Atheists: Account for existence

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think any answer to this question could ever be justified, given any conceivable evidence, or has Hawking fooled us into embarking on a wild goose chase?

Sure. If some logician provides a sound proof that the universe is necessary, then that would be sufficient. I can't imagine any empirical evidence that would answer this question. If the principle of sufficient reason is false, then there may be no satisfactory answer to this question (other than the obvious "it just exists"😉.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Because one feels a need to account for everything else about the universe.

For "a thing" to happen there must be time for it to happen, right? Well, 'before' the Big Bang, 'before' didn't exist. No time. Nothing. Nada, zilcho. There wasn't anything, not even time. At the Big Bang, the rules of the universe that currently exist, didn't. Everything was formed in that instant, even time. The problem with this, is that we say "but what happened before that?" Well, that's an invalid question. Before didn't exist. Nothing did. We cannot imagine it, because all the language and experience that we have is of things happenning through time. You may as well ask the question "why is blue?"

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you have a response to this: Does the existence of things constitute at least partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?

It may be evidence in some sense, but it is not evidence that supports theism over rival answers like the one I gave above.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you have a response to this: Does the existence of things constitute at least partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?

And what created the creator? And if the creator has no creator, but just came into existance, why couldn't that just be true of the universe?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
If I say that the Big Bang caused the universe then there is the question, what caused the Big Bang? That question can't be answered until the makeup of the material involved in the Big Bang are known. For all we know time may not have existed prior to the Big Bang making the concept of existance before it unanswerable. And if time did exist before the Big ...[text shortened]... question at the base as a starting point.

Why waste time trying to answer the unanswerable?

I'm not convinced that it is unanswerable to any degree greater than other scientific questions.

Why do apples fall? Gravity. Sure, that's not the final, ultimate answer, as it rests on the endless series you refer to, but it doesn't make the formulation of gravity as an explanation a futile exercise.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

Atheists, how do you answer Hawking? Why is there something rather than nothing?

Dr. Scribbles, with the benefit of almost two pages of response, I will nonetheless predict that the resounding answer will be:

There is no meaning.

To respond in any other fashion would contradict any and all models the atheist offers, regardless of the consequences that such an answer engenders or necessitates.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Dr. Scribbles, with the benefit of almost two pages of response, I will nonetheless predict that the resounding answer will be:

There is no meaning.

To respond in any other fashion would contradict any and all models the atheist offers, regardless of the consequences that such an answer engenders or necessitates.

I'm not asking for meaning.

Gravity accounts for apples falling without suggesting a meaning for their falling.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

Atheists, how do you answer Hawking? Why is there something rather than nothing?

I know how theists answer the question. They postulate a creator, and even go so far as to postulate his motives for bringing things into existence. ...[text shortened]... ast partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?

Is an "I don't know right now, and I likely never will though I'm interested" sufficient?

Originally posted by telerion
Is an "I don't know right now, and I likely never will though I'm interested" sufficient?

Only if it breathes fire.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Only if it breathes fire.

Well, I don't know about fire, but it certainly keeps the mystery alive.

Originally posted by bbarr
The universe is a necessary existent.

The Universe as we know it? Or any universe at all?

EDIT: Are protons, electrons etc. necessary or contingent? Matter/Energy? Stars and galaxies? Planets? The Solar System?

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I don't think any answer to this question is justified, so I don't have a belief about what (if anything) brought the universe into existence. I'm just giving you an answer that has all the virtues of the theistic answer without the commitment to an extra entity.

Actually, it doesn't appear to have all the "virtues" of the theistic answer. The theistic answer begins with the common experience that material beings are contingent. We needn't have existed. The earth, Solar System, galaxies etc. needn't have existed. The Big Bang needn't have occurred. The laws of physics could've been otherwise. In all of these cases, we know that alternates are logically possible.

That's why I asked what you meant by the "Universe" being a necessary existent.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why should one feel any need to account for it? As Xanthos says 'it just is', and it is certainly a logical jump too far to posit an external creation force.

But to say something like this is to be very unscientific! The basis of science is to find causes for things and account for why things are. It seems then quite logical to ask in a religious sense or scientific sense. Why? How? From where? Since everything else we know of has a cause of some sort, can you explain why it is a logical jump too far to take it one simple step further and posit an external creation force? If you don't feel any need to account for it , where is your sense of curiosity or mystery?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And what created the creator? And if the creator has no creator, but just came into existance, why couldn't that just be true of the universe?

You have misunderstood the nature of the creator that theists are suggesting. The creator did not 'just come into existence' because that would suggest a 'beginning' of sorts. The creator has no beginning (ie there never was a 'time' that God didn't exist) and no end. Probability suggests that the universe has a beginning and an end since the stuff it is made of is known to decay and we already have evidence of entropy and the big bang. If you were a betting man assessing the scientific evidence on the physical universe you wouldn't put your money on it being eternal.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I know how theists answer the question. They postulate a creator, and even go so far as to postulate his motives for bringing things into existence. I'm curious about how atheists answer the same question

I don't think we need to cover the old "Well, the theists are just moving the target. How do they account for the existence of God?" ground, ...[text shortened]... u to justify your view, or support a claim that it's superior to the that of the theists.

First you make some debatable statements about Theists then tell us not to discuss it? You imply that Theists have an answer when we all know perfectly well that they dont!

I guess I'm asking you to shift the target in the same way that the theists do. In what manner do you shift it?
Why should anyone 'shift the target'. It achieves nothing and does not answer the question.

Do you think protons and the like simply exist, much as the theists claim that God simply exists?
protons and the like are not the universe. The universe is a set of rules and a cirtain amount of energy (which may vary, I dont know) and the existance of protones and the like is merely a product of that.

Atheists claim that there is insufficient evidence for belief in a creator. Does the existence of things constitute at least partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?
No, existence does not constitute evidence, even partial evidence, for a creator.

Even if there are other 'universes' or existances, even if our 'universe' sprang or was created by some other 'universe' or 'existance' or 'being' or God, knowledge of that does not in any way answer the question of why the universe exists as all it does is move the target.

So the answer is simple, there is no answer.