Atheists, where did the universe come from?

[ratiocinator]

To claim that humans are smart, and to claim that humans are stupid, simultaneously, would be a "blatantly contradictory" statement. And yet both are true, simultaneously. And neither claim is at all unreasonable.

It isn't a contradiction at all unless you have fixed, exact definitions of "smart" and "stupid" and then claim that a single human is being both about the same thing at the same time.

We know because we've managed to resolve some of the contradictions we've encountered in the past.

Such as?

 

[shmogie]

It works with me. There are certain ideas that are litmus tests regarding a source's qualifications. If somebody wants to criticize evolutionary science for example, he at a minimum needs to know that a scientific theory is. If he tells me that evolution is only a theory, well, he just can't recover from that ever.

One theist was recently complaining about being criticized by another poster for misspelling so many words in his native language so badly. He didn't consider that relevant, but of course it is relevant. These aren't just typos - a finger hitting the wrong key. These errors tell me a lot about how little this person reads, and how little time he has spent with academic topics including science before attacking it. What insightful or erudite piece of writing has ever come in that form?



If by faith you mean unjustified belief, I disagree. What is commendable about believing without just cause? This is from Pat Condell:

"The truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It's an act of will. It's not a state of grace. It's a state of choice, because without evidence, you've got no reason to believe, apart from your willingness to believe. So why is that worthy of respect, any more than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil?


"And why is faith considered some kind of virtue? Is it because it implies a certain depth of contemplation and insight? I don't think so. Faith, by definition, is unexamined. So in that sense it has to be among the shallowest of experiences. Yet, if it could, it would regulate every action, word and thought of every single person on this planet."

How can faith possibly be a path to truth when any idea or its mutually exclusive polar opposite can be supported equally by faith even though we know that at least one of those must be incorrect? Faith was not my path to atheism, but if it were, my atheism would be equally well (or poorly) founded as any theist's belief. How would you answer somebody who told you that there is no god, and that he knows this by faith?



We can revisit the topic if that is ever the case. The arc of history has uniformly been to replace gods with blind, natural processes. There is no indication that this will ever change. What do we need gods to explain that can't be due to natural processes like abiogenesis and cosmogenesis?



Another world.

We gather with others at Christmastime, but the event is no more a celebration of anything in particular than similar gatherings that occur for no other reason than to have a good time with others. My wife and I are presently planning such a party for next month. Is that a celebration?

"Celebrating" Christmas has the same meaning to us. There is no mention of Jesus, no mention of a virgin birth or of a god, no Magi or mangers, etc. The only indication that it is Christmastime is a Christmas tree and a house decorated with items like an animatronic Santa.

Of course my point is that atheists accept many things by faith. Atheism itself is an exercise in faith, "there is no God".

An utterly unprovable belief.

As we have debated before, belief in abiogenesis, no matter what you believe to be evidence that it occurred, is faith based.

In this thread, ANY hypothesis believed on the creation of the universe is based solely in faith. The evidence tells me it was the BB, yet the cause is scientifically unknown, but by faith I know exactly what it was.

 

[shmogie]

Computers, mobile phones, airplanes, automobiles, medicines, engineering, space flight, etc., etc., didn't come from faith.

You think not ? Have you read any biographies of the Wright Bros. ? They weren't tinkering around to see if they could fly, they had total faith that they would fly,

But yes, harnessing known natural and physical laws are the methodologies

 

[Altfish]

You think not ? Have you read any biographies of the Wright Bros. ? They weren't tinkering around to see if they could fly, they had total faith that they would fly,

But yes, harnessing known natural and physical laws are the methodologies

OK, let's pray for a cure to cancer; I'll tell the research scientists to stop their work.

 

[PruePhillip]

Same place God came from?

This argument is disingenuous.
It doesn't answer the question of our physical universe. Instead it
deflects the issue and pretends to be clever. If God exists outside of our
incomprehensible universe and its laws then all notions of time, space,
dimensions etc don't apply - we can't ask where God's realm comes
from if we can't even imagine one tiny element of it.

Saying the universe sprang out of nothing, without laws or reason, is
in violation of science itself because everything is supposed to have
a cause and reason for being.

 

[Altfish]

This argument is disingenuous.
It doesn't answer the question of our physical universe. Instead it
deflects the issue and pretends to be clever. If God exists outside of our
incomprehensible universe and its laws then all notions of time, space,
dimensions etc don't apply - we can't ask where God's realm comes
from if we can't even imagine one tiny element of it.

Saying the universe sprang out of nothing, without laws or reason, is
in violation of science itself because everything is supposed to have
a cause and reason for being.

...and attributing it to a deity just adds an unnecessary step

 

[PruePhillip]

...and attributing it to a deity just adds an unnecessary step

There's two ways to explain the universe being here.
Both require a miracle.
Having God create the universe explains the reason
for out existence. It also explains the fine tuning of the
universe.
Having a universe create itself a much bigger miracle.
It means something came from utterly nothing - no time,
no space, no physical laws, no energy.... no reason. And
do it in this most remarkable way that everything is so
fine tuned for our being. Nah, give me a diety any day.

And besides, Genesis 1 gives the exact sequence of
events God used to bring us into being (howbeit written
in symbolic language, ie days)
first the universe
then the earth (dark and oceanic)
then the open skies
then the continents rising
then life on life (fresh water)
then the seas bring forth life
then man.

Some ancient author coming up with this sequence, of itself,
would be a miracle.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There's two ways to explain the universe being here.
Both require a miracle.
Having God create the universe explains the reason
for out existence. It also explains the fine tuning of the
universe..

Except that the universe isn't actually "fine tuned". This is a false claim, often made by people who fail to grasp the scope of the *visible* universe.

Something akin to 99 x 10^100 percent of the universe is instantly fatal to life as we understand it.

How on *earth* is that "fine tuned"?

 

[shmogie]

OK, let's pray for a cure to cancer; I'll tell the research scientists to stop their work.

Your point being what ?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course my point is that atheists accept many things by faith. Atheism itself is an exercise in faith, "there is no God". An utterly unprovable belief. As we have debated before, belief in abiogenesis, no matter what you believe to be evidence that it occurred, is faith based. In this thread, ANY hypothesis believed on the creation of the universe is based solely in faith. The evidence tells me it was the BB, yet the cause is scientifically unknown, but by faith I know exactly what it was.

None of this is relevant to my position as expressed to you. As already explained, I consider faith-based thought to be a logical error. To the best of my knowledge, all of my beliefs are justified by evidence, sound argument, or both. If I were to everbecome aware of a belief that had crept in unexamined before I learned to think critically, I would either identify the justification for said belief, or abandon the idea.

 

[Salvador]

OK, let's pray for a cure to cancer; I'll tell the research scientists to stop their work.

No please let's not do this, there's is a scientific medical study done that shows intercessory prayers are an ineffective treatment towards helping a patient recover from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery; if intercessory prayer didn't help any of these patients recover from surgery, then intercessory prayer could fail to prevent anybody from getting cancer.

US National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health Am Heart J. 2006 Apr;151(4):934-42.
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer.
Benson H1, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL.

"Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.

Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

Jesus Christ taught people that they should not put their God to the test
New International Version (Luke 4:12) Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'

 

[shmogie]

This argument is disingenuous.
It doesn't answer the question of our physical universe. Instead it
deflects the issue and pretends to be clever. If God exists outside of our
incomprehensible universe and its laws then all notions of time, space,
dimensions etc don't apply - we can't ask where God's realm comes
from if we can't even imagine one tiny element of it.

Saying the universe sprang out of nothing, without laws or reason, is
in violation of science itself because everything is supposed to have
a cause and reason for being.

Who says the universe sprang out of nothing, not I. However, the alleged singularity that existed before the BB, a point of infinite density, whatever that may be, molecular in size, is as close to nothing as one can get. Further, the hypothesis is not testable, unobserved, never replicated. and was outside the universe. No mathematical model for it exists because math itself breaks down in the earliest stages of the BB, so going back mathematically and by the laws of physics it all ceases to work before you get to the alleged singularity.

So, if you are an atheist and adopt the BB with itś singularity, you can only have faith and nothing more that it existed.

If you adopt God as the cause of the BB, you have faith it is true

Two cases of exercising faith

 

[Subduction Zone]

No please let's not do this, there's is a scientific medical study done that shows intercessory prayers are an effective treatment towards helping a patient recover from coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery; if intercessory prayer didn't help any of these patients recover from surgery, then intercessory prayer could fail to prevent anybody from getting cancer.

US National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health Am Heart J. 2006 Apr;151(4):934-42.
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer.
Benson H1, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL.

"Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.

Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

Jesus Christ taught people that they should not put their God to the test New International Version (Luke 4:12) Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'

One thing that frauds learn very early on is to tell their marks not to test their claims. Meanwhile in the sciences the approach is the opposite. People are encouraged to put claims to the test.

Why does the God of the Bible have the same traits as a conman?

 

[Salvador]

One thing that frauds learn very early on is to tell their marks not to test their claims. Meanwhile in the sciences the approach is the opposite. People are encouraged to put claims to the test.

Why does the God of the Bible have the same traits as a conman?

Sorry, I meant to state the medical study showed intercessory prayers are an "ineffective" treatment towards helping a patient recovery...You'd promptly responded to my post before I could correct it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who says the universe sprang out of nothing, not I. However, the alleged singularity that existed before the BB, a point of infinite density, whatever that may be, molecular in size, is as close to nothing as one can get. Further, the hypothesis is not testable, unobserved, never replicated. and was outside the universe. No mathematical model for it exists because math itself breaks down in the earliest stages of the BB, so going back mathematically and by the laws of physics it all ceases to work before you get to the alleged singularity.

So, if you are an atheist and adopt the BB with itś singularity, you can only have faith and nothing more that it existed.

If you adopt God as the cause of the BB, you have faith it is true

Two cases of exercising faith

The Big Bang Theory has been tested and the tests confirmed it. Confirmation occurs quite often in the sciences, it is no "proof" but it does increase a concepts validity. I hear this claim from people that do not understand how concepts are tested. It is a good idea to remember that just because you or I may not know how to test an idea that does not mean that others cannot test it. The Big Bang Theory was tested based upon predictions that were made by applying it. One prediction was that of a cosmic background radiation. That prediction was made long before it was discovered. When the radiation was discovered, quite by accident, the people that made the discovery earned a Nobel Prize for confirming the Big Bang. Where is your evidence to the contrary? A Nobel Prize awaits you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I meant to state the medical study showed intercessory prayers are an "ineffective" treatment towards helping a patient recovery...You'd promptly responded to my post before I could correct it.

I thought that was what you meant, I was a little confused by the pre-edited response. At any rate, my point stands. Con artists, seers, etc. tell others not to test their ideas. So does the Bible. That is not a good sign.

 

[Salvador]

One thing that frauds learn very early on is to tell their marks not to test their claims. Meanwhile in the sciences the approach is the opposite. People are encouraged to put claims to the test.

Why does the God of the Bible have the same traits as a conman?

A completely literal interpretation of the Bible does led me to conclude the God of the Bible is rather quite deceptive. I am now studying the Bible's inner spiritual meaning as understood by Emanuel Swedenborg.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A completely literal interpretation of the Bible does led me to conclude the God of the Bible is rather quite deceptive. I am now studying the Bible's inner spiritual meaning as understood by Emanuel Swedenborg.

I realized a long time ago that a literal interpretation of the Bible is self refuting. I simply cannot understand why some Christians insist on one.

 

[PruePhillip]

Except that the universe isn't actually "fine tuned". This is a false claim, often made by people who fail to grasp the scope of the *visible* universe.

Something akin to 99 x 10^100 percent of the universe is instantly fatal to life as we understand it.

How on *earth* is that "fine tuned"?

There's not much argument that it ISN'T fine tuned.
Postulating DIFFERENT UNIVERSES to "explain" a human-friendly universe has one
problem - there's no evidence. And IMO multi-verses are used to EXPLAIN AWAY the
fine-tuning issue rather than explain it.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the universe beyond the light boundary is no different
to our local universe.
And even if there WERE a myriad of alternative universes, it still doesn't explain where
they come from, and why they are here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's not much argument that it ISN'T fine tuned.
Postulating DIFFERENT UNIVERSES to "explain" a human-friendly universe has one
problem - there's no evidence. And IMO multi-verses are used to EXPLAIN AWAY the
fine-tuning issue rather than explain it.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the universe beyond the light boundary is no different
to our local universe.
And even if there WERE a myriad of alternative universes, it still doesn't explain where
they come from, and why they are here.


View attachment 27004

You have to be kidding. It fails at the very first claim. The "21%" claim is worthless because the amount of oxygen in the air varies quite a bit with elevation. For example the amount of O2 in the air at the Tibetan plateau will be more than 40% less than the amount of O2 at sea level. Clearly that 21% figure is not "fine tuned".

The distance from the Sun varies by over 3%, but the "Goldilocks Zone" is much larger than that. Most of those figures are merely the state that we evolved in, not a perfect or ideal state.