that goes with it (all controlling, seeing, knowing, hearing..etc).

If I show you a work of great sophistication and complexity and we both agreed on the notion that it has a creator, what would be the more rational and plausible profile of that creator? That is what I'm trying to validate here.

It seems that I misunderstood your argument.

#29 Edited by TheFlush (5412 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@deeliman said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

My post is not attempting to be an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God or the God of any of the organized religions. It is merely trying to show what I perceive as irrational to believe in the existence of a creating force/entity that is behind the universe and everything else then the proceeding to make the claim that it is not sentient and omnipotent and everything that goes with it (all controlling, seeing, knowing, hearing..etc).

If I show you a work of great sophistication and complexity and we both agreed on the notion that it has a creator, what would be the more rational and plausible profile of that creator? That is what I'm trying to validate here.

All the things in nature that we know of have natural causes which can be explained through science. There is nothing sentient or conscious about them. I'm not saying that there can't possibly be a creator, but the evidence that we have right now for everything in nature doesn't point into that direction. So unless proven otherwise, I'm not buying it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Furthermore about the 'work of great sophistication and complexity', that's the watchmaker analogy, it has been debunked already.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

#30 Posted by tocool340 (20411 posts) -

I think, if there REALLY is a God, its nothing like anything described in any religious text. Like I said in another thread, I think the game Mass effect gives a good enough explanation (but certainly NOT PERFECT) when one guy in the game says "A god — a real god — is a verb. Not some old man with magic powers. It's a force. It warps reality just by being there. It doesn't have to want to. It doesn't have to think about it. It just does.". There's probably a few things that can somewhat fall in that description, but if I'm REALLY forced to choose, I'd say the sun would make a good name placeholder for "God" considering the role it play's here for Earth. That's not saying I will get on both knee's and worship the Sol, I'm just acknowledging its importance...

#31 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12641 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

@GazaAli said:

The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order.

Ehm no it isn't.

oh rly

What gives it apparent order is that...duh...if this reaction takes place with these elements here then wherever these elements appear in like density and environment they're going to have the same reaction.

So you get hydrogen forming stars wherever hydrogen exists in the necessary amounts. Then the stars likewise follow a similar pattern of development, interaction with each other and their environs, etc.

#32 Posted by KHAndAnime (13137 posts) -

@sonicare said:

It's just hard to accept that everything came about just randomly.

The random and the unknown is infinitely easier to accept than a benevolent omnipotent be-all end-all force that runs everything. The latter sounds more and more stupid the longer you're alive.

#33 Posted by chrisrooR (9026 posts) -

No. Whatever all of this is, we're all an inextricable part of it. Call it what you want, it doesn't need to be defined.

#34 Edited by Riverwolf007 (23387 posts) -

i don't know or really care all that much but it seems to me that if the universe was supernatural in origin that there would be evidence of supernatural events taking place and there is none.

i just can't believe in magic and demons and angels and talking donkeys and 900 year old men and the whole schtick when there is zero evidence of any supernatural event ever taking place.

also i don't get the bible at all.

you worship the guy that kills everyone and hate the guy that is about personal liberty?

wtf is up with that major plothole?

it looks like a case of the winner writing the history book to me.

#35 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7691 posts) -

In an anthropomorphic god? No.

If we're just referring to some sort of cause or force? Well I don't think I would classify that as a god or anything. When I think of something to be 'god' like it usually has some sentience to it.

#36 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7691 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

#37 Posted by s_h_a_d_o (1266 posts) -

As an agnostic, I take it this topic is not addressed to me.

#38 Posted by thegerg (14344 posts) -

@s_h_a_d_o: Are you atheist? Whether or not you're agnostic has nothing to do with the question.

#39 Posted by Netret0120 (1886 posts) -

This topic will end badly.

#40 Edited by theone86 (20555 posts) -

@sonicare said:

I'm not the best writer, so I will try to explain. I don't mean believing in one of the gods of the organized religions. I mean anything. Some organized force or energy, behind the universe. It's just hard to accept that everything came about just randomly. That all these laws of the universe and space-time, so orderly, just came out of chaos. I'd have no idea what this force would be about, but maybe there is something out there. I often think about the beginning of the universe, before time started, when the laws that govern what we know didnt exist. Where did all that matter that caused the big bang originate from? That kind of stuff.

This isnt an anti religion or anti atheist thread. Just curious what a lot of scientific minds think about this stuff.

Well, I don't find that hard to believe. I think it's hard to believe because our minds process the universe in an ordered fashion, which makes it hard for us to grasp the more random aspects (god not rolling dice is an example of this sort of thinking). As to the question, I believe that there is no god insofar as our mode of acquiring knowledge tells us there is no god. I completely acknowledge the possibility lack our mode of acquiring knowledge is lacking in this respect, but I don't really believe that possible knowledge that lies beyond our current capability of comprehension is of any consequence to us.

As to the beginning of the universe, it's a riddle to be sure. Currently I just defer to the Dao De Jing, "being and non-being create each other." Our universe is predicated on certain deterministic laws that didn't apply before the big bang, but I wonder if there isn't some other set of deterministic rules that applied then and necessitated the formation of temporal existence. Or perhaps it was simply random, somewhat like quantum physics and evolutionary mutation, or perhaps some combination of the two. I find it fascinating to think about, but ultimately I have to take a break from it. I think it might be something that our comprehension just isn't equipped to deal with.

#41 Posted by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

#42 Posted by deeliman (2221 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Not if you look at quantum mechanics.

#43 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7691 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that our universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

#44 Posted by deeliman (2221 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that are universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

That would actually be very plausible should those other universes exist, seeing as only a very small percentage of this universe is suited for life.

#45 Edited by theone86 (20555 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@deeliman said:

@GazaAli said:

@TheFlush said:

I don't believe there is an all knowing, all controlling, sentient, thinking something no.

There's probably some natural force behind all this, but I don't believe it has the specifics to define it as god.

Let alone one of the many religions here on this insignificant planet.

What is the rationale behind this? The universe is clearly a work of absolute harmony, balance and order. The complexity and sophistication of the laws that govern all that exists are of astronomical magnitude. Concepts like space, time, organic life, chemistry, physics, mathematics and practically every concept or notion behind anything that exists whether materially or conceptually are of miraculous and phenomenal intuitiveness, cognizance, originality and creativity.

With that said, how can one reach the conclusion or accept the mere possibility that this is not the work of an all controlling, sentient, thinking being but instead the work of some vague natural force; an argument which I think is meant to reject and deny the argument of the existence of a sentient God that is aware of us all and is all seeing, hearing and knowing of all that ever existed and will ever do.

But you're not answering any of those questions by putting a god in the picture. All you're doing is moving the question. Who/what created that god? And surely that god must be even more complex than the universe itself to be able to do that.

My post is not attempting to be an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God or the God of any of the organized religions. It is merely trying to show what I perceive as irrational to believe in the existence of a creating force/entity that is behind the universe and everything else then the proceeding to make the claim that it is not sentient and omnipotent and everything that goes with it (all controlling, seeing, knowing, hearing..etc).

If I show you a work of great sophistication and complexity and we both agreed on the notion that it has a creator, what would be the more rational and plausible profile of that creator? That is what I'm trying to validate here.

I don't see why it has to be sentient, I think it's anthropomorphic thinking to posit that it has to be.

I see religion generally as a tool we've used to cope with our surroundings and understand our place in the universe. When we couldn't understand why the sun rose and set we said it was beings like us that caused it, only more powerful. When we started to better understand the universe we lost the need for such superstition, but we still didn't understand why the universe existed or why we existed. Now we're better understanding those things and losing the need for a bit more religious superstition. The idea that something that caused the universe had to be sentient, i.e. like us, is just a holdover from a time when we were the only rational sentient beings, and therefore posited that anything more powerful than us was like us, only more powerful.

#46 Posted by foxhound_fox (86821 posts) -

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that our universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

And wouldn't the idea of "order" and "harmony" suggest an equilibrium and perhaps a static, unchanging state? The opposite to what the universe actually is?

#47 Edited by foxhound_fox (86821 posts) -

@theone86 said:

Well, I don't find that hard to believe. I think it's hard to believe because our minds process the universe in an ordered fashion, which makes it hard for us to grasp the more random aspects (god not rolling dice is an example of this sort of thinking). As to the question, I believe that there is no god insofar as our mode of acquiring knowledge tells us there is no god. I completely acknowledge the possibility lack our mode of acquiring knowledge is lacking in this respect, but I don't really believe that possible knowledge that lies beyond our current capability of comprehension is of any consequence to us.

As to the beginning of the universe, it's a riddle to be sure. Currently I just defer to the Dao De Jing, "being and non-being create each other." Our universe is predicated on certain deterministic laws that didn't apply before the big bang, but I wonder if there isn't some other set of deterministic rules that applied then and necessitated the formation of temporal existence. Or perhaps it was simply random, somewhat like quantum physics and evolutionary mutation, or perhaps some combination of the two. I find it fascinating to think about, but ultimately I have to take a break from it. I think it might be something that our comprehension just isn't equipped to deal with.

I've been trying and trying to upload a gif of applause and Glitchspot is rearing it's ugly head... so I'll just use actual words and say "well said" and give you an *applause*

#48 Edited by Celldrax (14531 posts) -

In a nutshell, I have absolutely zero reason to believe in the existence of an all-powerful cosmic being, but we will also never entirely prove nor disprove such a thing.

Beyond that, I just find it hard to care.

#49 Edited by GazaAli (22491 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Balanced and ordered compared to what? We only have a sample size of 1 when we're comparing universes. How do we know there aren't far more 'ordered' universes out there with difference values and laws?

If we don't have enough knowledge about other universes then we shall stick to the one we know, this universe. This universe's laws and machinations are of considerable and admirable order and balance, aren't they?

What exactly are we discussing here?

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that are universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

We're aware of the concepts of order and balance aren't we? We're aware of them conceptually and cognitively aren't we? We're aware of them in their abstract definitions regardless of context and their application in the physical world. What happens is that we take those concepts and apply them on different contexts in the physical world, in the most general sense of the word physical.

Comparison requires two or more of the same thing while relativity doesn't. The fact that we only know of this universe doesn't stop us from assessing or attempting to assess its degree of order and balance. We need more universes to find out which has more of these attributes or concepts which is something that is irrelevant to this discussion.

#50 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7691 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

Again you're saying its balanced and ordered. How do we measure our universe to be ordered as opposed to chaotic? We don't have anything else to really compare it to.

There could be a possibility that are universe is more chaotic and less tuned to supporting life than countless other universes should they exist.

We're aware of the concepts of order and balance aren't we? We're aware of them conceptually and cognitively aren't we? We're aware of them in their abstract definitions regardless of context and their application in the physical world. What happens is that we take those concepts and apply them on different contexts in the physical world, in the most general sense of the word physical.

Comparison requires two or more of the same thing while relativity doesn't. The fact that we only know of this universe doesn't stop us from assessing or attempting to assess its degree of order and balance. We need more universes to find out which has more of these attributes or concepts which is something that is irrelevant to this discussion.

No, as order would imply that we have something disorderly to compare it to. With a sample size of one, we don't. For example, if we found an ancient skull of an extinct species of dinosaur with no other specimens we couldn't come to the conclusion that it was a large or small member of its species. We could only measure the spacial dimensions and specifications of the skull.

What you're doing is basically invoking the anthropic principle.

By saying its ordered and harmonious you're implying that these laws were designed specifically for humans to come into existence. The problem being with that line of thinking is that you're basically reversing the cause and effect.

Instead of this universe being tuned to house us, its far more likely that we (as in life) adapted to the universe instead.