CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
No the disbelief is the defualt in every situation that is the basis of logic.
-
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!
"...but intelligent people believe in God" Analysis, Discussion, and Debate
- Thread starter CogentPhilosopher
- Start date
No the disbelief is the defualt in every situation that is the basis of logic.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
Subjective is relative.
subjective 1.based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Objective is universal.
objective 1. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
What is the default position for how the universe came to be?
CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
Belief that it did not.
The big-bang theory states that the universe went from a state of infinite density into what we have today. Before that point physical laws as we understand them would not likely be applicable. Currently it is impossible to truly know what happened before the universe went into it's current state or even if there was anything before it as it may well be that space-time started with the big-bang.
Correction. The Big Bang theory states that the universe expanded from a state of extremely high density. The idea that the density was infinite is not part of the theory. It serves as the mathematically convenient asymptotic limit to set the origin of time. Many such singularity structures are routinely used from fluid mechanics to electric fields to my field of reaction chemistry surfaces. Please see the links below.
Q: What are singularities? Do they exist in nature?
Entire books on applications of singularities
Singularities: Formation, Structure and Propagation
I have never understood the paroxysm of metaphysical mumbo jumbo that accompanies the humble singularity when it decides to make an appearance In cosmology.
CogentPhilosopher
Philosophy Student
Actually you are correct.
The Big-Bang theory does not state that it has to have been of infinite density, it is just one of the most leading interpretations.
I don't believe that. The words are not synonymous.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
If it's impossible to know what happened before the Big Bang, how can there be any default position on how it came to happen?
Which words, objective and subjective? Of course not.
Atheism is a "No" answer to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods, generally for lack of evidence that such a thing exists. What evidence does one need to hold or express that opinion?
For me, it is the list of logically possible candidate hypotheses that can neither be ruled in nor out:
[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.
[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.
[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.
If there are other possibilities, I haven't thought of them. Maybe you can.
Notice that they are all highly counter-intuitive. Every one requires that something has already passed through an infinite number of moments, or came into being from nothing without a cause.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
That there is no evidence for any supernatural events or divine spirit beings. But that's also true for deism. From our perspective, they are indistinguishable. If we knew for certain that there was no extra- or supernatural realm to which our souls (quantum files) migrated to be "run" there upon our deaths, it would indeed be a frivolous pursuit.
OK. I thought that when you wrote, "There's absolutely no evidence for or against atheism and deism" that you were saying that there is no evidence to support choosing atheism. You probably agree that none is needed unless you are calling an absence of evidence a form of evidence, which you might be doing.
The atheist ought to have reasons for his atheism if it is to be rational, and those reasons are generally that one is a skeptic, that is, he does not believe without sufficient justification, and that no satisfactory reason to believe that a god or gods exist has been found or provided.
You call yourself an agnostic deist. Deism and pantheism seem like harmless beliefs to me, and might even be of benefit to those advocating them in that they allow one to add a dimension of the divine and sacred to one's worldview while avoiding the pitfalls of doctrine, revelation, received wisdom, ritual, and organized, politicized religion.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
#2 has a very likely indication of a first moment in the Big Bang which is on the verge of being settled science. What caused that or what preceded it is completely unknown. And I think the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is falling out of favor along with the Copenhagen--in fact, the one that explains stuff the best is the Transactional Interpretation. #s 5 & 6 allow for the possibility for God causing the universe, or at least saying that God can't be ruled out as a cause, which several, often atheist scientists/philosophers, have had to admit, though again, there's no evidence.
So again, though there's no evidence, God is possible. And as for the "always existed" condition, I don't think time exists or is operative "before" or "outside" of our universe in the "external" ether, if you will. Therefore the best expression for that situation is timelessness. Our universe has a limit to the divisibility of the four dimensions, space and time (Planck space/time), so can never bridge any gap between time zero and any second point which is infinitely small. My personal theory/guess is that the Planck space/time gaps in the fabric of the universe is the window between here and the "external" ether. Entangled particles complete their transactions by transitioning into that non-local, timeless ether, and who knows what else "is" or "happens" there.
Last edited:
A problem I am seeing here is that atheism and theism aren't really opposites. Because theism isn't really "belief in God or gods". That's deism.
Theism is a collection belief systems that purport to describe supernatural beings and afterlives and such. Whether it's Buddhist reincarnation or Trinitarian theology, it's always a batch of assertions based on evidence indistinguishable from hearsay about ancient delusional people.
Except,of course, when it's pantheists and such who want to be included with the revealed religionists for some reason.
So when I say I am not a theist, I am a deist, the difference is not that I don't believe in God. It's that I don't believe in the humans claiming to speak for God.
Tom
OK. Fair enough.
I assume that you have nothing to add to that list of six logical possibilities, and don't think any can be ruled out. You probably would have said so.
If so, you likely agree that the default position regarding the origin of our universe is a list of options that cannot be shortened at this time.
A problem I am seeing here is that atheism and theism aren't really opposites. Because theism isn't really "belief in God or gods". That's deism.
Theism is a collection belief systems that purport to describe supernatural beings and afterlives and such. Whether it's Buddhist reincarnation or Trinitarian theology, it's always a batch of assertions based on evidence indistinguishable from hearsay about ancient delusional people.
Except,of course, when it's pantheists and such who want to be included with the revealed religionists for some reason.
So when I say I am not a theist, I am a deist, the difference is not that I don't believe in God. It's that I don't believe in the humans claiming to speak for God.
Tom
OK. As you know, I use the words a little differently.
It isn't really a problem if we mean different things when using the same word if we each know what the other is saying.
To me, deism is not the belief in a god or gods, a state which I call theism, but the belief in a particular kind of god - a creator god that is not a ruler god and, as I noted in a recent post here, one that has not interacted with man, meaning that there is no revelation, doctrine, dogma, rituals - in short, no religion.
I also mentioned that I consider that a benign form of theism. In discussions like these, the deists are never making the obscene claims we see from other kinds of theists such as man being a failed creature, the world being a bad place fit to be shunned, macro-evolution is impossible, atheists have no reason not to behave immorally, if there is no god then there is no point to life, unbelievers are god haters trying to avoid accountability, and the life.
Deist also don't seem to be political as a result of their deism. They aren't trying to pierce the church-state wall or impose themselves on non-deists. They aren't trying to divert public funds to teaching creationism or refusing to issue wedding certificates or bake wedding cakes for same sex couples wanting to marry.
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
No, nothing to add, but there's items like #2 which science has virtually ruled out, or multiverses which are apparently non-starters (or irrelevant in any case vis a vis God), and 5 and 6 for which there is evidence for neither.
Not shortened between the 2 positions of God caused and non-God caused yes--since neither of them can be claimed as a default.
Science has ruled nothing out. Multiverse that did not have a beginning, cyclic universe etc. are all possible. Many theories exist of that nature.
Most current approaches eliminate the singularity.
I disagree: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
The multiverse hypothesis has more going for it than the other options. It's the more parsimonious answer to the fine tuning problem, the other being a god.
I don't know why you say that is is "irrelevant in any case vis a vis God." Can you expand?
I'm not sure what you're saying, but for me, the default position on anything that cannot be shown to be correct/exist or incorrect/nonexistent is to suspend judgement and behave according to the principles of risk management, which basically asks that given I must choose to act or not act despite having incomplete knowledge, and given that either choice could be wrong, which mistake if made is the most absorbable.
Does that sound right to you?
ThePainefulTruth
Romantic-Cynic
All we do know is that the universe had a start. The Big Bang rang a bell that's still ringing, i.e. the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation). But we know absolutely nothing about what caused or preceded it. A leading proponent of multiverses, Stephen Hawking, pretty much went over the edge starting around 20 years ago. He's even had to back down (kicking and screaming) from his claim to have shown that there is no God, based on evidence from before the Big Bang which was bogus. I know his situation is sad, but he's turned bitter and it's clouded all his thinking.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
It talks about not predicting a Big Bang singularity, not that it didn't happen. What quantum interpretation are they applying their new equations to? And how do they account for the (accelerating) expansion of the universe without that expansion having a beginning, and what about the CMBR?
The Transactional Interpretation of QM answers all quantum weirdness, including non-local vs. local issues, the double slit experiment and entangled particles.
Just saying that whether there are multiverses or just one universe, that has no bearing on whether God initiated things or not.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Without evidence, the default position involving two or more possibilities, is I don't know agnosticism which puts the possibilities on the shelf, neither/none of which can be a default position.
Not that part, no. To begin with, how did risk management get involved? Without evidence, the only difference between the choices on the issue at hand (a laissez-faire God creating the universe or not), is hope, or the lack thereof. How does that involve risk? Believe whichever makes you feel better. If I'm right, you have to hear me say I told you so; and if you're right, neither of us will ever know. Hmmm, I guess that choice could be a form of risk, but with no consequences in this universe, and minimal in the next.