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

[hadzo]

To original poster, you obviously have a strong believe that God does exist. With people that have such concrete believe for God arguments like these are pointless.

Sure we can both play the game of “well what makes you right and me wrong” but you are missing the vital point here. The point most none believers (as was put somewhere in this thread) is that “nobody knows for a FACT where the universe came from”. Big Bang is just one theory, but a theory that weighs in most scientifically discoveries toward it.

Whether God exist or not in my opinion is yet to be seen. I just don’t think that any religious scriptures that associate deity such as a God have brought any solid evidence that could at least point towards his existence. All those videos you linked show nothing more than, as already put in this thread, observations. You seem to be missing out the fact that science has ACTUALLY explained how clouds work (just as an example) and noted that in the records available for all to study. And I must add that it is far more detailed than, clouds move, get stuck together and BAM! it rains… with that said there is nothing in religion books that “actually” explains the workings of our mother nature, nothing. You may post as many videos as you already did but in the end they are just merely vague explanations that in this case would mean nothing more than what’s written if science hasn’t been brought into picture.

I totally agree with another poster here. We do not believe in science. It’s not a religion but it has answered countless questions that no religion has ever come close to answering, let alone actually answering them.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

It's not a matter of understanding; there are very popular scientists who believe in God. It's a matter of capability.

Scientists are people to, just as susceptible religion as everyone else.

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.

Our inability to control our natural environment is in NO way proof of some form of higher power.

And about the emotions part; what makes us humans is our ability to feel.

Animals have feelings to, the mourn the loss of loved ones, they get sad etc

No offense intended, but if you're going to remove emotions from your life then how are you any different from a robot?

I didn't say i removed them from my life, i did say i removed them from my decision making process. I experience emotion just as much as anyone else i just have the ability to control them (most of the time)

Emotional intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 had never heard of them until i came aboard this forum. Then i wiki'd them.

Fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though i admit most of the quantum physics and the biology that gets thrown around this forum goes straight over my head, the social sciences are more my thing.

I realised i didn't answer your question on why "there is no god" is the default position. That's an easy one the invisible/intangible aka god cannot be considered the default position until there is evidence for it. To do so without evidence is to allow your bias to enter into the equation.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Even if it's true, that doesn't necessarily mean that there's no God.

True, it doesn't. What it does mean, however, is that the universe could have come from nothing.

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?

Evidence. Ever heard of stem cell research being blocked in America? Look up the reasons why.

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).

Then you have already come to your conclusion, based on zero evidence and seem unwilling to consider other choices. And no, your baseless assumption does not prove the difference between your god and a non-existent one.

The big bang's origin too is unknowable up to this point.

Yes, but you are dodging my question again. I didn't ask you whether you thought the origin of the universe is unknowable. Read what I asked earlier.

You should worship him because that's what we were created for.

Apart from the fact that your god seems to have created us just to stroke his own ego, how do you know this?
Also, this is not what I asked you. I asked you why you think god is inherently worth worshiping? What about him makes him so special that you have to get down on bended knees every sunday and pray to him? Is it just because you think he created the universe? Seems like a trivial thing to worship about a person. Why don't you worship everyone in the world? They all create things daily, some as precious as life itself.

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.

Oh I see. Life isn't perfect. Not like we should blame the guy who made life possible, right? Its life's fault, not god's. But we can think. so obviously god is benevolent! See a double standard there?
Also, why didn't god create perfect life? Just to mess with us?

That's a divine choice. There's no way of knowing this.

You say you KNOW god wants us to worship him. But you say his choices are UNKNOWABLE. Which is it? Either you know what god wants or you don't. Convenient, isn't it, the way you change his attributes to suit your belief?

That's why we say "thank God";

Ah yes, we do. I am sometimes guilty of that too. But I try to catch myself before I blurt it out. Its just a catch-phrase handed down from generations, and is pretty much ingrained in our vocabulary now.

look how many people are suffering in this world and he chose to create you free from diseases/deformations.

So what does that tell me? God is apparently randomly benevolent. Is that a quality worth worshiping? I don't think so. Also, it is kind of selfish to thank god just because he created ME free of deformations, while he created many people with disabilities. Cynical, it is.

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]

Yes. I have watched that. I don't know enough about the qu'ran to know whether those verses are in the context of creation of universe or something else. I will do some research on it.

Also, does it mean that you think everyone should convert to Islam, including yourself?

 

[Penumbra]

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?

Actually, it's a prominent question that has yet to be adequately answered by anyone. Theism or atheism doesn't factor in very much.

If a theist asserts that the universe was created by god, then it's up to the theist to explain where that god came from if she or he wants her proposition to hold any weight. Did god come from nothing? Did god always exist? If so, what stops someone from asserting the same thing about the universe?

The concept of a creator god doesn't typically add much to the discussion of a first cause. It doesn't address the hard questions or logical improbabilities, and if anything, it adds more questions than an explanation that doesn't include a god at all.

I think it's far better to look into the question with the proper methodology of the scientific method.

We as humans have limited perceptive abilities so it's impossible to know something that is out of the realm of our reality.

Then people would do well not to make claims about what they claim to be impossible to know or that is "out of the realm of our reality".

The same can be said about God. Atheists often tend to believe that there is no God because they see that there's no sufficient evidence to prove his existence. You can't prove that something exists using our natural laws when we're inside this universe because our universal laws don't apply to God. Think of it as a bubble that we're inside and that bubble is governed by specific laws which we cannot escape. As for the origin of the Singularity: If we have come to know that it actually was the origin of the universe using our physical laws, then why can't we determine when/if it originated?

If one can't prove, or even show good evidence for, something that exists outside of natural laws, then one would wonder why people would put forth the claim that it exists to begin with.

 

[Kerr]

To me evidence is an objective fact that is used to prove something. There's no such thing as "personal evidence". If it's not objective then it's not more than an opinion.

There is a grey area, you know. That is what I meant by "personal evidence", it convinces you, but it does not have to convince anyone else. It could be a poor choice of words, I am not always the best at putting down what is in my head in words . In any case, to take one example, I find the whole "forehead-is-sinful" thing to be far fetched and a case of the forer effect. This is why I don´t think it is an objective fact.

Another thing about objective facts... reality may be objective, but people are not. It is just to take a look at the world, people argue about what the truth is all the time or what facts are correct. This is also why the scientific method is so important. It helps us sort out the truth.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Every idea of how the universe began scientifically hits a massive brick wall. The actual smartest people in the world or at a complete loss. Everything that has been ventured on requires something, whether it is a quantum or force, etc. to flip the 'on' switch of reality. So far, the only explanation that works is an object or force outside the parameters of this reality. Just because it isn't proven doesn't mean it's illogical. Most of physics is unproven. So why theists even become subject to criticism is ridiculous for anyone who is smart enough to realize it.

 

[Penumbra]

Every idea of how the universe began scientifically hits a massive brick wall.

Scientific progress has been a systematic process of improving our knowledge and continuing to break through knowledge-walls which once existed.

The actual smartest people in the world or at a complete loss.

The top physicists in the world have figured out a lot more about this universe than any of the top theologians have.

Everything that has been ventured on requires something, whether it is a quantum or force, etc. to flip the 'on' switch of reality. So far, the only explanation that works is an object or force outside the parameters of this reality. Just because it isn't proven doesn't mean it's illogical. Most of physics is unproven. So why theists even become subject to criticism is ridiculous for anyone who is smart enough to realize it.

An explanation involving a force outside of reality is a non-explanation. Rather than simply saying "I don't know" or "here our some good possibilities worth looking into", this sort of non-explanation is an attempt to deflect the question or otherwise not deal with it. This is why theology doesn't have a more accurate or more methodically produced explanation for the origin of existence than science does.

 

[McBell]

Scientific progress has been a systematic process of improving our knowledge and continuing to break through knowledge-walls which once existed.

The top physicists in the world have figured out a lot more about this universe than any of the top theologians have.

An explanation involving a force outside of reality is a non-explanation. Rather than simply saying "I don't know" or "here our some good possibilities worth looking into", this sort of non-explanation is an attempt to deflect the question or otherwise not deal with it. This is why theology doesn't have a more accurate or more methodically produced explanation for the origin of existence than science does.

Frubals for a most excellent rebuttal!!

 

[gnomon]

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?

I've no idea.

So at least you get an honest answer.

 

[linwood]

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?

I don`t know.

That was a very convincing answer.

NEXT QUESTION PLEASE!!!

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Scientific progress has been a systematic process of improving our knowledge and continuing to break through knowledge-walls which once existed.

And?

The top physicists in the world have figured out a lot more about this universe than any of the top theologians have.

Because they look at what can be observed. We should consider what we can't observe false?

An explanation involving a force outside of reality is a non-explanation. Rather than simply saying "I don't know" or "here our some good possibilities worth looking into", this sort of non-explanation is an attempt to deflect the question or otherwise not deal with it. This is why theology doesn't have a more accurate or more methodically produced explanation for the origin of existence than science does.

There are no explanations for the origins of reality. All of them hit a wall when the concept of absolute nothing comes to mind. They all require something- a quantum, gravity, charged zero-point energy, etc. etc.

Frubals for a most excellent rebuttal!!

When does coincidence turn into blatancy?
Oh yeah, about a couple weeks ago

 

[Penumbra]

And?

And you're talking about science hitting a massive brick wall, which it has done multiple times and repeatedly overcome, while not offering a method that is even remotely comparable in terms of usefulness and validity.

Because they look at what can be observed.

They look at things that were once not even known to exist.

Scientists discovered electromagnetic radiation, which except for the frequencies labeled as visible light, are completely invisible to us, and impossible or nearly impossible to detect with our bodies. It consists of massless particles in particle-wave duality traveling through a medium, even a pure vacuum. Or there's the concept of neutrinos, which are so light and hard to detect that billions of them can pass through our bodies every second without us being aware- and they were eventually detected.

These things are observable now due to an assortment of complex tools built with logic, reason, and knowledge. Concepts such as massless particles or transmitting information nearly instantly through a vacuum would have once been considered magic but are now harnessed and fairly well understood.

We should consider what we can't observe false?

If something cannot be observed, at all, even with any conceivable tool, and there can't even be put forth a reliable set of evidence for it, then how can it be put forth as a serious answer? If I propose that a collection of faeries created the universe, but are completely undetectable, would you take my proposition seriously or would you dismiss it until I came back with some real evidence? The complete absence of evidence for universe-creating faeries doesn't conclusively prove the non-existence of faeries, but unless people have a good set of reasons for putting forth such an idea, they shouldn't do so.

With the myriad of competing and contradicting claims that are proposed or re-defined in ways to continually be non-falsifiable, a systemic method for determining truth is needed- and that method consists of science and reason.

There are no explanations for the origins of reality. All of them hit a wall when the concept of absolute nothing comes to mind. They all require something- a quantum, gravity, charged zero-point energy, etc. etc.

They require a variety of ongoing hypothesis including quantum mechanics, virtual particles, the concept that time itself wasn't even existent yet, and so forth.

Most importantly, no well-respected scientist would get up and say he knows how it happened with a degree of certainty, despite not having evidence to back up his proposition. Theologians, on the other hand, regularly produce such claims.

Science provides an incomplete set of facts, as it always is and always will be, but I don't see anything even remotely similar coming from theology. Adding god to the discussion, with no further explanation, doesn't add anything to the discussion regarding the origins of existence. It's a mere placeholder for an answer rather than an answer in and of itself. If someone were to say to me, "Where did the universe come from?" and I were to answer "Quantum mechanics. Case closed, we don't need elaboration", then it would be similar to how the god-of-the-gaps argument from theists is most commonly presented.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

And you're talking about science hitting a massive brick wall, which it has done multiple times and repeatedly overcome, while not offering a method that is even remotely comparable in terms of usefulness and validity.

Perhaps, but we will never know the origins of reality. That is an avoidable truth. There is nothing in nature that suggests that something can result from nothing. And even when/if we are able to cross over to other universes and go back and forth through time, effectively mastering space itself, we still will not know. Nature simply just doesn't allow us to.

But some are so consumed with discovery that they feel that even 'nothing' should be explorable, or otherwise labeled as unproven.

For me, it all adds up to one thing. I can explore 'nothing' in an instant. . . . okay, it was divine intervention

 

[fantome profane]

[youtube]rdvWrI_oQjY[/youtube]
YouTube - Lawrence Krauss: Life, the Universe and Nothing
That's the one I am talking about.

Oh yeah Mr. Smartypantsscienceguy, answer me this. If the universe came from nothing then where did the nothing come from?

 

[McBell]

There is nothing in nature that suggests that something can result from nothing.

So where did your god come from?

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

Time travel is impossible so far, so that's just an irrational assumption to make. Aliens? Seriously? Why would aliens come to this world, write a book and make a religion out of it then just leave? Doesn't that sound insane?

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.

I never intended to spread my religion, why would I want to do that on an internet forum? The videos were just a part of the argument to prove a point. Nothing more, nothing less.

True, it doesn't. What it does mean, however, is that the universe could have come from nothing.

And we're back to the original point: Where did that "nothing" come from?

Evidence. Ever heard of stem cell research being blocked in America? Look up the reasons why.

It's because it could potentially kill embryos. Would you really encourage such research when it could cause death to a human embryo?

Then you have already come to your conclusion, based on zero evidence and seem unwilling to consider other choices. And no, your baseless assumption does not prove the difference between your god and a non-existent one.

And how is the assumption that the singularity came from nothing any more rational than what I said?

Yes, but you are dodging my question again. I didn't ask you whether you thought the origin of the universe is unknowable. Read what I asked earlier.

Which question are you talking about? There are countless ones in this thread.

Apart from the fact that your god seems to have created us just to stroke his own ego, how do you know this?
Also, this is not what I asked you. I asked you why you think god is inherently worth worshiping? What about him makes him so special that you have to get down on bended knees every sunday and pray to him? Is it just because you think he created the universe? Seems like a trivial thing to worship about a person. Why don't you worship everyone in the world? They all create things daily, some as precious as life itself.

Ego? Seriously? I doubt someone who has "ego" would create a paradise for his creations. Again, we should worship him to get to paradise and because that's what we were created for. You're gonna ask "how do you know?", my answer is why else are we here? And why would I worship another person? We're all equals since we are all human beings. However, thanking others for creating something useful is always a virtue and a good thing to do.

Oh I see. Life isn't perfect. Not like we should blame the guy who made life possible, right? Its life's fault, not god's. But we can think. so obviously god is benevolent! See a double standard there?
Also, why didn't god create perfect life? Just to mess with us?

Why should he create this life perfect? Perfection can only be achieved in the afterlife (if you enter paradise that is), not in this mundane, materialistic world that we live in right now. And yes making us think is certainly benevolent because we can choose our path in this life which determines our position in the next.

You say you KNOW god wants us to worship him. But you say his choices are UNKNOWABLE. Which is it? Either you know what god wants or you don't. Convenient, isn't it, the way you change his attributes to suit your belief?

We know some things, and others we don't. Why would we have to know everything? Also I explained the reason why we should worship God above.

Ah yes, we do. I am sometimes guilty of that too. But I try to catch myself before I blurt it out. Its just a catch-phrase handed down from generations, and is pretty much ingrained in our vocabulary now.

You try to catch yourself before you say thank God? That phrase just comes out spontaneously of everyone's mouths when something good happens. It's human nature. Why would you feel guilty for saying it?

So what does that tell me? God is apparently randomly benevolent. Is that a quality worth worshiping? I don't think so.

No, God is not "randomly benevolent". There's still a life after this one to even things out for everyone.

Also, it is kind of selfish to thank god just because he created ME free of deformations, while he created many people with disabilities. Cynical, it is.

No, it's not selfish because, like I said earlier, there's still a life after this one so it all evens out for those people in the end.

Yes. I have watched that. I don't know enough about the qu'ran to know whether those verses are in the context of creation of universe or something else. I will do some research on it.

Okay, but you should always use a reliable source because some sources use weak translations of the Qur'an and take the verses out of context completely.

Also, does it mean that you think everyone should convert to Islam, including yourself?

No, you're free if you don't want to convert to Islam. However, I think that everyone should get a chance to know about Islam first before making the decision to convert or not as it would be unfair for them not to get that chance.

 

[Starsoul]

Just a few words for the comment 'that God made us so that we could worship him"

I think not. Its isn't God who needs being worshipped, Its Humans who need a focussed aim /purpose in life, which not only helps them understand the dynamics of this world, but also elevate their knowledge about their creator. It makes Me feel good when i worship, It helps My peace of mind, It eases all the pain you feel, it gives you a very very strong sense of confidence and makes you a a good human being. SO I wouldn't say prayer was designed out of the desire to be worshipped, for Allah says in the Quran, I have enough angels and creations who worship me without question ( because these creations are AWARE of the Presence of Allah and know his attributes).

Its Human prayers which become priceless to Allah, because Humans can CHOOSE not to pray, and yet still live like they wish to. A prayer made with the consciousness of an aware mind which has struggled, and made a genuine effort to find a creator who is as invisible to those who don't want to see him, as He is visible ( in presence, in essence) to those who have found Him and praise Him for his glory; indeed seems precious.

If a scientist created a walking talking robot ,and lets say the scientist dies, and the robot has free will and he says, 'who knows who created me, I don't see no scientist, He isn't there, so I was created by nobody'. It will be the robot's choice, and hence it could totally refuse to be updated to any better machine, by choice, thinking he knows it all, and knows it right.

But if a scientist created a robot, left it out somewhere, created some intelligence in it, and an ever increasing curiosity, and gave some Manuals around to the senior bots ( modes of instruction as to how to be the best robot and clues to find the Creator, like the Holy books(unless some evil bots edit the books to dominate the world : P)) it will be a really interesting experience for the robots, esp. when the bots are promised an everlasting heaven with no further updates required, with a glorious life in heaven, for the price of little time they spent in suffering and making efforts to recognize their creator. Bots will be happy, so will be the scientist. : ) This way, not only bots will learn a lot on their way to that discovery, they will be rewarded for every step they take.

 

[AfterGlow]

Time travel is impossible so far, so that's just an irrational assumption to make. Aliens? Seriously? Why would aliens come to this world, write a book and make a religion out of it then just leave? Doesn't that sound insane?

No more insane than an intelligent being popping into existence of his own accord, making a universe 13 billion light years across, populating a planet with suspiciously ape-like people, then communicating with them an eternally important message about how they're all going to burn forever in the fires of hell if they eat pork or pray with a dirty face, via the medium a single, illiterate man.

I never intended to spread my religion, why would I want to do that on an internet forum? The videos were just a part of the argument to prove a point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fair enough, I take back what I said then.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

The world came from itself, it is as simple as that.

 

[lunakilo]

The same can be said about God. Atheists often tend to believe that there is no God because they see that there's no sufficient evidence to prove his existence. You can't prove that something exists using our natural laws when we're inside this universe because our universal laws don't apply to God. Think of it as a bubble that we're inside and that bubble is governed by specific laws which we cannot escape. As for the origin of the Singularity: If we have come to know that it actually was the origin of the universe using our physical laws, then why can't we determine when/if it originated?

A mathematical singulatity is a well defined concept, God is not.