McBell
Admiral Obvious
Yet you present nothing that fits your own definition of 'evidence'...
Why is that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the world come from?
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
Why is that?
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
Lets use yours from the OP, some kind of intelligence that creates and sustains the universe, would that be a fair assessment of God?
All I'm asking is why is one God multi-tasking more likely than many Gods being responsible for their own little bit?
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Hi DS,
Please check out this link that explains the argument from ignorance
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So he wasn't calling you ignorant.
I disagree that your point is an argument from ignorance (it should be pointed out that your argument here is in NO WAY new to this forum)
It could be:
False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
or perhaps
God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-Q
I notice it. What's the problem with it? I said that I presented links with scientific discoveries in the Qur'an as evidence to back up my original point that there's a God. Would you not call scientific information as evidence for an argument?
Because saying that there are multiple Gods implies that one God is not powerful enough to run the universe all by himself.
Since you brought that up, why do you automatically assume that a God doesn't exist because in your point of view there hasn't been enough evidence to prove his existence? As said just because one of two opposites hasn't been proven doesn't automatically make the other right. Explain agnostics then?
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
So? Why's that a problem?
That would just be a more powerful being than we are. Saying that there are multiple Gods for different tasks insinuates that each of those "Gods" has limited power enough to do his task only. A God has infinite power (omnipotent), while a being which has limited power is just that: A powerful being. Going by your logic then we're like Gods to smaller creatures since we have far more power than them.
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
Why would the universe need to be created by one God with infinite power as opposed to millions of smaller, but still very powerful beings?
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
I actually was a believer for the first 20 odd years of my life.
My view that a god does not exist is based mainly on the argument that people will create gods to explain that which they do not understand (re read god of the gaps theory) you might want to look the argument from inconsistent revelation as well.
I don't automatically assume god does not exist, it is a stance i came upon because i care that what i believe is correct (i refuse to use the word truth because truth is subjective).
This stance is also backed up by my studies in psychology.
I also make certain that my beliefs and viewpoints are free of emotional influence, whilst i accept the importance of emotion in day to day life i do not allow them to influence my actions or thinking (well sometimes i fail if i'm really tired).
Does that make sense?
-Q
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
The world came from the Big Bang. As to the Big Bang, it could have come from nowhere. Type in Dr. Lawrence Krauss in youtube and play the first or second video. I highly recommend you watch that video.
A perfectly reasonable answer for this question is "I don't know".
We don't know yet where the universe came from, but I am willing to bet on science rather than religion to answer this question for me.
Also, even if a creator created the universe, my next three questions are:
1) Where did the creator come from?
2) Why is the creator worth worshiping?
3) Why should I believe this creator has my best interests at heart?
Also, why is your curiosity limited only up to the Big Bang? Why are you content to state that "We don't know what created the creator because it is beyond our intelligence", but are not content to state "We don't know where the universe came from"?
This shows a double standard on your part.
Last edited:
Every time you add one more "God", you take away from the power of the others. For example; say there are three Gods that run the universe. If you add one more, you automatically reduce the power of the other three since they would have to do less work. Why would there be three "Gods" if they were all-powerful? And which God would you pray to in that case since not even one of them would be omnipotent (therefore not able to answer your prayers)? Besides, relying on beings which are just a bit more powerful than us to run the universe doesn't sound very plausible considering the fact that all physical phenomena are connected therefore one God for everything is more logical and rational than a God for each natural phenomena which just seems implausible.
It's not a matter of understanding; there are very popular scientists who believe in God. It's a matter of capability. We as humans are incompetent and incapable of controlling even the smallest of natural phenomena (just look at how a hurricane ruins an entire city and we can do nothing about it). To think that we are the biggest power in this universe or even on this Earth just doesn't seem right. And about the emotions part; what makes us humans is our ability to feel. No offense intended, but if you're going to remove emotions from your life then how are you any different from a robot?
BTW, I have always wondered where you guys get all this information about logical fallacies, philosophical arguments, quantum physics etc.? All of this just seems too much to study at school considering there are lots of other subjects as well. I might be wrong though.
I have already saw that video by Lawrence Krauss, but I'm not convinced by the fact that he says that the universe just came from a "quantum inflation". And why are you betting more on science to answer that question for you? That's purely subjective. Anyway to answer your questions:
1) There's no possible way to know. Something like this is out of our realm of reality and also bigger than our cognitive and perceptive abilities, and the reason I don't say this about the origin of the universe is that the notion that there's no God implies that each and every part of knowledge is obtainable through science at one point or another, so why would it be above our perceptive abilities? If it's so then who else would be able to understand it since there's no God? And how would the most intelligent beings in the universe not be able to understand something?
2) That's our purpose in life. Why did he create us then? Just so we can play and have fun and do nothing to worship him?
3) If God is malevolent why would he make anyone happy? He would've just kept torturing everyone if that's why he created us. And what makes you think that God isn't benevolent?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I don't know. Nobody knows.
I also don't see what that has to do with the fact I happen not to believe in the existence of a god or gods. Why should atheists specifically be expected to explain where the world (or universe) came from?
The universe could have come about via countless methods - the Big Bang, some other natural phenomena we've not identified, a god, magic space pixies... There are gaps in any of those hypotheses which we why we don't know which one is correct.
That lack of knowledge has absolutely zero logical affect on belief in the existence of a specific god and more than it does on belief in the existence of singularities or magic space pixies.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
[youtube]rdvWrI_oQjY[/youtube]
YouTube - Lawrence Krauss: Life, the Universe and Nothing
That's the one I am talking about.
YouTube - Lawrence Krauss: Life, the Universe and Nothing
That's the one I am talking about.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
I am not convinced a 100% either. But it is a pretty good argument. I tend to trust scientific experts to know what they are talking about. His argument is backed up by data, and simulation of matter popping in and out of existence in the empty space in a proton, which won Per Olof Hulth the Nobel Prize in 2002 I think.
Because Science has a consistent and a proven track record of answering the big questions. If we had never trusted science We would still be answering every question with " God made it so" and never progressed to the extent that we have now.
Then what differentiates your god from a non-existent one?
But why do you limit yourself only up to the Big Bang? Why not ask the same question about god? How do you know god is unknowable if you don't even try?
Yes, everything would be obtainable by science at one point or another. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers yet. We are still evolving to the point where we might find out more about the universe we live in.
I did not ask the question you gave an answer to.
I asked why is your god WORTH WORSHIP? What about your god inherently makes him worthy of my worship?
I did not ask if your god is malevolent or not. I asked how am I to believe that this god has my best interest at heart and not just using me for his own purposes? Also, what about kids born with terrible diseases? Does that mean god is malevolent only to certain people? Why them and not me? By the same token, what makes you think that your god is benevolent?
Nothing makes me think that god isn't benevolent because I do not believe a higher power exists, and therefore thinking about its attributes are an exercise in futility.
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
Not if every God had their own sphere of influence as I suggested. The fire God wouldn't encroach on the domain of the flea God and the tree God wouldn't have any control over the snow God's affairs. Each would have total control over their own field of creation.
They would only be all-powerful with regard to their own domain. So, if you wanted rain you would pray to the rain God, if you wanted happiness you would pray to the happiness God and so on.
OK, now we get down to it. If all phenomena are connected, God doesn't really need to micromanage the universe does He? If everything is connected He can just set the world in motion according to a pre-designed plan and watch as everything unfolds. Wouldn't you agree?
Even if it's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that there's no God.
God gave us intellect so that we can progress through time. What makes you think that the adherence of a certain religion means that you can't progress scientfically?
Without God there wouldn't have been a universe. That's the difference. And yes I believe that God created the universe (I.e. caused the big bang to happen).
The big bang's origin too is unknowable up to this point.
You should worship him because that's what we were created for. And life isn't perfect, that's why there are kids born with terrible diseases, people suffering in different parts of the world, and on and on/ God is benevolent because he gave us the freedom to think and live in this world.
That's a divine choice. There's no way of knowing this. That's why we say "thank God"; look how many people are suffering in this world and he chose to create you free from diseases/deformations. Watch this video for a response to Lawrence Krauss' claims about "No need for a God", and please watch it and consider what's in it with an open mind as it is really deep:
[youtube]cv7lCR-7AKQ[/youtube]
I agree, which is also why we say that each and every one of us has a certain destiny.
Last edited:
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
It could have came on its own, even if it couldn't, we best not decide a god did it or anything because we have no evidence of one.
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
Well, in that case all we really disagree on is whether the cause of the universe had intelligence or not, right?
Yes. A.K.A. is there a God or not?
Last edited:
AfterGlow
Invisible Puffle
No, that's not the same question at all. God could mean a polytheism as I described. It could mean some kind of pantheism where God is one and the same as nature, impersonal. But the God you describe is an intelligence that existed prior to the universe and created it of it's own will.
So, the real question is not where did the universe come from? The real question is was the cause of the universe intelligent?
By invoking an intelligent cause, what you are actually doing is making your explanation less probable, you see, because you're positing a cause that is complex.
The atheist simply posits that the universe came into being via some mechanism, they don't try to define the mechanism as anything more than a cause, but the theist posits that first a complex intelligence came into being that in turn caused the universe and in doing so create a paradox.
If an intelligent origin is necessary for existence, then that intelligence must itself have an intelligent origin. If God does not have an intelligent origin, then there is no need for God.
Thus, if God does not have an intelligent origin then the theist accepts the concept of something (God) coming into being of it's own accord, or always having existed without an origin.
This in turn nullifies the idea that for something to exist, it needs an intelligent cause, thus making the atheist's original position viable. Not only that, but because the atheist's position is the simpler (there are less steps and variables) Occam's Razor suggests it is the more likely of the two theories to be correct.