Atheists: Account for existence

Originally posted by Halitose
Originally posted by DS
[b]Why is there something rather than nothing?

Originally posted by LemonJello
?

This is just about the best answer the atheist has to offer to that question.[/b]

Assuming there's a God, why is there a God instead of no God?

Originally posted by Halitose
Originally posted by DS
[b]Why is there something rather than nothing?

Originally posted by LemonJello
?

This is just about the best answer the atheist has to offer to that question.[/b]

Yeah, the theistic 'answers' are, like, way cooler, dude.

Your selective referencing of my post demonstrates my point for me: many (theist or atheist, it doesn't matter) are so inundated with the personal need for so-called 'answers' to this question that they are willing to sweep their epistemic obligations under the proverbial rug. I would rather merely speculate (and reference it as such) than systematically delude myself. If you have an 'answer' to this question that has the virtue of being ostensibly compatible with your observations and beliefs about the world, then consider yourself one of the many.

Originally posted by knightmeister
First of all let's get this one straight. I don't remember saying I could prove God in any of this. I am trying to demonstrate that the idea of an 'eternal creation force' is just as rational , if not more so, than any other hypothesis. You are right to say that we don't know and can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster created life. It is also ...[text shortened]... wer which is more than could be said for the flying spaghetti monster.

The only knowledge we have is from our natural universe. Never once have we been able to authenticate a natural effect as having a supernatural cause. It is never rational to resort to supernatural explanations for natural effects. Never.

Even if we can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow, we know that it is extremely probable that it will do so. We have observed the sun every day of our lives. It has been demonstrated, very reliably, to rise every day. This is the complete opposite of using a god to explain something, since no one can demonstrate that god even exists.

If the universe had an original cause (which is debatable) then it was a natural cause. There is no reason to infer a supernatural one. Claiming that god caused the universe raises far more questions that it solves. If god can be said to be eternal, then so can the universe. You don't need a god to explain away the hard problems you can't figure out.

Originally posted by knightmeister
First of all let's get this one straight. I don't remember saying I could prove God in any of this. I am trying to demonstrate that the idea of an 'eternal creation force' is just as rational , if not more so, than any other hypothesis. You are right to say that we don't know and can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster created life. It is also ...[text shortened]... wer which is more than could be said for the flying spaghetti monster.

as rwingett points out you could substitute the word "universe" for the word "god" in your discourse and it'd largely make (more) sense. (and more science)

Originally posted by Halitose
Originally posted by DS
[b]Why is there something rather than nothing?

Originally posted by LemonJello
?

This is just about the best answer the atheist has to offer to that question.[/b]

It's the only justified answer anybody has to this question. So, in that regard, it is the best.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah, the theistic 'answers' are, like, way cooler, dude.

Your selective referencing of my post demonstrates my point for me: many (theist or atheist, it doesn't matter) are so inundated with the personal need for so-called 'answers' to this question that they are willing to sweep their epistemic obligations under the proverbial rug. I would rather me ...[text shortened]... th your observations and beliefs about the world, then consider yourself one of the many.

Your selective referencing of my post

Demanding justification for any form of trust and belief must make you the most boring and untrusting individual around. Assuming you are/get married, will it take 20 years of 24-hour camera surveillance of your wife to justify a belief that she won’t cheat on you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I am trying to demonstrate that the idea of an 'eternal creation force' is just as rational , if not more so, than any other hypothesis.

The meanings of the words 'eternal', 'creation' and 'force' are all very specifically related to both time and space and would have no meaning outside the universe. Therefore your idea of an 'eternal creation force' is totally irrational.

The only knowledge we have at all is from our own universe so the only rational thing we can do is extrapolate from this on what might be likely to be the ultimate reality of all life itself.
Where does life come into it all of a sudden? Life has nothing to do with the question being asked.

If we do this then it seems rational to assume some kind of cause to life since it's this process that has lead us up to the point of discovering what we know so far.
No it is irrational.

The buck either stops with something coming out of nothing or something that doesn't come out of nothing because it's always been there and never didn't exist (eternal).
Time is a concept of the universe. If eternal is taken to mean all time then the universe is eternal. This is different from saying that time is infinite.

You seem to think that I believe God came out of nothing without realising that infact I believe that God 'just is' and didn't come out of anything because he is without beginning or end. This is nearly as unimaginable as your idea but is at least partly more rational because I don't have to explain how something can occur from 'nothing' because I don't believe there ever was a 'time' when there was nothing. God has 'always' been. There was no occurring or coming out of.
So you can accept a 'just is' God but not a 'just is' universe with absolutely not justification at all other than and 'I believe' and then claim it is 'partly more rational'. Actualy it is less rational.

This isn't a proof for God and doesn't even get close to showing God to have a 'being' or to even be sentient but it does hold up as a decent rational stab at some kind of answer which is more than could be said for the flying spaghetti monster.
So in what way exactly is it different from the spaghetti monster? I missed that bit somewhere.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The meanings of the words 'eternal', 'creation' and 'force' are all very specifically related to both time and space and would have no meaning outside the universe. Therefore your idea of an 'eternal creation force' is totally irrational.

[b]The only knowledge we have at all is from our own universe so the only rational thing we can do is extrapolate f rent from the spaghetti monster? I missed that bit somewhere.

[/b][/b]The meanings of the words 'eternal', 'creation' and 'force' are all very specifically related to both time and space and would have no meaning outside the universe. Therefore your idea of an 'eternal creation force' is totally irrational.

Really? You are making a couple assumptions here. Are these words exclusive to our universe? I'd like to see you prove this without resorting to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

This is like you claiming that a programming language has no application outside the computer. Does this imply that it has no meaning to the programmer who is not part of the PC?

Edit: since this is the basis of your argument there's no point in my rebutting the rest of your post.

Originally posted by Halitose
[/b]The meanings of the words 'eternal', 'creation' and 'force' are all very specifically related to both time and space and would have no meaning outside the universe. Therefore your idea of an 'eternal creation force' is totally irrational.

Really? You are making a couple assumptions here. Are these words exclusive to our universe? I'd like ...[text shortened]... er. Does this imply that it has no meaning to the programmer who is not part of the PC?[/b]

No, it's up to you to prove that something else outside the universe exists - YOU are making the less parsimonious argument.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, it's up to you to prove that something else outside the universe exists - YOU are making the less parsimonious argument.

Red herring. This is a philosophical argument; I don’t need to provide empirical evidence for all of my assertions.

Originally posted by Halitose
Red herring. This is a philosophical argument; I don’t need to provide empirical evidence for all of my assertions.

He's not asking for specifically empirical evidence. He's just asking for evidence. A priori arguments can provide non-empirical evidence for the truth of claims.

Originally posted by bbarr
He's not asking for specifically empirical evidence.

Knowing scott and his materialist stance, I'd be surprised if it wasn't. I know that makes me an assumptive t%$d, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Originally posted by Halitose
Knowing scott and his materialist stance, I'd be surprised if it wasn't. I know that makes me an assumptive t%$d, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Fair enough. Good hunting!

Originally posted by bbarr
Fair enough. Good hunting!

Thanx.

Originally posted by Halitose
Really? You are making a couple assumptions here. Are these words exclusive to our universe? I'd like to see you prove this without resorting to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

'eternal'
This has two possible meanings:
1. All time. As time is merely a property of the universe it would have no real meaning outside the universe.
2. Independant of time. In this case you could be right that it would hold meaning 'outside' the 'universe' but I have a feeling that both 'outside' and 'universe' would also need some redifining.

'creation'
The events surounding the coming into being of something.
This is most definately time dependant and solely a property of the universe.

'force'
A very widely used word with varied meaning but in general it is also dependant on time and distance.

'universe'
everything that exists anywhere
This of course is the killer. If it exists then it is not outside the universe!!!!