Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the world come from?

[AfterGlow]

Why is there no need for god if he doesn't have an intelligent origin? I feel like you glossed over that a bit.

If we accept the premise that for something to exist, like the universe, it needs to have been created by an intelligence, which is the theist position. Then we can't exempt God from this rule.
If we do we accept that something can exist without having been intelligently created, and if something can exist without an intelligent origin then the universe could have come into being without an intelligent creator.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

If there's no God then explain this video to me:

[youtube]watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ[/youtube]

 

[AfterGlow]

If there's no God then explain this video to me:

[youtube]watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ[/youtube]

You misunderstand me. I haven't stated that there is no God. Neither have I said that the universe came from nothing. All I have done is refute the notion that the universe needs an intelligent creator.
Theists are perfectly in their rights to suggest that God exists by his own power, without origin, everlasting and infinite. However that renders Him a Deus Ex Machina as far as discussing the origin of the universe goes, which of course lies beyond the bounds of reasoned debate.

 

[lunakilo]

If there's no God then explain this video to me:

[youtube]watch?v=cv7lCR-7AKQ[/youtube]

This video was (probably) made by people, not God

 

[Debater Slayer]

You misunderstand me. I haven't stated that there is no God. Neither have I said that the universe came from nothing. All I have done is refute the notion that the universe needs an intelligent creator.
Theists are perfectly in their rights to suggest that God exists by his own power, without origin, everlasting and infinite. However that renders Him a Deus Ex Machina as far as discussing the origin of the universe goes, which of course lies beyond the bounds of reasoned debate.

You're right that the origin of the universe can be stated to not require an intelligent creator using the notion that we have limited perceptive abilities, but if there's no God then how come does Qur'an contain such accurate descriptions of cosmological/astronomical phenomena which have only recently been known? I don't think that a 1400-year-old book could possibly contain such scientific information if it was man-made.

This video was (probably) made by people, not God

That's not what I meant though. The video proves how much scientific information is there in the Qur'an and it is really amazing how accurate and detailed it is.

 

[the Kid]

Well, I'm pretty sure the theist's position is simply that God did create the universe, perhaps by acting as the mechanism that set the ball in motion. I don't think they actually make a claim to know how anything comes to be. Quite the contrary, most theist's I've met seem to claim they know very little in the scheme of things.

The OP seems to be asking you guys to support your claim on the grounds that theist's can support theirs. Each to their own rules. Logic for science and faith for religion.

So if you are opposed to religion because it is illogical the OP seems to want a logical explanation for how the universe was formed. I think it's a fair question.

Edit : also, thanks for clarifying!

 

[Pegg]

Actually, yes, It could have.

Cause and effect are physical laws that are dependent upon time/space.

there is the little problem that the universe had a beginning...which means, before that beginning, there was not time or space. So nothing existed in it.

Asking where the Singularity originated from, or if it originated at all is irrelevant as we cannot apply reasoning based on natural laws beyond the Singularity/Universe.
We cannot say any cause is necessary for the existence of the Singularity because the necessity for existence is only a product of natural laws within the Singularity/Universe.

It is not irrelevant...it is absolutely pertinent to the question of how time and space got their beginning.

 

[Sunstone]

This is a prominent question that is yet to be answered convincingly by atheists. I mean the world can't have come from nothing, can it?

This is an appeal to ignorance.

This was uncalled for, but whatever. I know you're going to say because of the big bang etc. etc. But the big bang couldn't have happened by itself. And yes I've read about all of this before so no need to accuse me of being ignorant. I'm just trying to have a civil debate.

Twin Pentagram is correct, DebaterSlater. Your OP is an example of a logical fallacy. The fallacy is called, "an appeal to ignorance". That's to say, he's not calling you ignorant, but is instead giving the name of the logical fallacy you have committed in your OP.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

This is a prominent question that is yet to be answered convincingly by atheists. I mean the world can't have come from nothing, can it?

Self organization is the key word. It sits well with me that the universe and particularly complexity created itself out of a process of self organization. It is demonstrated to happen through feedback loops on the boundary of order and chaos. This is particularly evident with phase transitions as matter transforms from a liquid to a solid state. You see complexity emerge spontaneously as you observe puddles freeze on a frosty morning, complex ice lattices form as water molecules organize themselves. Self organization sits far better with me than some supernatural conscious being which in itself would have to be a complex being which would beg the question, where did that complexity come from?

 

[AfterGlow]

but if there's no God then how come does Qur'an contain such accurate descriptions of cosmological/astronomical phenomena which have only recently been known? I don't think that a 1400-year-old book could possibly contain such scientific information if it was man-made.

That's none of my concern.

Well, I'm pretty sure the theist's position is simply that God did create the universe, perhaps by acting as the mechanism that set the ball in motion. I don't think they actually make a claim to know how anything comes to be. Quite the contrary, most theist's I've met seem to claim they know very little in the scheme of things.

Quite possibly. All I've done is show that the logic of saying the universe needs an intelligent creator is self-refuting. I've not suggested people can't believe in such a thing if they want to.

The OP seems to be asking you guys to support your claim on the grounds that theist's can support theirs. Each to their own rules. Logic for science and faith for religion.

Atheists don't need to support their claims because their's is the default. The atheist says the universe came into being. The theist states the universe came into being via an intelligent creator. The onus is on the theist to support their claim.

So if you are opposed to religion because it is illogical the OP seems to want a logical explanation for how the universe was formed. I think it's a fair question.

To be fair, the OP seems to simply be nothing more than a spring board for DebaterSlater to launch his proselytizing videos from.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's none of my concern.

That's the main topic though. If any religious text is proved to contain something extraordinarily right and/or miraculous then it proves that it's actually a revelation from God therefore proving the existence of God.

To be fair, the OP seems to simply be nothing more than a spring board for DebaterSlater to launch his proselytizing videos from.

Read my earlier posts. That's what I was afraid of; people would think I intend to sway them into my belief just because I'm using some quotes and information from it. Why would I want to proselytize anyone here anyway?

 

[lunakilo]

You're right that the origin of the universe can be stated to not require an intelligent creator using the notion that we have limited perceptive abilities, but if there's no God then how come does Qur'an contain such accurate descriptions of cosmological/astronomical phenomena which have only recently been known? I don't think that a 1400-year-old book could possibly contain such scientific information if it was man-made.



That's not what I meant though. The video proves how much scientific information is there in the Qur'an and it is really amazing how accurate and detailed it is.

I am not sure if I see the story "God greated the universe and some day it will end spectacularly" is very detailed.

And if you watch the whole of [youtube]7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]
"A Universe From Nothing" you will notice that the conclusion to that is that the universe is flat (and thus will not collapse in on itself) which does not fit the story in the 1400-year-old book.

I also find it strange when people people use the argument "science tells us the <insert name of holy book> is correct. See, you are silly not to believe". But maybe that is just me...
[edit]Don't take tha to mean that I don't think you should base your convictions on facts (when you have facts), but picking a few quotes from a few scientists and using them as "proof" isn't really good enough as far as I see it.

 

[Tenaka2]

The obvious contradiction of 'something from nothing' always makes me wonder when thiests use it.

This thread is such a bad attempt at a loaded question I fear the TC has shot his own head off.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am not sure if I see the story "God greated the universe and some day it will end spectacularly" is very detailed.

And if you watch the whole of "A Universe From Nothing" you will notice that the conclusion to that is that the universe is flat (and thus will not collapse in on itself) which does not fit the story in the 1400-year-old book.

That's the whole point of the video I posted. It is implied that the universe is flat (mostly like a sheet paper) and that God will fold that paper when the end comes. I also don't like the fact that whenever someone tries to use information from religious texts people accuse them of proselytizing. What's the problem if the information quoted is correct?

 

[tumbleweed41]

there is the little problem that the universe had a beginning...which means, before that beginning, there was not time or space. So nothing existed in it.

In what?

It is not irrelevant...it is absolutely pertinent to the question of how time and space got their beginning.

No Pegg, you are stuck in the reasoning of cause and effect. The physical laws within our universe.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That's not what I meant though. The video proves how much scientific information is there in the Qur'an and it is really amazing how accurate and detailed it is.

No, the video is a prime example of the Forer effect

 

[lunakilo]

That's the whole point of the video I posted. It is implied that the universe is flat (mostly like a sheet paper) and that God will fold that paper when the end comes. I also don't like the fact that whenever someone tries to use information from religious texts people accuse them of proselytizing. What's the problem if the information quoted is correct?

But a flat universe does not collapse...

So the video picks from 2 different scenarios, mix them and "proves" that the Quran is correct.

Or takes part of "the universe is flat" scenario and adds God in the end to make the universe collapse.

So the video picks what it likes from different scenarios and says, "look, isn't the quran amazing, it agrees with scientific discoveries".

 

[AfterGlow]

That's the main topic though. If any religious text is proved to contain something extraordinarily right and/or miraculous then it proves that it's actually a revelation from God therefore proving the existence of God.

No it doesn't, if such a thing were the case (and I see no evidence of such with the Qur'an) then it would only be evidence of people having information that is apparently beyond them. It could be a revelation from God, but just as likely it could have been a revelation from time travellers or aliens.

Read my earlier posts. That's what I was afraid of; people would think I intend to sway them into my belief just because I'm using some quotes and information from it. Why would I want to proselytize anyone here anyway?

Because you're a Muslim who wants to spread his religion. Nothing wrong with that per se, except that it's against the rules of the forum. I'll give credit where it's due though, you stuck with the OP for a good 7 or 8 posts before changing the direction entirely with your videos.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If God were within in our Time and Space it might be possible to detect him.
as it is supposed, that he is outside our time and space, we can not detect him.

A unique entity, out side our time and space, could have caused our universes creation.
We call that entity God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is an appeal to ignorance.

I agree.