Re: Atheists

[Allison]

As I was looking through the recent discussion about atheism, I realized that there are a bunch of atheist nerdfighters here and I have a question for them. It's a really common question between believers and non-believers, but I, being a Christian raised in the Church of Christ, am curious as to what you guys have to say as opposed to what other more well known people have said.

If you don't believe in God, then you obviously don't believe that he created the universe. How do you explain how we're here though? How was the universe made without him?

I think that most of you would probably say the big bang theory and then evolution, right? But how do you explain how those first particles or whatever they were came into existence? Quite a few well known atheists have been able to defend their beliefs up until this question and then they just kind of shrug it off and don't give a proper answer. Believers, on the other hand, have an answer, God. I'm not saying that it didn't happen because I personally believe that the big band is God's doing and I'm also not by any means claiming to be well-informed about the big bang theory seeing as I only know what I've learned in school and from other people, but if you do believe in the theory, how do you explain it without involving God?

Or if you don't believe in the big bang theory, what do you believe?

Just curious.



EDIT: It came to my attention rather abruptly that this is very much a matter of faith. While I can defend my beliefs whole-heartedly, they are almost entirely faith based. And since we don't share the same beliefs it seems it would be very hard for you to see my side. By all means, please keep responding though because I am truly interested.

[Stephanie Steadfast]

I'm not informed enough to say how we're here. I am completely unaware of theories on what started the universe besides the basics of the big bang.

I'm going to be the asshole Atheist here and ask, what made God? If God was needed to create the universe, somethign was needed to create him/her/it/them.

You asked why we're here. I personally don't think there's a reason. We just are. Life (evolution) happened and oh hey, mankind.

[Allison]

God has always been here. No one created him. I know that it's impossible to understand that seeing as we are human and we die, but God was, is, and always will be.

I'm not really asking about why we're here though because I know the answer to that (Colossians 1:16), so I think I'll change that in my question.

Thanks for responding

[JorickHorn]

You have answered your own question. If God has always existed, you can apply Occam's Razor: cut out the extra postulate and assume instead that the universe has always existed in some form.

[Kyle Drexler]

How can you say God has always been here. Do you know that for a fact? I have pretty strong opinions on this stuff but even I don't recognize any of my arguments as 100% factual. How could you possibly be sure of something like that. Were you there? And what is God exactly? If he was a bunch of particles somewhere, then wouldn't we see him. I tend to disvalue things I can't see, hear, or touch. And as for how the universe was made. I couldn't care less. I'm going to live for what...80, maybe 90 years. I don't really have time to be bothered with what if questions people have been studying for centuries and have failed to come up with anything on.

[lawrence BJ Hodgkinson]

christians could always answer to this argument by saying that we are made in gods image and that there is "god in everyone", holy spirit style, etc etc. so in essence you are seeing, hearing and touching god on a daily basis. in the end it ur argument like a christians hinges on a belief in god and the bible, which isnt really useful if you claim to be of scientific mind

[Unl8n Swallow]

Just to be a jerk... :)

Can you see, hear, or touch how a mass of metal, wire, and highly flammable liquid can get really high in the air and then come down again with you inside but not dead? Or do you take it on faith in scientists and engineers if you put yourself in that position you'll be ok?

Is gravity science, or do you take the law of gravity on faith because the cardinals of science came up with a good-sounding explanation? If every particle of mass was doubling in size in every unit of time, we'd be expanding against the earth as it expands against us and that would feel like gravity...

Basic point: there are a lot more people of faith than identify themselves as people of faith.

[Zach Minute]

How would that explanation of reality apply to things that aren't touching?

[Dan S.]

Actually, I think gravity would be less in such a scenario. Given that g = (G*m1*m2) / (r^2), where 'g' is the value of gravity, G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the Earth and you, and r is the distance between your respective centers of mass, then if your volume was expanding, and Earth's volume was expanding, the distance r would be expanding, thus reducing g. Mass would also have to be increasing in such proportion to counterbalance the difference in radial distance. The expansion could also be measured by the blue shift in arriving light from distant stars, since you would be approaching them at a rate proportional to Earth's volume expansion. If someone better versed than me sees a problem in my thought process, please illuminate me.

All that is beside the point though. Scientists aren't really taking things on "faith," so much as "empiricism." I have rolled out of bed every single morning and hit the floor - not the ceiling - thus I make the assumption that I will do so tomorrow. If I do hit the ceiling tomorrow, my assumptions were incorrect and I must adjust my theory.

The theory of gravity actually does need adjusting - it does not work on the quantum level. Conversely, quantum mechanics does not really work on the macroscopic level. Both of these theories need refining. Both explain vast amounts of observable data AND make predictions of future events (roll out of bed -> hit floor) which are testable.

Articles of faith may describe an observed phenomenon, but do not make predictions of future events and are not open for adjustment when new data arrives. One may have faith in the Virgin birth, but this faith does not allow predictions of future virgin births. The lack of other Virgin births, medical data, experience, etc., will also never change this article of faith. Meanwhile, my "faith" in gravity will be very happily tested, and verified by me, tomorrow morning.

[Zach Minute]

I just thought I should mention that the equation you gave is for the force due to gravity. Little g is generally used to denote the acceleration due to gravity. I don't know if you were just labeling things differently or what, but I thought I should comment on it. In case you didn't mean it that way, I thought I'd bring that to your attention. Otherwise, great post.

[Dan S.]

Yeah. It also occurred to me that Tim was probably also thinking in terms of inertial reference frames - you feel more weight when accelerating upwards. Maybe we're all in an elevator ;)

[Decepticon]

"Can you see, hear, or touch how a mass of metal, wire, and highly flammable liquid can get really high in the air and then come down again with you inside but not dead? Or do you take it on faith in scientists and engineers if you put yourself in that position you'll be ok?"

Actually, yes.

I've seen, and heard a plane take off. I've seen and heard a plane land. I've seen and heard planes flying. I've felt planes, too.

I have empirical data that the 'mass of metal, wire, and highly flammable liquid' can, and has many times in the past, get really high in the air and then come back down with everyone on board inside but not dead.

That's kind of a shitty example.

[Nick? No, couldn't be...]

But it's so easy to say "always" and be done with it. "Always" and "infinity" are concepts that the human mind cannot grasp, which is why they are so profound - they can be asserted, yet never understood, which has on some the effect of a sort of awe, or at least a strong impression, if it's done well. Things that we don't funny understand are always one of two things - easy to accept or easy to dismiss. Humanity wants answers to things, needs answers to things, and if one can't be found, we will sometimes use something they don't really understand to fill that void of not knowing. So combine the non-understandable infinity with a supposed entity with a nature that, as religions tell us over and over again, cannot be understood in a real sort of way, and you have for yourself a Big Easy Thing. Belief is easy. You just get an opinion and it's there. Now, things associated with belief are not always easy, but the thing in itself is. So when you say "God has always been here", and than admit that it is "impossible to understand", how can you claim to? Always, we have clearly established, is easy. Easy things, the proverbs go, are not always the right things. So to say that god, or, by extension, the universe (as pointed out by JorikHorn), has always been here is, I feel, to actually take the wonder out of it. It dismisses the question of why entirely. If it is infinite, there isn't a point to it, is there? Things with a purpose have some finite time frame to them, so an infinite thing would logically have none. Douglas Adams pointed this out with the concept of "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul", whereby immortal beings, being able to accomplish what is achieved in a normal life several times, lose all sense of purpose and fill infinity with something pointless.
My point is this: Infinite things have no purpose, but isn't the purpose of religion to attempt to answer "Why?" To establish some purpose for the universe? It would seem to me that infinity and religion are mutually exclusive concepts (at least, when religion attempts to establish "why" for everything).

Sorry if this is sort of a jumbled thought thing. It's all I have though.