Are you an atheist?

[Alisa]

But unfortunately organised religion has done all those things that Dawkins referred to. Lets hope the teapot cult doesn't catch on or Dawkins may find that teapot cultists become just as bigotted.

I fear the flying spaghetti monster cult more than the teapot cult- the stains are worse when they disagree with you.

 

[Mike375]

accept that time is a property of the universe and was created at the big bang and that asking what was before the big bang is no more valid than asking "what is north of the north pole?"

That's right. So a supernatural.

See how easy it is.

 

[Pauldohert]

accept that time is a property of the universe and was created at the big bang and that asking what was before the big bang is no more valid than asking "what is north of the north pole?"

Isn't everything north of the north pole?

Here you are Ken - we may learn something here?! Patience is a virtue.

 

[Darth Vodka]

Isn't everything north of the north pole?

i dunno about you, but i'm currently south of the north pole

 

[KenHigg]

Isn't everything north of the north pole?

Here you are Ken - we may learn something here?! Patience is a virtue.

Ok. I will yield to patience

What if the universe is a property of time

How's that for being open minded Paul?

 

[Pauldohert]

Good question Ken - I was going to say the same thing myself. I may be educated enough to be an aethiest one day. Aspirational stuff.

 

[Alisa]

That's right. So a supernatural.

See how easy it is.

If you want to define the word "supernatural" to mean that which is currently inexplicable, that is fine. You can even claim, as you have, that the origin of the universe will always be inexplicable. I won't argue with you.

But here is the problem I have: How do you get from a supernatural, meaning inexplicable, origin of the universe, to some sort of supernatural deity that somehow burst into being out of nothing with all sorts of anthropomorphic attributes that for some unknown reason decided to create the universe? To me, that requires quite a bit more imagination than that required to get from the snake to the lizard.

 

[Mike375]

Alisa

Again you fail to grasp what supernatural means. For a supernatural all that is easy stuff.

Just imagine how amazing a simple thing like a man starting up a lawn mower must be to the little lizard or insect in the garden.

 

[CraigDolphin]

that somehow burst into being out of nothing

Been a while since I popped into this thread so I thought I'd address this for you Alisa.

The question you pose is flawed by your conception being limited by our existence within our space-time continuum. Your question pre-supposes that a linear temporal progression exists beyond the space-time continuum that we live in, so that in whatever 'plane' God exists in, the plane changes linearly from a state where God does not exist, to a state where God does exist.

If God exists outside of our space-time continuum, an analogue to time itself in that 'plane' may not even exist. Or if some such analogue does exist, it may not be irrevocably linear the way it is for us. Thus, your question is only reasonable if you start assuming that things outside the space-time continuum work in much the same way as it does within it.

That's a pretty big leap of faith to make in my opinion.

So, sure, if an analogue of time exists outside of our space time continuum, and it behaves in an irrevocable, linear fashion just like it does within our space time continuum, then yes, it would be interesting to speculate about whether there was some state of that plane when God did not exist, and if the answer was deemed to be yes, then how he came to be. But, such a narrow and highly-loaded question is scarcely a valid logical rebuttal to the belief that he exists.

It's a little like me asking you if you enjoyed killing JFK or not?

Whether you answer yes or no about enjoying the killing itself doesn't matter, since the primary purpose of the question is to make you agree to the assumption that you did in fact kill the president. If you're smart you will reject the validity of the question and refuse to answer.

Likewise, your question is too loaded down with unsupported assumptions about the nature of reality outside of space and time to be useful for meaningful debate.

3) accept that time is a property of the universe and was created at the big bang and that asking what was before the big bang is no more valid than asking "what is north of the north pole?"

Darth sums it up beautifully.

 

[Rich]

It's a little like me asking you if you enjoyed killing JFK or not?

Whether you answer yes or no about enjoying the killing itself doesn't matter, since the primary purpose of the question is to make you agree to the assumption that you did in fact kill the president. If you're smart you will reject the validity of the question and refuse to answer.

Since it can be argued that American society at the time killed Kennedy what's the purpose of the question?

 

[Rich]

I may be educated enough to be an aethiest one day.

I wonder who it was that said atheists were arrogant?

 

[Alisa]

Alisa

Again you fail to grasp what supernatural means. For a supernatural all that is easy stuff.

Just imagine how amazing a simple thing like a man starting up a lawn mower must be to the little lizard or insect in the garden.

Mike, I grasp it perfectly well, I am just trying to point out the absurdity of it. By calling something supernatural, you are giving yourself license to make up whatever you want. In this case, you are saying that this supernatural being you have conceptualized created the universe. I can just as easily conceptualize a supernatural teapot, and I say that the teapot created the universe, and it is still out there flying around.

According to you, it would be perfectly reasonable for one to assume that there is an equal probability of my supernatural teapot existing or not existing. After all, you can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove I am right. Nontheless, if I went around telling everyone that a supernatural teapot created the universe, everyone would tell me I am crazy, there is no teapot. No one would say, well, I can't know for sure, therefore I am agnostic about it, so you could be right, maybe the universe was created by a supernatural teapot.

So my question stands, what makes my supernatural teapot more absurd than your supernatural god?

 

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Darth Vodka
3) accept that time is a property of the universe and was created at the big bang and that asking what was before the big bang is no more valid than asking "what is north of the north pole?"

Darth sums it up beautifully.

If you agree that ASKING what was before the big bang is an invalid question, then why do you insist on ANSWERING the question with the existence of a supernatural god?

 

[statsman]

Any being, creature or entity that could:
Create a big bang out of nothingness,
Tailor time space and the laws of physic to suit its needs
And do all the other things that we mere mortals have no explanation for...

Has access (no pun intended) to powers we can only guess at
And is motivated by factors and emotions we could not even begin to comprehend.

Personally I just lay back and say thanks for the sunny day.

 

[Alc]

Personally I just lay back and say thanks for the sunny day.

..or thanks for the smog (from what I can see of TO today).

 

[Mike375]

If you agree that ASKING what was before the big bang is an invalid question, then why do you insist on ANSWERING the question with the existence of a supernatural god?

Because it is the only viable answer.

 

[Alisa]

Because it is the only viable answer.

No, my teapot is just a viable as your god.

 

[Alc]

No, my teapot is just a viable as your god.

What if God is a teapot? Not being facetious, so stick with me.

I mean, primitive people anthropomorphised God to make the whole 'creation' concept easier to understand, but if God can do/be anything, why not assume a teapot shape?

Just for argument's sake, let's say the teapot does exist and that it created everything, using whatever jiggery-pokery was necessary. Wouldn't that just mean that it's the shape of God that's in debate, not the overall concept?

 

[Deleted member 30250]

What about the idea that all laws of physics break down at the Big Bang. What about imaginary time.

Do you believe the universe has been here for all time or did it have a beginning.

You sound like the opposite number to some of the Bible bashers, you know the ones.....I don't anything about that stuff, all I know is there is God. You are...I don't anything about that stuff, all I know is there is no god.

I wasn't talking about 'knowing', I was responding to the persistent idea that science requires faith as much as a god, but, to me, belief in any kind of god seems to require the abandonment of logic and scientific method. Here is a lovely conundrum: if god is in any degree responsible for the intellect of human beings, if he/she/it meant us to exercise that intellect to the limit of our powers, he/she/it is in some way or degree knowingly responsible for atheists - as well as every proponent of every branch of every religion, from Incas to Baptists, via Mormons, Eqyptians, Celts and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So did he/she/it mean us to be atheists?

Of course I do not 'know' what happened at Big Bang time, but those mega-brains who are endeavouring to find out are doing so on the basis of scientific method, they are not finding a theory that fits and saying 'so it must be true', and they are content to say that at the moment they do not know.

I did a degree in mathematics, but don't ask me to come up with a sensible description of the square root of minus 1, it is a theoretical concept of enormous use and fascination. The value of Pi is amazing and hasn't yet been pinned down, but we'd be stuck without using it.

Do I believe the universe has been there for all time? I don't know, it has nothing to do with belief. Perhaps the point is that I, and most scientists, are content to say 'I don't know', I don't feel a need to be able to explain the beginning and end of everything, although finding out is compulsive, I am content that when I die there is nothing after, I don't need to think that there is any higher purpose to humanity, that we are animals, nothing more.

Just in case someone was thinking of it, don't call me an agnostic. The usually accepted definition is "One who holds the theory that God is unknown or unknowable". I regard this as a bit of a cop-out. You can say "One who holds the theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is unknown or unknowable" or "One who holds the theory that fairies at the bottom of the garden are unknown or unknowable" - no-one would say I was agnostic for rejecting the Flying Spaghetti Monster as ludicrous, I just have to be allowed to say that I find it only marginally more ludicrous than the Church of England deity I was brought up with (and confirmed at age 13, in a cathedral, believing not a word of what I recited).

 

[Deleted member 30250]

Because it is the only viable answer.

Viable? How?