Why does the universe exist at all?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by beingofone
I wish atheists would stop seeing all Christians as someone who would hang this sign in their church.

I wish more Christians well stop claiming that if you put your faith in Jesus you will get a PS2. That might change others perceptions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No. Moore came up with a system of ethics that are not predicated by a belief in God. I, however, find that it's far easier to have some kind of arbitrary spirituality in order to lead to some moral code, instead of an intellectual pursuit to that end. Most learn morality from parents and preachers after all.

Uh, sorry. My first attempt at dry wit

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by child of Thor
"So is an aethist scared of the possibility of there being a creator?"

Why such a question?

I'm not sure - i just find that often when i have these discussions with an aethist(not that often as more people seem to label themselves as agnostic that i know), i sense an element of fear of the unknown? I could percieve that the universe and our relevance to it from that perspective as being one that can lead to a sense of fear/despair?

And its one of the reasons that religions came about. It can be argued that the aethist view point is the most humanly mature view of existence. But i often find that it reaches too far from our roots(scared apes come down from the trees) and leaves a sense of emptyness in a person.

So purely from the physical and mental well being of an individual i dont have a problem with people believing in whatever religion they want to. Proof/fact in this realm isn't always the measure of victory.

Still if your 'happy' with an aethist viewpoint then thats cool

UR:
Science is not god - science just tries to understand nature, nothing more.

well i would ask you to look at that sentence and understand that religion is all about understanding nature too, and how we fit into it.
So what i was getting at is that both science and religion are tools that we use to understand the world around us. Science is better at answering some of these questions, religion is better at answering some of those science struggles with. neither has all the answers imho.

UR:
For atheists gods don't exist because there are no reasons for such beliefs. Things such as "fine tuning" just smack of "god-in-the-gap."

Furthermore, there are all sorts of problems associated with a "creator," such as who created the creator.

True

UR:
You don't need a creator for ethical behaviour though. If a person needs a powerful entity to watch over his shoulder for him to act ethically, there is a slight problem.

This is a difficult one, and one where in theory religion should come up trumps; but history is littered with religions failure - or more accurately maybe, man's failure to properly follow his religion. Again its part of what can be percieved as the aetheist's weakness - in that it forgets the fraility of human exsitence or our humble origins. Humankind is weak, we prove it over and over again - just look around the world, look over the street, look around at home.

This is where religion is meant to help us by providing a framework for our societies to function together. The sadness of this is that often its the real non-religious person(even when pretending to be religious) that does all the damage in the world.

If we all lived by the common good that all religions hold in thier teachings, then we wouldn't have the world we do - imho it would be a much more peacefull and productive world. Thats the real worth of religion, and one that is all to often not understood or acted on.

I find it hard to believe that in a world run purely on science's values that we would have the option of all living better lives, it would be very efficient i'm sure - but not be able to provide the warmth and comfort that we apes need in our big empty universe

EDIT: oh if your wondering about the italics, i was trying an 'easy' way to do the reply to many parts of one post. It didnt work as i expected and i could'nt be bothered removing the [i]'s

[beingofone]

It's a fascinating way of looking at it, but in as far as I can tell, if God is necessary and, as you imply, all lines of inquiry necessarily lead to God, then it implies that all lines of "existence-preceeds-essence" inquiry must reach infinity to achieve "existence=essense" whereas instead they regress. In short, if that is God, then God cannot be knowable, and we cannot be knowable to God.

Ah but God can be knowable through and by the experiential knowledge of one`s own.
I know you don`t like quotes from other people but these quotes best fit the bill for what I am trying to convey.

"The spirit of man is inseparable from the Infinite, and
can be satisfied with nothing less than the Infinite."
- James Allen

"For now we see in a mirror, darkly; (enigma, puzzle, riddle), but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known. "
- Apostle Paul


"Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

What I am saying is that I agree with you that man has a working model in himself of the active eternal God.
I take it one step further and say it is not just a model but the reality in and of itself.
You are experiencing God this very moment, it is life itself.

"There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We think that there is something hiding reality and that this must be destroyed before reality is gained.
How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now."
- Ramana Maharshi

OK - no more quotes

That is of course silly since the universe could have gone any number of ways... but my enquiry now pre-determines that 100% probability... not the other way around.

That is like saying,
Either I do not exist, or there is a pen in my pocket.
Or the planet is to overpopulated for unicorns and perfect islands.

Hmmm... the only information that can come out is the form of the tautology in itself... in other words "I exist therefore I exist", or "I experience therefore I experience" etc. The form of the tautology, and what you might call the ground or first cause of existence, is "I"; the ego-predicate. This might indicate some internalised perception of God as I believe, but cannot be used to say "I exist necessarily therefore the cause of my existence, exists necessarily", since necessity is an ego-predicate.

But you are necessary, if not, please recount a memory from when you did not exist?

I am glad you liked the PS2 thing.
Cmon - lets hear a good Jewish joke




You nihilists, quite viewing the universe like this.

[Whaleboy]

Ah but God can be knowable through and by the experiential knowledge of one`s own.

You're attempting to show then that an experience of God is evidence for God's existence, in which case we need to define existence. I hold it as meaning objective and contingent and subject to perceptive enquiry. That does not apply to anything that exists in our minds, no more than a wet dream exists in reality.

That we might be able to experience God ourselves imo supports my contention that God is artificial; a model for our subconscious in order that we may function well in society. That God in the familial sense has these properties is more a fault of the history of religion than indicative of any supposed actual properties.

I take it one step further and say it is not just a model but the reality in and of itself.
You are experiencing God this very moment, it is life itself.

Tis a fascinating way of looking at it, and I commend your ability to think it so. I am indeed open to it, though I suspect that just as logic cannot permeate the obstinacy of human faith, the human mind as *I* perceive it, or how I perceive my life is something of an infinity. As a result, not only can it not be scientifically known, but it cannot be communicated, any more than I can communicate my experience of the colour "red". Nevertheless, I'd like to hear more about how God, in our agreed sense, is reality... and what implications you think it has for God as we understand it?

As I understand it, it sounds rather like how a Buddhist would internalise Krsna and his relationship with Krsna.

That is like saying,
Either I do not exist, or there is a pen in my pocket.
Or the planet is to overpopulated for unicorns and perfect islands.

Apologies, I was being unclear. My existence, which is certain, denotes that the occurence of the causes of my existence, though infinetely more complex for me to appreciate, are also certain (100% probability). It makes no sense to enquire about the fantastic unlikelihood of it since you cement the probability by doing so... so in effect, thinking in terms of "holy sh*t, I was so unlikely, I must have had a designer", is geocentric. By that I mean it better describes our own psyche than any universal truths.

"Either I do not exist, or there is a pen in my pocket" is difficult since a pen is contingent at the moment, whereas the universe and its causes that predicate you, are necessary.

"The planet is too overpopulated for unicorns and perfect islands"... well I'll ignore the perfect island to avoid confusion with the ontological argument, but again a unicorn, if it were to exist, is contingent.

You nihilists, quite viewing the universe like this.

Surely some lifeless rock would have the big teeth?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by child of Thor
'm not sure - i just find that often when i have these discussions with an aethist(not that often as more people seem to label themselves as agnostic that i know), i sense an element of fear of the unknown? I could percieve that the universe and our relevance to it from that perspective as being one that can lead to a sense of fear/despair?

There are all sorts of atheists.

Lets start from the basics. Broadly speaking, anybody who does not have a active belief in a god or a group of gods is considered an atheist. This comes from the definition of atheism*, which is theism with the Greek prefix "a-," meaning "without."

Now, there are a number of reasons for people who have no religious beliefs. For many, they looked at all the available evidence and concluded that there is no good reason to belief in one. For a few, the rejection of religion (mostly Christianity) is based on emotions. So, I cannot completely exclude that some atheists may include a component of fear. For the majority of us, though, this is not an issue.

On the contrary, atheists are the brave ones. Consider that what we face: void, eternal darkness, nothingness. To reject a creator is to reject eternal life - okay, you don't have to believe in a god to believe in souls, but that's the usual case. I reckon many people choose to believe in a religion or another because they cannot bear to face this ultimate destiny. It is an emotional crutch.

Originally posted by child of Thor
But i often find that it reaches too far from our roots(scared apes come down from the trees) and leaves a sense of emptyness in a person.

Some say if you are not in love you have an emptiness in you

I guess a large part of that has to do with a person's disposition and what "emptiness" is to him. Many people can't handle being solitude for long periods of time, not me. I have much less human contact than your average person, part of it is because the nature of my chosen career path and another part the nature of my current job. It doesn't bother me at all.

Originally posted by child of Thor
So purely from the physical and mental well being of an individual i dont have a problem with people believing in whatever religion they want to. Proof/fact in this realm isn't always the measure of victory.

The "live and let live" position, one of the good ones to have. If you see it purely from a happiness point of view there's nothing wrong with that, although some of us see it from another angle.

First you get all sorts of associated problems with religion, such as fundamentalism, cults, scams (faith healers, etc.), persecutions and even wars. If we avoid religion altogehter we can avoid a lot of this nasty stuff.

Second some atheists see religion as a drug. If your friend is happy when he's high on dope, will you try to get him off his substance dependence?

Originally posted by child of Thor
Still if your 'happy' with an aethist viewpoint then thats cool[/i]

I can't say I am happy because I will be ultimately be nothing, but I cannot get it past myself to believe in something without evidence.

Such is life, innit?

Originally posted by child of Thor
well i would ask you to look at that sentence and understand that religion is all about understanding nature too, and how we fit into it.

Science doesn't try to understand nature with make-up stuff, though

Originally posted by child of Thor
So what i was getting at is that both science and religion are tools that we use to understand the world around us. Science is better at answering some of these questions, religion is better at answering some of those science struggles with. neither has all the answers imho.

Depends on the questions. Science won't - and cannot - touch any of the questions that deal with meanings, reasons behind such and such, etc. That is the nature of science, and you may consider that as a weakness. However, philosophically speaking, are such questions meaningful in this universe?

Originally posted by child of Thor
This is a difficult one, and one where in theory religion should come up trumps; but history is littered with religions failure - or more accurately maybe, man's failure to properly follow his religion. Again its part of what can be percieved as the aetheist's weakness - in that it forgets the fraility of human exsitence or our humble origins. Humankind is weak, we prove it over and over again - just look around the world, look over the street, look around at home.

If you are saying that religion is better at inducing ethical behaviour - possibly, although as you said, history is rifted with examples of how religion could cause massive sufferings and damage. Heck, even the Old Testament has records of how the Israelis did nasty things to other tribes.

Yes, humans are weak and frigile in many ways, but faith isn't going to make us stronger - see if Pat Roberts or Jerry Falwell dares to put his hand in a jar fill with posionous snakes.

Originally posted by child of Thor
I find it hard to believe that in a world run purely on science's values that we would have the option of all living better lives, it would be very efficient i'm sure - but not be able to provide the warmth and comfort that we apes need in our big empty universe

There are alternatives to religions. For example there are secular ethical theories. Evolution can explain why most people act in a generally good fashion. Religions may have their values in the past, however as humans we cannot remain in our crandle forever. For several centuries many had tried to get rid of our dependence on religion. Maybe it is time for us to grow up.

Originally posted by child of Thor
EDIT: oh if your wondering about the italics, i was trying an 'easy' way to do the reply to many parts of one post. It didnt work as i expected and i could'nt be bothered removing the [i]'s

I was wondering when did self biased took over your bodyaccount

* For a comprehensive treatment of the subject please refer to Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Beware that it is a very heavy duty read.

[child of Thor]

Nice reply UR As you can no doubt tell i'm not a 'bible basher' myself. But i can see the relevence of religion for many people, and that is fine imho.

As for searching for the true answers to life the universe and everything, i expect our great-great-great grandchildren to carry on doing as we have been. Some things i just think you can never really know the answers to, and that's fine also

There are no absolute rights and wrongs - there just are our best efforts to understand each other and the world around us. Hopefully in the long run we can have the positives in this quest outway the negatives, and maybe at that point we will finally get close to a truer understanding and both knowledge and wisdom will guide us in the journey that is all ours to make.

And thats the trick - to make sure your actions in this life have as positive a contibution to make as possible. If you need religious guidence to do that, then good.
If you can do it solo, then good also.

But make your actions count for the side of 'good' - i think we all know deep in our hearts/souls/organs(that last option for the aethisits ), what is a 'good' act as opposed to a 'bad' one. If only we all took more notice of these feelings we would benfit the greater.

[Dr Strangelove]

Who cares what Nietzche thought? He was completely psycho!

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Who cares what Nietzche thought? He was completely psycho!

true - he was so out there that i often confuse his fate with that of Rasputin(i dont know why) Still he had some good points as well as the bad.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by child of Thor
But make your actions count for the side of 'good' - i think we all know deep in our hearts/souls/organs(that last option for the aethisits ), what is a 'good' act as opposed to a 'bad' one. If only we all took more notice of these feelings we would benfit the greater.

That would be "brains" for us

[Provost Harrison]

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

Nietzsche may have been stark raving bonkers but that quote really sums it all up, doesn't it?

[beingofone]

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I had a virus to deal with. It was a very nasty one as it was just written and none knew about it.
My computer was borrowed by a friend of mine and he turned the firewall off. Its back on all you hacker types - LOL

I imagine it came from either an atheist or a fundamentalist religious type as I am disliked by both camps. The atheists do not like me because I mention the word 'God' and the fundies don`t like me because I mention the word 'enlightened' and sound to Eastern.

Funny - some of my bitter enemies are 'Christians'; the blind do lead the blind.
'Lord save me from your followers, amen'.

Ah - the price of being free to think my very own thoughts.



Whaleboy

You're attempting to show then that an experience of God is evidence for God's existence, in which case we need to define existence. I hold it as meaning objective and contingent and subject to perceptive enquiry. That does not apply to anything that exists in our minds, no more than a wet dream exists in reality.

You really do have your own style when it comes to philosophy. Gotta love it.

Here is a wonder to behold Whaleboy.

Diogenes was asked, "What is the difference between life and death?

"No difference."

"Well then, why do you remain in this life?"

"Because there is no difference."

That we might be able to experience God ourselves imo supports my contention that God is artificial; a model for our subconscious in order that we may function well in society. That God in the familial sense has these properties is more a fault of the history of religion than indicative of any supposed actual properties.

But your breath is my breath, your water is my water, and your sunshine is also mine. All things are interconnected and there is not one being, object, or event that is not part of the whole.
You cannot separate yourself from the universe no matter how hard you try.

How real is your universe you are experiencing right now?
Are you experiencing a whole reality or just a partial reality?

Tis a fascinating way of looking at it, and I commend your ability to think it so. I am indeed open to it, though I suspect that just as logic cannot permeate the obstinacy of human faith, the human mind as *I* perceive it, or how I perceive my life is something of an infinity. As a result, not only can it not be scientifically known, but it cannot be communicated, any more than I can communicate my experience of the colour "red". Nevertheless, I'd like to hear more about how God, in our agreed sense, is reality... and what implications you think it has for God as we understand it?

As I understand it, it sounds rather like how a Buddhist would internalise Krsna and his relationship with Krsna.

If you push atheism to the extreem (and I do mean extreem) conclusion, you will arrive at the same place and you will find me sitting here grinning at you .

Half hearted attempts at finding truth never work or are a success. You must push your thinking and desire to the point of stretching the mind beyond all conventional thinking. You must pop the bubble.
These are the chains and parameters others have established so that everyone stays in line and does not think for themselves.

A story is told of a Buddhist monk and a student crossing a river. When they were half way the student asked the teacher " when will I find God?"The monk grabbed the student and with superhuman strength pushes him under the water.
The student grapples but the masters grip is just to powerful. When his lungs are just about to burst the monk yanks the young boy out of the water. As he is gasping for air the monk sais "when you desire God like you just desired a breath of air, then you will find him".

I am saying once you realize that all you can ever know is your own experience - best find out what that is.

"And thats all I have to say bout that."

[child of Thor]

Buddhists gotta love em

anyway this article interested me and reminded me of this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4197844.stm

DNA looks - not natural?

[monolith94]

[Urban Ranger]

dp