Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[WaveJumper]

Especially when there is no evidence for them?
I have to acknowledge that I can't prove that god doesn't exist.

We don't know what it really means to exist. In fact, we don't know what space really is either. And neither do we know what flowing Time is. Yes, your perceptions give you a picture of these concepts, but it's incomplete and wrong. Space isn't a solid, fixed structure and neither is time. In a sentence - we don't know what the universe is and how it is. In light of these baffling physical findings - it's a bit premature if not childish to base your opinion on perceptional evidence sought in your personal experience. I am going to put this in bold because it tends to get overlooked a lot by certain ideologies:

"Physics doesn't know where it is that you atheists are conducting your search for the evidence of the non-existence of God. All that can be meaningfully said by any physicist of today(July 2009) is that you are looking for the evidence in your subjective personal experience."

And all I really believe is that we shouldn't assume he exists before anything has been proven or observed.

Agreed, but you already assumed that you know what to exist means and you don't. I think most people would agree that gods don't exist in our perceptions, though.

 

[octelcogopod]

That's because you seem to keep flip-flopping between "belief that something is not there" and "don't believe that something is there".

Flip flopping how?
Like I said I don't find a reason to believe there is a god, until it is proven.
I'm not directly saying I don't believe in a god, I'm just saying there's no reason to believe it at this time.

 

[octelcogopod]

We don't know what it really means to exist. In fact, we don't know what space really is either. And neither do we know what flowing Time is. Yes, your perceptions give you a picture of these concepts, but it's incomplete and wrong. Space isn't a solid, fixed structure and neither is time. In a sentence - we don't know what the universe is and how it is. In light of these baffling physical findings - it's a bit premature if not childish to base your opinion on perceptional evidence sought in your personal experience. I am going to put this in bold because it tends to get overlooked a lot by certain ideologies:

"Physics doesn't know where it is that you atheists are conducting your search for the evidence of the non-existence of God. All that can be meaningfully said by any physicist of today(July 2009) is that you are looking for the evidence in your subjective personal experience."







Agreed, but you already assumed that you know what to exist means and you don't. I think most people would agree that gods don't exist in our perceptions, though.

Well that's a different way of looking at it.
Yeah a lot of what I said goes directly from the fact that I haven't seen god myself, or seen any evidence that god exists, and yes, a lot can be questioned about how we view reality and what we really know.
But I didn't take it that far because we have to set a line somewhere.
There are so many things we take for granted about how we function and how the world functions, but where do we cross the line of when we discuss things?

Maybe god can be something which is always there, and god is also extremely loosely defined, so all I really know is what I have heard. But a lot can be said about an omnipotent being.
All I'm saying is I haven't had any perception or thought that makes me believe the universe has an intelligent being controlling it. To me it's actually the opposite. I believe it to be completely chaotic and without any meaning.

 

[Hurkyl]

Flip flopping how?

Exactly as I said -- you keep switching between disbelief^* and lack of belief.

to clarify, I'm using this in the sense I have been -- "disbelief in X" means "belief that X is untrue".

Here are two examples:

God is a myth, a tale..
...
I don't believe in it.

God is like everything else that doesn't exist.. I don't believe in it

Both times, you state disbelief -- an assertion that God does not exist. And both times, you equate that disbelief with a mere lack of belief.

 

[WaveJumper]

All I'm saying is I haven't had any perception or thought that makes me believe the universe has an intelligent being controlling it. To me it's actually the opposite. I believe it to be completely chaotic and without any meaning.

The universe can be meaningless with or without a creator to us humans. I don't know if god is the correct word, and this will be the first time i'll make a definitive statement in a thread like this, but there does appear to be a, umm..., a creative process behind the emergence of the universe with its ultra precision parameters and the emergence of life. I am equating this "creative process" with "god" for lack of a closer word. I often find atheism pretty idiotic for denying this still un-perceived but evidenced "creative process". I think it's obvious that its fingerprints are all over the place, you atheists call that nature, but if this is nature, did nature also somehow create itself at the Big Bang?

I think when Einstein spoke of "reading the Mind of God" he was referring to knowing the essence of this "creative process".

 

[Pupil]

Exactly as I said -- you keep switching between disbelief^* and lack of belief.

to clarify, I'm using this in the sense I have been -- "disbelief in X" means "belief that X is untrue".

Here are two examples:



Both times, you state disbelief -- an assertion that God does not exist. And both times, you equate that disbelief with a mere lack of belief.

Disbelief is just another way of saying lack of belief http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:disbelief&btnG=Google+Search". One should suffice to say 'lack of belief' to get rid of ambiguity.

 

[Pupil]

We don't know what it really means to exist. In fact, we don't know what space really is either. And neither do we know what flowing Time is. Yes, your perceptions give you a picture of these concepts, but it's incomplete and wrong.

How do you know our conception of these things is wrong?

"Physics doesn't know where it is that you atheists are conducting your search for the evidence of the non-existence of God. All that can be meaningfully said by any physicist of today(July 2009) is that you are looking for the evidence in your subjective personal experience."

No atheist is conducting a search for God or flying bunny rabbits or anything else of the sort. I don't know where you're getting these ideas from. If good evidence pops up for a Creator, then that's well and good, but until such a time, there isn't any reason to conclude one exists.

 

[Pupil]

there does appear to be a, umm..., a creative process behind the emergence of the universe with its ultra precision parameters and the emergence of life. I am equating this "creative process" with "god" for lack of a closer word.

So you're defining God as "a process that created the universe"? .

if this is nature, did nature also somehow create itself at the Big Bang?

Who said nature was created?

 

[kldickson]

Technically, you can't prove something doesn't exist; the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive assertion, that is, the assertion that some hypothetical 'thing' exists.

I don't think there's any sort of 'creative process' behind the universe. I wouldn't draw any sort of conclusions about these things until we have more data; part of the problem with theists is that they're trying to fill gaps in a brick wall with, well, very flimsy spackle that is easy to punch holes through. As we fill in more bricks with science, theists will be less prone to put spackle in those holes. We who know better simply leave the holes unfilled to give room for the bricks coming in.

 

[kldickson]

And perhaps the real answer is unanswerable until we have the technology to answer it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Disbelief is just another way of saying lack of belief http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:disbelief&btnG=Google+Search". One should suffice to say 'lack of belief' to get rid of ambiguity.

Maybe my fine print was too small for you? Let me resize it:

to clarify, I'm using this in the sense I have been -- "disbelief in X" means "belief that X is untrue".

 

[Hurkyl]

Technically, you can't prove something doesn't exist;

If you really believe that, then you should believe its immediate consequence -- you have no business making claims that something doesn't exist.

the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive assertion,

Burden of proof always lies upon the person making a claim. If you want to assert that something doesn't exist, then it's your job to support your claim.

 

[octelcogopod]

Hurkyl ok but I'm not sure what's your point is.
Are you trying to prove that I believe in my assertion?
If so you have succeeded. I believe that we shouldn't believe in god, it's that simple.

And also, how can the burden of proof be on the one who makes the claim?
People have been saying for thousands of years god exists, and now when I doubt it, it's up to me to prove god doesn't exist?

 

[Pupil]

Hurkyl ok but I'm not sure what's your point is.
Are you trying to prove that I believe in my assertion?
If so you have succeeded. I believe that we shouldn't believe in god, it's that simple.

And also, how can the burden of proof be on the one who makes the claim?
People have been saying for thousands of years god exists, and now when I doubt it, it's up to me to prove god doesn't exist?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Think of how strange it would be to hear "Fairies exist! It's up to you to prove they don't!" Obviously this isn't the way it works.

If you claim there definitely are no gods, you better be able to provide some proof.

 

[baywax]

Hurkyl ok but I'm not sure what's your point is.
Are you trying to prove that I believe in my assertion?
If so you have succeeded. I believe that we shouldn't believe in god, it's that simple.

And also, how can the burden of proof be on the one who makes the claim?
People have been saying for thousands of years god exists, and now when I doubt it, it's up to me to prove god doesn't exist?

I do believe that the belief and the veneration of something larger/wiser/bigger beard/whiter robe/ than ours is a survival trait that has begun to be outgrown. It remains as though its a vestigial appendage that once actually did serve a noble purpose.

 

[octelcogopod]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Think of how strange it would be to hear "Fairies exist! It's up to you to prove they don't!" Obviously this isn't the way it works.

If you claim there definitely are no gods, you better be able to provide some proof.

My point was that christians have been making the claim by default for centuries, and yet when I say there is no god, the burden of proof is still on my shoulder. Why is that?
If they hadn't made up a god to begin with it wouldn't have been a topic.

I do believe that the belief and the veneration of something larger/wiser/bigger beard/whiter robe/ than ours is a survival trait that has begun to be outgrown. It remains as though its a vestigial appendage that once actually did serve a noble purpose.

Yep but not anymore.. Not when we are able to think so clearly and critically by ourselves.

By the way, is this kind of offtopic hijacking actually allowed? The topic has driven quite far from the original post right?

 

[Pupil]

My point was that christians have been making the claim by default for centuries, and yet when I say there is no god, the burden of proof is still on my shoulder. Why is that?
If they hadn't made up a god to begin with it wouldn't have been a topic.

If you make any claim at all about whether gods exist or do not exist, you have the burden of proof. The only position that has no burden of proof is "I don't know." Any other position requires reasoned arguments and or empirical evidence. Making a claim, be it positive or negative, requires those two things.

 

[DaveC426913]

My point was that christians have been making the claim by default for centuries, and yet when I say there is no god, the burden of proof is still on my shoulder. Why is that?

There are documented eyewitness accounts from many well-respected people in their communities. To be prefectly by-the-book, they have met their burden of proof. It is now upon you to demonstrate that it is not compelling.

If they hadn't made up a god to begin with it wouldn't have been a topic.

They didn't make a god. It is safe to say that god was a creation deeply rooted in the origins of mankind's dawn of awareness.

 

[robertm]

If you make any claim at all about whether gods exist or do not exist, you have the burden of proof. The only position that has no burden of proof is "I don't know." Any other position requires reasoned arguments and or empirical evidence. Making a claim, be it positive or negative, requires those two things.

Everything that has been observed in the universe so far has been seen to exist without the need of any intervention on high. At the very least, one can say (and really, must admit) that it is extremely highly unlikely (in the technical sense) that any meddling god type being is active in our universe.

Religion is, and has been, effectively relegated to a position of deism. Which is perfectly fine with me. Anyone can make any claim they like about a Big-Man who doesn't exist 'in' or have any current effect on the universe.

 

[Pupil]

There are documented eyewitness accounts from many well-respected people in their communities. To be prefectly by-the-book, they have met their burden of proof. It is now upon you to demonstrate that it is not compelling.

Not all claims are created equal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You really should define what you consider meeting the burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim before saying it is reasonable for them to say they have met it.

 

[Pupil]

At the very least, one can say (and really, must admit) that it is extremely highly unlikely (in the technical sense) that any meddling god type being is active in our universe.

I'm a bit weary of this claim. Really, you have to define this deity and what kind of meddling it has/can do before claiming a probability. Even after you do so, I'm not sure how you would get to a statistical probability of whether or not a deity exists or not. Of course it feels absolutely absurd that a deity exists (in much the same way as the tooth fairy feels absurd), but I doubt I would be able to give the probability of a deity existing any more than a tooth fairy.

 

[DaveC426913]

Everything that has been observed in the universe so far has been seen to exist without the need of any intervention on high.

Except the creation of the universe itself. While outside the scope of your statement, it is a valid event to apply your test to.

Has the creation of the universe been seen to exist without the need of any intervention on high?

Science does not venture here, but religion has a very neat explanation for it.

 

[JoeDawg]

Except the creation of the universe itself. While outside the scope of your statement, it is a valid event to apply your test to.

Has the creation of the universe been seen to exist without the need of any intervention on high?

Science does not venture here, but religion has a very neat explanation for it.

Saying that god created the universe only begs the question what created god. If god needs not creator, then there is no reason for one to assume the universe needs one.

 

[p764rds]

Well, data can be made from quantum states that require no space and has no mass. Any amount. Its so simple...

 

[baywax]

Yep but not anymore.. Not when we are able to think so clearly and critically by ourselves.

By the way, is this kind of offtopic hijacking actually allowed? The topic has driven quite far from the original post right?

Well, let's just say that today there's probably a slightly larger percentage of humans that don't need the fictional hierarchy of son's, ghosts and so on.

Yes we're off topic. I still say that the child asking "why the sky is blue(?)" is as valid as asking "why does the universe exists(?)". The unknown always begs a "why?". And in this sense, "why" doesn't necessarily ask for a motive. "Why" explains a person's ignorance about a subject and displays their eagerness to learn more about its origins and mechanisms.

 

[baywax]

Well, data can be made from quantum states that require no space and has no mass. Any amount. Its so simple...

References for this sort of allusion are required on this forum. Don't I know it!

 

[robertm]

Has the creation of the universe been seen to exist without the need of any intervention on high?

I don't think that it has been established that a "creation" event has even been observed. A big bang event has... but it is going beyond the evidence to say weather or not the observed phenomenon can be considered a creation event (whatever that means).

As I stated in an earlier post (#169), this question is not ready to be evaluated satisfactorily.

Science does not venture here, but religion has a very neat explanation for it.

?

How does science not attempt to understand every aspect of the history of the universe? Is this not a question that a great number of people and dollars is investigating (directly and indirectly) everyday?

And how is claiming something that no one could possibly know a "very neat explanation"? No religious creation myth is logically consistent, though, I guess you could consider that feat in and of itself neat...


Pupil:

I'm a bit weary of this claim. Really, you have to define this deity and what kind of meddling it has/can do before claiming a probability.

Well, I don't nor would I make any claims as to the power of any unknown entity, but a very great number of people seem as if they mean to.

My earlier statement was based on my knowledge of the orthodox claims of all the common religions that I have studied.

but I doubt I would be able to give the probability of a deity existing any more than a tooth fairy.

Given a list of the supposed attributes and effects of the deity/fairy (pink tutu, wings, takes your teeth, etc...) one could easily determine the presence or traces of said deity/fairy (missing tooth in a locked room, video, appearance of money, etc...).

If one wishes to claim that something that you want to worship and make you feel better exists outside of space in time and cannot be observed or measured, fine; it is just as good as admitting that it does not exist.

 

[p764rds]

Yes we're off topic. I still say that the child asking "why the sky is blue(?)" is as valid as asking "why does the universe exists(?)". The unknown always begs a "why?". And in this sense, "why" doesn't necessarily ask for a motive. "Why" explains a person's ignorance about a subject and displays their eagerness to learn more about its origins and mechanisms.

Yes, the 'why why why' ladder -leads to the Pythagorean Monad - a simple proposition upon which everything else is built. That could be something like yes/no or addition.
A computer starts off with yes/no and look what they can do.

 

[Pupil]

Given a list of the supposed attributes and effects of the deity/fairy (pink tutu, wings, takes your teeth, etc...) one could easily determine the presence or traces of said deity/fairy (missing tooth in a locked room, video, appearance of money, etc...).

Yes, but how would you get a proper probability of existence out of measuring those things? I still don't see how you can come up with an actual number.

 

[vectorcube]

Still not the same thing. You believe there isn't an invisible pink elephant over your head. No amount of absence of evidence may you conclude there is not one.
God is a myth, a tale.. And not believing in him is not equal to faith or anything like that. It just means no evidence of god exists, so I don't believe in it.

This is unproductive.
Can you be more precise? What exactly are you disagreeing with me on? Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The simply fact that you don` t see god does not mean he does not exist. We never really see everything at once. All we can say is the non-observed instances of god ` s interfering in the world. Our observations are limited to a certain place at a certain time. Our perspective is necessary limited when we try to make inference from observation to the whole set.

 

[vectorcube]

You're using a definition no (or incredibly few) atheists use. Atheism is a lack of belief (see post 149, 150, 152, http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm" ).

I detest having to explain this over and over again, but no amount of evidence -- for anything -- gives absolute certainty. You can not say invisible blue Ogres aren't floating above your head, that the sun will rise, Zeus exists, or that you aren't a brain in a vat with absolute certainty. You do the best with the evidence presented and make conclusions from there. Atheism is a lack of belief in the claims about God, and by definition nothing more.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. What you have in mind is agnosticism. What you just say can be conclude as saying induction cannot give us certainty. People who believe in atheism is making a ontological claim(claims about what actually exist) on the non existence of god.

 

[Pupil]

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. What you have in mind is agnosticism. What you just say can be conclude as saying induction cannot give us certainty. People who believe in atheism is making a ontological claim(claims about what actually exist).

No, as I said before, agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Again, atheism is a lack of belief in a god. If you claim absolute knowledge there are no deities, it is strong atheism. If you claim you don't know, it is weak atheism or agnosticism. That is how I define it, how Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett (the four horsemen of atheism most people know), Dillahunty, etc...define it. Reminds me of a quote:

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." - Don Hirschberg

 

[WaveJumper]

How do you know our conception of these things is wrong?

By inferring knowledge from experiments that go very far beyond the abilities of limited human sensory perception. Physicists are 'looking' at the universe(whatever that is) through a mental picture dressed in mathematics without a reference to your daily experiences. It has been clear for more than a century that the true nature of reality is much weirder that your sensory experience tells you.

 

[Pupil]

By inferring knowledge from experiments that go very far beyond the abilities of limited human sensory perception. Physicists are 'looking' at the universe(whatever that is) through a mental picture dressed in mathematics without a reference to your daily experiences. It has been clear for more than a century that the true nature of reality is much weirder that your sensory experience tells you.

I would agree that we use other instruments besides our regular five to probe reality, but for all that it's unclear to me how that invalidates what we have learned from our regular senses. Using these extrasensory instruments has certainly helped us figure more out, but that doesn't make the fundamental things we learned with just our five senses wrong.

 

[WaveJumper]

Technically, you can't prove something doesn't exist; the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive assertion, that is, the assertion that some hypothetical 'thing' exists.

The only ones making definitive claims that god exists or does not exist are atheists, that's why you attract negative attention. There is no scientific or rational basis for your definitive assertions. Lack of belief is not equal to:

"God does not exist!"

"God is a myth"

etc.

These definitive statements reveal that you are holding a strong Faith that what you aasssert is true.

I don't think there's any sort of 'creative process' behind the universe. I wouldn't draw any sort of conclusions about these things until we have more data; part of the problem with theists is that they're trying to fill gaps in a brick wall with, well, very flimsy spackle that is easy to punch holes through. As we fill in more bricks with science, theists will be less prone to put spackle in those holes. We who know better simply leave the holes unfilled to give room for the bricks coming in.

Agreed. I am wondering though why you never question your sources. You are concluding that there is no creative process involved in the emergence of the universe and life, because some creative process allowed the emergence of a comprehensible universe(Science) in which you would deny the existence of such creative process. If abiogenesis is true(i.e. as you say Nature created life), it begs the question why do quanta behave in a way that creates life(say the first RNA molecule). I don't think there is any rational basis to deny the existence of a guiding creative process behind everything that we see, even if you were to call that Nature(though it fails to explain the emergence of a universe with such precision set parameters that is able to exist and evolve for 14 billion years).