So many people I know and respect are smug know-it-all atheists...

[Profit Prophet]

It is absurd, to me, how often I encounter an atheist preaching the most obvious criticisms of mainstream religions. They take credit. As if, no one has ever considered it. As if the religious are unaware? Like Ricky Gervais - who, according to critics and audiences, is a smart man - talking about mythology like it's literal. This is a popular voice?

You will have to forgive my writing. English is not my first language.

I just wonder, though. If the majority of people do not understand high art, does that mean there is something wrong with it? And, likewise; the Torah; the Bible; The Q'ran. Does ignorance, or inability to digest this, does it invalidate the work itself?

Is the reader to blame or the writer?

It seems to me, that - from what I've witnessed with my eyes, which I trust more than what the television might dictate - most people who are religious do not fundamentally misinterpret the word of God. (As they believe.)

Atheists take for granted, perhaps, that this world was built on religion. The more primitive a society, the more it is spiritual / shamanistic... The drugs that this forum discusses, these are the seeds of modern life. Are they not?

And, how can you separate religion - or God/s - from that?

Here is a quote from Trey Parker. And, I'm sure that will discredit me with some.

Basically... out of all the ridiculous religion stories which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous—the silliest one I've ever heard is, 'Yeah... there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause... just 'cause'. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.

For all it's macho nonsense, science really knows nothing.

The atheistic explanation is absurd.

 

[drug_mentor]

It is absurd, to me, how often I encounter an atheist preaching the most obvious criticisms of mainstream religions. They take credit. As if, no one has ever considered it. As if the religious are unaware? Like Ricky Gervais - who, according to critics and audiences, is a smart man - talking about mythology like it's literal. This is a popular voice?

I am not much of a fan of 'The New Atheists' (with the exception of Daniel Dennett, but only due to his contributions to academic philosophy), and I identify as a agnostic myself. However, I think it is erroneous to believe that when an atheist presents a strong argument against religion they are "taking credit for it", they are simply challenging religion on (mostly) valid grounds. Not every argument someone employs has to be one they have devised themselves. If I find an argument on a particular topic convincing I will likely use that argument in a debate where it is relevant, I think it would be ridiculous to suggest there is anything wrong or dishonest about this.

I like Ricky Gervais (OT he happens to be a philosophy major), but I like him for his comedy, not because he is an atheist. I think you can acknowledge someone is funny even if you don't agree with everything they say, and Ricky Gervais is popular because he is funny.

I just wonder, though. If the majority of people do not understand high art, does that mean there is something wrong with it? And, likewise; the Torah; the Bible; The Q'ran. Does ignorance, or inability to digest this, does it invalidate the work itself?

You seem to be assuming that you understand your religious text of choice and those who criticise it don't, forgive me if I have this wrong. If I am not wrong, this seems like a fairly arrogant and dubious assumption.

I wonder if what you are driving at here is that religious texts are not supposed to be taken literally, and it is therefore invalid to criticise them on the supposition that they are supposed to be taken literally. To some extent this is a fair complaint. However, someone can recognise the stories in these religious texts are not to be taken literally and oppose them on other grounds, for example because they often preach the subjugation of women and/or intolerance towards homosexuals.

It seems to me, that - from what I've witnessed with my eyes, which I trust more than what the television might dictate - most people who are religious do not fundamentally misinterpret the word of God. (As they believe.)

How could anybody misinterpret their own beliefs? They might hold some beliefs that are inconsistent with other beliefs, but if somebody interprets the Bible in some way, how exactly could they misinterpret their own interpretation? That seems absurd.

Perhaps you mean most religious people agree with your interpretation. Maybe this is true, if it is that certainly wouldn't prove you are correct and those who disagree are wrong.

Atheists take for granted, perhaps, that this world was built on religion. The more primitive a society, the more it is spiritual / shamanistic... The drugs that this forum discusses, these are the seeds of modern life. Are they not?

And, how can you separate religion - or God/s - from that?

Plenty of different beliefs and ideologies helped build the world, that alone doesn't make them correct. Calling drugs the seeds of modern life is highly contentious, and in my view ridiculous. Even if it were true, I am not sure what drug taking has to do with God. I have used drugs for 14 years, daily for 9 of them, they never had any religious connotation for me.

Here is a quote from Trey Parker. And, I'm sure that will discredit me with some.

Basically... out of all the ridiculous religion stories which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous—the silliest one I've ever heard is, 'Yeah... there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause... just 'cause'. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever.

For all it's macho nonsense, science really knows nothing.

Your Trey Parker quote is a subjective assertion which, at least in your quote, he doesn't bother to argue for. Saying something is ridiculous doesn't make it so.

As for your claim, without a supporting argument it is a hyperbolic and extremely hollow assertion. In the absence of an argument why empirical evidence is insufficient it can also be disproven easily.

The atheistic explanation is absurd.

Some exposition here would be nice. I agree that appealing to the Big Bang does not begin to answer all the questions about where the Universe came from, however, it would be disingenuous to suggest religion offers a better explanation. If God created everything, who created God? Who created the being which created God? I am sure I don't need to go on for you to see that this creates an infinite regress and exposes a serious lacuna in the creationist explanation.

 

[Profit Prophet]

You seem to be assuming that you understand your religious text of choice and those who criticise it don't, forgive me if I have this wrong. If I am not wrong, this seems like a fairly arrogant and dubious assumption.

I said English is not my first language.
I'm not sure if you have attempted to incorporate that into your response?
Honestly, it's going to take me a while to decode a lot of what you wrote.

I take this one quote, for now.
You can call me arrogant all you like.
There are people call "haters". But you don't call them haters when they hate on God.
The same ignorant baseless nonsense.

 

[drug_mentor]

I said English is not my first language.
I'm not sure if you have attempted to incorporate that into your response?
Honestly, it's going to take me a while to decode a lot of what you wrote.

I didn't take it into account to the extent that I did not modify the language I used to make my post more readable to someone who doesn't read/speak English well. In your OP you seemed to have a reasonably good grip on the English language, and I am a little short on time so I wrote my post as I would naturally. I am genuinely sorry if this has made my post difficult for you to understand.

I take this one quote, for now.
You can call me arrogant all you like.

I didn't call you arrogant. I said it seems like you are making a particular assumption, and conceded I may be wrong. I then said if I am not wrong then the assumption seems arrogant. This is a far cry from calling you arrogant personally. Perhaps the language barrier was the source of confusion here.

There are people call "haters". But you don't call them haters when they hate on God.
The same ignorant baseless nonsense.

I think a lot of people would call people like Richard Dawkins "haters" when it comes to religion. You seem to be making quite a few assumptions in this thread which are not well founded.

 

[drug_mentor]

I'm not one to propagate or defend religious views, but isn't it straight up irrational to ask who created God? I mean if something is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, it must exist outside of time and space.

Even if one is to accept that a being exists outside of time and space, how does it follow from this that nothing could create that being? There could be numerous things outside time and space, some of which might be capable of creating others. Talking about this sort of thing is pure speculation, and if I am to accept a being could exist outside of space and time it is hard for me to see a strong argument as to why only one being could do so.

Even if I were to accept to accept the premise that God might exist outside of time and space, and the premise that Ockam's razor suggests that only one being could exist outside time and space then it seems the creationist proponent of such a view would be committed to either: a) God has always existed, or b) at some point something (God) came from nothing. It isn't clear to me how this is supposed to be a more satisfactory explanation than either: c) the Universe has always existed in some form (e.g. condensed energy and/or matter), or d) the Universe came from nothing.

If we appeal to Ockam's razor again, in terms of both ontological and theoretical simplicity c) and d) would be more favourable explanations than either a) or b).

I am not trying to be uncharitable, nor am I trying to ignore basic assumptions about God. In any case, I fail to see how religion offers a better account of the origins of the Universe than science.

 

[drug_mentor]

It's not about which one offers a better explanation. It's about denying the possibility that a) and b) are essentially the same as c) and d)

You quoted this part of my post:

If God created everything, who created God? Who created the being which created God?

This was in response to this comment:

The atheistic explanation is absurd.

In this case I have to disagree with you that it is not about which one offers a better explanation.

I really don't have time for a constant back and forth. I am agnostic, I think creationist accounts of the Universe face serious problems, but I acknowledge science to date does not offer a satisfactory explanation either.

 

[Profit Prophet]

Athiests like to squirm about, amid grey areas.

in theory, they play well.
but, in practice, less friendly than the Christians?

honestly?

 

[Nixiam]

I'm not one to propagate or defend religious views, but isn't it straight up irrational to ask who created God? I mean if something is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, it must exist outside of time and space. Seems to me the primary motive in atheism is to deny or disprove God, to the point that you would ignore the basic assumptions of such an entity.

If someone is that contradictory, being omnipotent, omnipresent, I think ig a sin not to ask who created it.

We can describe our own universe much the same way we describe god, and science still begs the question, "Why and how are you here and came into being?"

To the OP.

Religious don't see how black and white it really is. Could you point me to a grey area? God notions are anecdotal accounts, have no basis, have proved to be critically detrimental to the human race.

Science does not offer all the answers, but religion offers none. At the end of the day, I will pick the one less likely to burn someone at the stake.

 

[Ninae]

I think the idea is that it's mostly within time/space that things have been created. Outside of that they take on more of an infinite quality. Exactly how is a bit difficult to understand within time and space, but this life is meant to be more like a movie as compared to the real thing.

Part of the challenge is to wake up within the game and realise it is just a movie, but we might have that planned out at different times, and it could be on the deathbed for some.

Anyway, I think Atheism, or Materialism, is pretty much out official religion now (with some cul-de-sacs in place for those who fall through the cracks). That is where most of the available roads lead.

 

[Ninae]

By the way, this is a good, intelligent podcast for theists (I love Dave):

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=137354&cmd=tc
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=119117&cmd=tc

 

[Profit Prophet]

To say that God implies the same question as a finite universe is incorrect.
From what we know understand, this physical dimension has beginning.
This is why the question is implied, what came before.

If God, by definition, is infinite and timeless... this does not apply.

From what we observe of the universe, there must be something else.
Assuming you believe the universe has a beginning and an end, it is illogical assuming there is nothing beyond this.

Early man assumed there was nothing beyond the ocean. He believe, nothing beyond Earth.
But, these were baseless assumptions. Just as there is no foundation for assuming there is no God.

I'm not one to propagate or defend religious views, but isn't it straight up irrational to ask who created God? I mean if something is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, it must exist outside of time and space. Seems to me the primary motive in atheism is to deny or disprove God, to the point that you would ignore the basic assumptions of such an entity.

Well said.

There are people call "haters". But you don't call them haters when they hate on God. The same ignorant baseless nonsense.

I think a lot of people would call people like Richard Dawkins "haters" when it comes to religion. You seem to be making quite a few assumptions in this thread which are not well founded.

No. You're just picking at my English.
Writing properly requires effort. Sometimes, I'm lazy.
I mean the proverbial you.

My direct observations are not assumptions.

It is popular to hate God.
Maybe not here, in this forum. I don't know.
But, certainly on television. And, on the street.

God notions are anecdotal accounts, have no basis, have proved to be critically detrimental to the human race.

Science does not offer all the answers, but religion offers none.

Absurd statements.
The impact of the God concept on human development is impossible to measure.
To say the idea of God is detrimental is ignorant.

Show me the proof.

As for your second statement, God gives me more answers than science.
Science is irrelevant. Animals live without technology.

There is research indicating the damage that scientific developments have caused to this beautiful planet. Where is the research weighing up good / bad that religion has caused? You can go and select things, that suit you. But, this is what atheists do.

The industrial revolution result of science, yes?

Tell me what good science is doing this planet? Tell me what valuable answers people have as they destroy this planet with excessive energy consumption?

Religion has existed since the beginning of man.
God has existed forever.

We will be lucky if modern science doesn't kill us within a couple of centuries.
But, we have answers! (What answers?)
What good are these answers doing us?

...

Religion created civilization.
Science is destroying it.

 

[drug_mentor]

To say that God implies the same question as a finite universe is incorrect.
From what we know understand, this physical dimension has beginning.
This is why the question is implied, what came before.

If God, by definition, is infinite and timeless... this does not apply.

The Universe as we know it has a beginning. I am no scientist, but for the Big Bang to occur it seems plausible to think there was something before it occurred. It is not impossible that the Universe in some form (for example condensed matter and/or energy) is infinite, nor is this suggestion any less plausible than that of an infinite Divine creator. Since the Universe being infinite involves less assumptions than an infinite God creating the Universe, Occam's razor suggests it is a better explanation.

From what we observe of the universe, there must be something else.
Assuming you believe the universe has a beginning and an end, it is illogical assuming there is nothing beyond this.

As I addressed in this post and a previous one, I don't necessarily believe the Universe has a beginning. Your assertion that empirical evidence suggests there must be something else is unsupported, and in my view, wrong.

But, these were baseless assumptions. Just as there is no foundation for assuming there is no God.

I have said twice already I am agnostic, so I don't assume there is no God. I don't think there is any reason to assume there is no God, but there are good reasons to think better explanations exist for the origins of the Universe.

I'm not one to propagate or defend religious views, but isn't it straight up irrational to ask who created God? I mean if something is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, it must exist outside of time and space. Seems to me the primary motive in atheism is to deny or disprove God, to the point that you would ignore the basic assumptions of such an entity.

Well said.

It is disingenuous for you to parrot this criticism of my post without bothering to address my subsequent counterargument.

I would like to add that to claim God is omnipresent implies God does exist in space.

No. You're just picking at my English.

I am not picking at your English at all. You made numerous dubious assertions without any supporting evidence or argument, I simply pointed out this fact.

It seems you are either unwilling or unable to engage with most of the points I have made, and I have ended up having to repeat myself. Unless you address my arguments or otherwise have something interesting to say I will refrain from posting further in this thread.

 

[nuttynutskin]

IME you can't prove there isn't a god or a higher power any more than you can prove there is. But for me religion and spirituality should be personal anyways.

 

[Bagseed]

yo drug mentor, I read Carl Sagan from your posts

The Universe as we know it has a beginning. I am no scientist, but for the Big Bang to occur it seems plausible to think there was something before it occurred. It is not impossible that the Universe in some form (for example condensed matter and/or energy) is infinite, nor is this suggestion any less plausible than that of an infinite Divine creator. Since the Universe being infinite involves less assumptions than an infinite God creating the Universe, Occam's razor suggests it is a better explanation.

just wanted to add to this that the reason we know nothing about the state of the universe from before a certain event is that we can only detect photons from after that event (see "photon decoupling"). basically before that, the universe was so hot that everything was a plasma and electrons were free to move so light was so much scattered that the universe was opaque.

the hope is that better detection of gravitational waves might in the future enable us to witness things from earlier points in time.

 

[Profit Prophet]

It is disingenuous for you to parrot this criticism of my post without bothering to address my subsequent counterargument.

Nonsense. I don't have to respond to everyone, or read everything that everyone writes.
I liked what he said, so I said "Well said." I'm not seeing a problem here.

I have said twice already I am agnostic, so I don't assume there is no God.

Why say it a third time?
When did I say otherwise?

The majority of my comments have not been directed at you.

I don't think there is any reason to assume there is no God, but there are good reasons to think better explanations exist for the origins of the Universe.

That depends on how you define God.
Since you never asked my definition, what are you even talking about?
How can one undefined thing make more sense than another?

What are these better explanations?

Unless you address my arguments or otherwise have something interesting to say I will refrain from posting further in this thread.

Okay, then.

You're not my type, any way.

 

[drug_mentor]

Bagseed, what you say about the Universe before the Big Bang is interesting, hopefully that theory bears some fruit eventually. I must confess that I am not particularly physics literate, I mostly dabble in metaphysics/philosophy. I do have an interest in science, but unfortunately I didn't pursue maths very far when I was in school, this makes following a lot of the 'harder' sciences somewhat difficult.

Nonsense. I don't have to respond to everyone, or read everything that everyone writes.
I liked what he said, so I said "Well said." I'm not seeing a problem here.

You made a thread for discussion. I am one of few people who has bothered to respond, and the only person who has responded to virtually everything you have said. It is fairly discourteous of you to not even bother reading it. So much for Christians being more friendly...

What are these better explanations?

See my previous posts.

You're not my type, any way.

What a shock, someone who has managed to logically refute many of your points isn't your "type". Enjoy being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Profit Prophet]

It is fairly discourteous of you to not even bother reading it.

I disagree. I asked you from the beginning to tone down the complex English.
You have made no effort to do so and I have no obligation to read what you wrote.

So much for Christians being more friendly, eh?

I'm not Christian.

What a shock, someone who has managed to refute your incoherent criticisms with logic isn't your "type". Enjoy being intellectually dishonest.

You're not my type because of the way you argue.
Your language is overly formal, to the point that it detracts.
You have been quite patronizing and condescending towards me, throughout this discussion.
I don't think you are an open minded person. No offense.
I politely tried to avoid you. And I'm rude for doing so?

Ridiculous.

 

[drug_mentor]

I disagree. I asked you from the beginning to tone down the complex English.
You have made no effort to do so and I have no obligation to read what you wrote.

The English I am using is not particularly complex. If the language barrier is such a big deal maybe English speaking forums aren't for you. I am writing these posts whilst studying for exams, so forgive me if I don't have the time or patience to write long winded posts using small words.

You're not my type because of the way you argue.
Your language is overly formal, to the point that it detracts.

Now you are complaining my language is too formal on a philosophy forum? Give me a break. I feel I have argued fairly and logically. I have tried to be charitable when interpreting your arguments, and have tried to explain my reasons for my views clearly and precisely.

I really am done this time.

 

[Profit Prophet]

My English is fine, thank you.
I just have trouble reading overly complex sentences.
It is a chore for me to read, even in my own language.
But, especially in a foreign language.

You corner me and tell me I'm rude for not responding to you in detail.
So, I'm explaining why I have not responded. It is not because your arguments are so amazing that I'm scared.
Although that is a very arrogant thing to suggest. No. I didn't read everything you wrote because of language like this:

It is disingenuous for you to parrot this criticism of my post without bothering to address my subsequent counterargument.

This comment was directed at me.
The sentence is unnecessarily complex to the extent that you're basically showing off.
I already asked this - politely - for you to tone down the complexity of your language. You didn't.
This is an English forum, yes, but it is also International.

If you meet people in your country and they say they're English isn't good, do you attempt to accommodate them?
I'm just curious. I don't care if you do. It's a free world, as far as I go.
But - if you don't - you can't then blame them for not wanting to communicate with you.

Now you are complaining my language is too formal on a philosophy forum? Give me a break.

To clarify. I'm not complaining. I don't give two shits.
I'm explaining to you that it is too formal for me. I have no obligation to read everything you write.
It is very arrogant, I think, to tell someone that the only reason they don't want to talk to you is because you are better than them.

I really am done this time.

Great.
This is a waste of my time.

 

[Profit Prophet]

Could you point me to a grey area?

The science minded atheist says God is an unlikely explanation and that science has the answers.
But, the alternative answer - to God - is what? I don't think this has ever been answered to satisfy me.

If there was something before the Big Bang, it doesn't matter.
There is still a linear progression, and this implies a beginning.
If the universe is infinite and linear, what is our understanding of this through science?
Science has not even begun to approach answering these questions. Has it?

The question of God is absolutely beyond science.
Therefore: science as an alternative to God, doesn't make sense.

Science says there (probably) was a Big Bang and it (probably) expanded to what we call the universe and there are (possibly) other universes (but there might not be) and before the Big Bang there was nothing (or there might have been something)...

How is that a better explanation?
God is not an explanation, in first place.
But, how is the absolute absence of explanation better?

There is no commitment to an answer, for Science.
There isn't even a contender.

What is the scientific alternate to God?
The best they have for a contender is "nothing".
Not the absence of an answer. But the answer actually being "nothing".
Before the theory of what there was before the Big Bang, we said there was nothing.
Because, beyond what we can see, we cannot imagine. Like early man looking at waves, failing to see ocean.