Question to Atheists:

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: irishScott

No it's not, because the odds of it being that way are 50/50. What are the odds that a Universe such as ours arose randomly?

Let me rephrase a part of what I said:

Imagine a Universe without laws. You said it would simply be a different Universe. No sh!t. One with complete chaos or nothing. If there's some 3rd possibility I'm all ears.

In truth the odds of a universe forming in exactly the right way to produce us would probably be spectacularly against. What you're missing here is that that doesn't really matter to us. The anthropic principle actually takes care of the dilemma quite neatly.

Lets assume that the laws of physics, which are undeniably well tuned to support our existence, were free to vary slightly from universe to universe. This isn't really a good assumption mind you. It's possible that the the laws of physics depend on each other in such a way that they are not free to vary in any universe, but lets assume anyway. It is theorized by some that there may be an infinite number of universes overlapping each other or sitting side-by-side or some other equally 3 dimensional misrepresentation of their relationship. In any case each of these universes have, as we assumed, slightly different laws of physics, so that the vast majority of them are unsuitable for life.

The fact remains that some of them ARE suitable for life. Furthermore, one of those universes is the one where we could and DID develop, and now sit here at our computers debating it. The fact of our statistical improbability only makes us a minority in the infinitude of the multiverse. It does not rule out the possibility of our universe's formation without the help of a deity.

Now this is all pretty far-fetched speculation on my part, but it is a perfectly workable scenario that needs no god to explain how "lucky" we are that the universe works as well as it does. As such it deserves every bit as much consideration as your assertion that everything that you perceive to be "ordered" must have been "put in order" by a deity.

I don't really understand the notion that regresses such as universal laws which depend on other laws which depend on still other laws MUST necessarily terminate with a god. That's like assuming that there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow simply because you can't think of anything else that ought to be there, and cannot consider the possibility that there is nothing there at all.

Edited for clarity.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: ghostman

By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish and not give something without asking for something in return. Yet there are many people throughout history (and even more today) who give with no thought of a reward, save the good feeling that comes from doing something good. And where does that feeling come from praetell? Once again it violates the laws of nature.

I normally don't respond to a religion thread when it has already grown this large, since chances are, what I have to say is usually stated in one form or another. And let's face it, few people are going to make it this far back into the thread.

But I felt compelled to address this particular point because you don't seem to see a flaw in your own reasoning. Your conclusion is that "a God must exist," providing the evidence that "By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish... Yet there are many people... who give with no thought of a reward." However, your evidence is based on an ASSUMPTION that "By all the laws of nature, we should all be ultimately selfish." This is actually a fair assumption; in game theory, a "rational" person is someone who would choose the option that would be of the most benefit to himself. So, one would think, a rational person would never choose an option that will help another person (ex. Prisoner's Dilemma).

In reality, that game is too simple and the "laws of nature" (and not religion) likely defined morality. Through years or death and survival, it became apparent that working in groups increased the likelihood of survival. This is not a surprise, as we witness group activity in primitive animals as well (wolves, lions, fish, bugs). So, a rational person, knowing that survival is better than hoarding a good meal, would now choose the option to benefit the group. For groups to form, the members had to give up some of their "selfishness," knowing that other members had to do the same. Building on that, stealing from within the group or randomly murdering another group member undermines the group structure, so misbehaving members are punished. Depending on how advanced the animals are, we now have a society with the rules strictly defined...

So when you speak of these "people... who give with no thought of a reward," I'd say that they are actually getting a reward. They don't go through all the reasoning as above as it has grown innate to human behavior ("save the good feeling that comes from doing something good"). I volunteer, but not because He tells me to or to get on His good graces; I don't believe in God. I do it for the warm fuzzy feeling, which may ultimately translate to knowing that I'm helping society. Either that, or I'm an irrational being.

For the record, same here.

Still, Touche

I'll stick with my order argument.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Given enough time, something extremely unlikely becomes a certainty.

^ Excellent point - perhaps there are many universes, hardly any of them having the type of laws you speak of, and we just happen to live in one that does.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

While I consider myself more of an agnostic, I can answer your question simply; just because you perceive order does not mean 1) that there is order (people have seen "order" and "patterns" in all sorts of things, such as Nostradamus warnings in the bible and crop circles, and 2) that there has to be some sort of higher being behind it (as people have pointed out, there's alternate explanations such as probability).

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: irishScott
I'm not talking about life, I'm talking about the presence of order in the Universe. Whether that order allows for life or not is irrelevant.

In that sense, there is "order" because we say so. Even then, it isn't always orderly. Why do black holes do what they do? Our conventional laws of physics break down there - things in black holes become quite "disorderly."

It's a "tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it" matter. Does it make a sound? A sound in this sense implies that some consciousness is there to perceive it. Sure, it will cause air molecules all around it to vibrate, but was it a "sound" if no one was there to hear it?

The Universe has "order" because we say it does. We see patterns and call it "order." It would continue to do those things with or without our presence. Why does it do those things? It's still similar to the tree falling. Why does it cause air molecules to vibrate? It just does. That's simply what happens when it falls - it displaces air molecules, and they pass the energy on in the form of a wave.
Why does hydrogen fuse into helium at the center of a star? It just does. It's a sort of side effect of the nature of matter. The Universe is just so damned big that we have difficulty fathoming something so large acting without something directing it.

 

[johnjbruin]

I am not atheist.
Just agnostic.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I call myself an Atheist because I want to follow logic and reason. I don't believe in God because I believe it was a man made idea that was made to be able to explain things they can't explain and as way to feel better about death.

As Said by other posters. The Anthropic Principle neatly takes care of most question raised about life and the Universe.

If the Universe didn't allow for life, nobody would be here to Observe that it didn't.

We exist because we are able to observe that the universe allows for us to exist. And if it didn't nobody would care, because, nobody exists.

Simple as That.

Laws of Probability also govern our world. If you roll a dice with a billion sides several trillion times, you are bound to get that side one day.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Well I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no god. That would be stupid.

There is also the possibility of multiple universes so saying there must be a god because OUR universe is so ordered doesn't hold up as well under that theory. Even barring that it doesn't seem logical to explain one improbability with another one. I never understood how people say there must be something that created the universe but give no explanation for the creation of a god. That one baffles the hell out of me.

I'm not saying for certain there is no god. But to me it seems highly unlikely.

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: johnjbruin
I am not atheist.
Just agnostic.

Do you believe a supreme being exists?

 

[EKKC]

if there was a god there wouldn't be suffering.
yet only weak and/or suffering people tend to believe in god more than those who are not.

/thread

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: EKKC
if there was a god there wouldn't be suffering.
yet only weak and/or suffering people tend to believe in god more than those who are not.

/thread

Why would the existence of a God remove suffering?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: EKKC
if there was a god there wouldn't be suffering.
yet only weak and/or suffering people tend to believe in god more than those who are not.

/thread

Why would the existence of a God remove suffering?

The Logic Goes Like this

God is an Omnipotent Being (Well thats what every makes him out to be)
God is Good
All Good people want to End suffering
Omnipotent Beings have Unlimited Power
Unlimited Power means you can anything you want
God Ends Suffering and pain because he has unlimited Power


I'm probably over writing it though

 

[RedArmy]

Awesome, another religion thread. I guess bumping an old one is just too much work nowadays

/wrists

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
The Logic Goes Like this

God is an Omnipotent Being (Well thats what every makes him out to be)
God is Good
All Good people want to End suffering
Omnipotent Beings have Unlimited Power
Unlimited Power means you can anything you want
God Ends Suffering and pain because he has unlimited Power


I'm probably over writing it though

Yes, all good people want suffering to end, but not necessarily to have it never exist. I can't imagine anyone who could realistically say that nothing good comes of suffering. I'm not sure it's as bad as Schopenhauer made it out to be, but suffering can be a very good thing. People grow stronger physically and mentally through suffering, though obviously the suffering must end at some time. This being the case, the existence of suffering and the idea that it will eventually end show would prove, rather than disprove, the existence of a God.

 

[illustri]

in studying medicine i find it hard to believe our biology was in any way designed by a rational intelligence

as far as our bodies can provide example, the universe is actually NOT complex, at its core its is simplified, low entropy, and highly compressed

 

[AnitaPeterson]

I will reply with what's possibly the best quote on the subject... the response given by the illustrious astronomer Laplace to Emperor Napoleon, who asked him a similar question:

"I had no need of that [God] hypothesis."

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Conky
What I've never understood about atheists is that they simply hate that others have any belief besides theirs.

Why do they care about making everyone atheists too if they are certain that God doesn't exist? I'm a Christian and could care less if others believe in God or not but Atheists are not happy unless they can ridicule and belittle others who don't share their belief system.

A real atheist would not care if others believed in God or not. People who insist that others must not believe in God suck worse than any biblethumper I've ever seen.

It wasn't until recently that a person could honestly admit to being an atheist without suffering serious backlash from the religious majority. Even now its still a difficult thing for many people as a recent poll found that atheists were the most distrusted group in the US.

But now things are changing and finally more & more atheists are starting to 'come out of the closet' and stand up for themselves. Some of them go a little overboard because they are frankly pissed off at having religion forced down their throat and being hated for not believing.

So a lot of these atheists are speaking up for themselves and it makes some religious types upset. But don't mistake the rejection of religious proselytism as atheist proselytism. Most atheists just want to be left alone but they are tired of having religion thrown in their face. When was the last time an atheist came to your door with pamphlets and a copy of Dawkins latest book? Religious people go door to door in my neighbor hood several times a year.

Deal with it and do what atheists have always had to do with theists... grow a thick skin and ignore those who can't just live and let live.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp
The list of things that were once unexplained and attributed to "God" is so long, that people should really stop attributing the unexplained to the supernatural.

I'm not talking about the fact that some woman awoke from a coma or that a gun goes "boom". I'm talking the nature of the Universe here.

That's not what I am talking about either. But plagues, famines, earthquakes, volcanoes, motion of the planets, etc were all once attributed to gods only to be supplanted by a natural explanation. So I would be careful of saying anything can only be explained by the presence of a deity simply because it hasn't been scientifically explained yet.

Once again, all of those primitive comprehensions were based on the behavior of the phenomena, not the presence of order within and around them.

Once science can explain the presence of order in our Universe, and why it's laws are what they are, and how that can come out of a non-being, I'll drop the existence of a supreme being.

This is why I dropped the existence of a supreme being. Science hasn't explained it, but I believe that when (hopefully) eventually it does get explained (even if not in my lifetime), the explanation won't be a supreme being.
I've made the assumption and I have faith that science will eventually explain things, rather than assuming god(s) exist for now, with a view to renouncing my belief later if/when science explains things.

Also, isn't your faith a little weak if you believe there is the possibility that science may come up with an explanation?
You seem to be an "oh, I'll believe in God because I think it explains things better than any other current idea" kind of religious person, which IMO is a pretty archaic way to think.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

who says the universe has order? thats just mans interpretation. it could be so out of order that it is in fact in order.... so many ways to look at things.

personally i believe in chance...

of all the different galaxy's and ****** out there, just by chance theres gonna be one where everything falls just right, and if i may say so, theres chance that theres more than one galaxy out there where everything fell just right.

its like the lottery.... you dont just get one lottery winner, usually theres a handful of people, maybe only one won the jackpot but the others won a nice chunk of cash too.

anyway i dont believe in any god, having heard countless different storys about gods, and jesus and bible and moses etc etc... i reckon all this religion stuff was just that times form of entertainment and motivation. you know, give people reason to be alive.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Yes, all good people want suffering to end, but not necessarily to have it never exist. I can't imagine anyone who could realistically say that nothing good comes of suffering. I'm not sure it's as bad as Schopenhauer made it out to be, but suffering can be a very good thing. People grow stronger physically and mentally through suffering, though obviously the suffering must end at some time. This being the case, the existence of suffering and the idea that it will eventually end show would prove, rather than disprove, the existence of a God.

Have fun with cancer. I hear it's a real pleasant experience.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Yes, all good people want suffering to end, but not necessarily to have it never exist. I can't imagine anyone who could realistically say that nothing good comes of suffering. I'm not sure it's as bad as Schopenhauer made it out to be, but suffering can be a very good thing. People grow stronger physically and mentally through suffering, though obviously the suffering must end at some time. This being the case, the existence of suffering and the idea that it will eventually end show would prove, rather than disprove, the existence of a God.

Have fun with cancer. I hear it's a real pleasant experience.

according to the bible, jesus suffering helped free man from his sins or some such BS.

suffering isnt nice no, but you cant escape it. but its because of suffering that things advance.... the human race advances (engineering, medicine etc) to help remove suffering.

they'll never completely remove suffering, but the good part is that we'll never stop advancing.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Yes, all good people want suffering to end, but not necessarily to have it never exist. I can't imagine anyone who could realistically say that nothing good comes of suffering. I'm not sure it's as bad as Schopenhauer made it out to be, but suffering can be a very good thing. People grow stronger physically and mentally through suffering, though obviously the suffering must end at some time. This being the case, the existence of suffering and the idea that it will eventually end show would prove, rather than disprove, the existence of a God.

So why'd we get all pissed off at Hitler and Stalin? They built character in millions of people before ending that sufferring by sending them away from this planet of sufferring, into a gloriously wonderful afterlife. By that reasoning, shouldn't they be hailed as heroes?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: senseamp
The list of things that were once unexplained and attributed to "God" is so long, that people should really stop attributing the unexplained to the supernatural.

I'm not talking about the fact that some woman awoke from a coma or that a gun goes "boom". I'm talking the nature of the Universe here.

That's not what I am talking about either. But plagues, famines, earthquakes, volcanoes, motion of the planets, etc were all once attributed to gods only to be supplanted by a natural explanation. So I would be careful of saying anything can only be explained by the presence of a deity simply because it hasn't been scientifically explained yet.

Once again, all of those primitive comprehensions were based on the behavior of the phenomena, not the presence of order within and around them.

Once science can explain the presence of order in our Universe, and why it's laws are what they are, and how that can come out of a non-being, I'll drop the existence of a supreme being.

Not very long ago Human?s worshiped to gods of the Sun, Moon, fancy gods that threw lightning bolts etc? At the time, man could not explain what that big ball of fire in the sky was or why it came up every day and moved across the sky. So man made up a god to explain the unexplainable.

This has happened time and time again throughout our short history. Eventually, science does explain away the so called gods. We now have a pretty good idea of how the sun works and why it appears to move across the sky every day. Can you with confidence say that humans are not simply doing what has been done in the past, making up gods (or a God) to explain the currently unexplainable?

Its no coincidence that some religions are against science. Their Holy Books explain the unexplainable. As science starts to discover answers or develop very plausible theories to those questions it undermines the religions teachings. Point in case: The attack on evolution by certain religions. This is not a new thing for religions to do either. Astronomers where persecuted by the Catholic Church because they, through scientific measures, came up with theories that went against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Little things like the Earth is round, or that the Earth is not the center of the universe, or the Earth revolves around the sun etc?

 

[KCfromNC]

Originally posted by: irishScott
I'm not talking about life, I'm talking about the presence of order in the Universe. Whether that order allows for life or not is irrelevant.

It's relevant since if life didn't exist, you wouldn't be here making your claims of how unlikely the order in the universe is. Your whole argument rests on how unlikely an ordered universe is, but really, how unlikely is it for life which depends on a certain amount of order to observe an universe with that level of order?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Yes, all good people want suffering to end, but not necessarily to have it never exist. I can't imagine anyone who could realistically say that nothing good comes of suffering. I'm not sure it's as bad as Schopenhauer made it out to be, but suffering can be a very good thing. People grow stronger physically and mentally through suffering, though obviously the suffering must end at some time. This being the case, the existence of suffering and the idea that it will eventually end show would prove, rather than disprove, the existence of a God.

Have fun with cancer. I hear it's a real pleasant experience.

I don't recall ever using the word 'pleasant'. However, having known many people who have lived through cancer and many who have not, I have seen both sides. Most view the experience as sad, but as one of the biggest growing experiences of their life. Some have a hard time looking at it that way and understandably so. But tell me, you mock my explanation, so let's see how you answer this. Cancer exist and God doesn't, therefore people just die and others can do nothing but morn. Or, cancer exist and God does, therefore the person can find solace in the fact that they'll see that person again some day. Which one do you think is more conducive to someone being able to grow from the experience? Think what you want to think, but the fact that suffering exist is all the more reason to believe there is a God, IMO.