Hello everyone,

Hope you are all well. This is my first post on these forums. To my question: 

I have always yelled at my TV when watching debates between religious leaders of the 3 main religions and proclaimed atheists  (e.g. Sam Harris, Hitchens, Maher, and others). Youtube their names and you'll see my area of interest. Just as the proponents of these religions have to twist themselves into pretzels to defend their religions and their violent teachings (in many instances) , so do their detractors! I am agnostic, but believe that we are not here from nothing. How can the religious detractors claim anymore validity of existence and reality than those who believe in jesus, mohammed, or moses? That is to say, how can they claim that there is no higher power or being for sure? 

I've always laughed at priests, imams, or rabbis trying to defend the writings of their prospective texts. There's too much violence and contradiction. It puts them at such a disadvantage in a debate, however, I also feel that an atheist saying there is no god implies a similar kind of pretentiousness. 

Rather I feel, within the context of the monotheistic religions, the question should be a hypothetical. This hypothetical answers both questions of atheists and debunks the unquestionable surety of Christians etc. Here is the question beyond any metaphysical idea that we're not even real:

The Universe exits. It is here and was probably created by the big bang( even christians acknowledge this). If that is so, than something made that happen. That "something" is god. This comes to a semantic definition of "something". Suffice it to say, if "something" didn't cause the universe to be, none of us would be here. I don't know how you reconcile that "something" as being anything but a god. This is where I think Christians et al, are wrong in thinking that my statement here agrees with them. They don't have a monopoly on god. Just because I believe there was a prime mover of the universe doesn't mean I think it was Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or any other human derived deity.

Anyways, thoughts on the semantics of "something"?

-Dooker

P.S. I didn't spell check this cause I gotta run, so don't condescend cause of an sp mistake, nobodies perfect!

I think that makes you deist.

The word god has a lot of baggage that goes along with it, including agency and intelligence. If you want to call whatever started the universe god, that's fine but understand that word has a lot of meaning associated with it.

I don't know if the universe was created by some agent, and I have no reason to think it was. I have heard no argument that provides a good reason to believe that some intentional agent was responsible for the creation of our universe. I am currently of the opinion that the universe is past infinite. I might be wrong, but a better argument has yet to be put forth.

There is no argument I can give you to prove that it has agency. However I can revert to philosophical grounds that if there wasn't something to create it, it wouldn't be. And to Raphiel, if that makes me a deist, than so be it. But Natachan, throw out god and address "something". It is obviously a human construct, that word, but I do still think it means...no pun on words...something. Were here, something created the rules of physics, chemistry, etc, how do you reconcile that and say that nothing created it and that it just is. I simply cant believe that.

(December 4, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Dooker Wrote: There is no argument I can give you to prove that it has agency.  However I can revert to philosophical grounds that if there wasn't something to create it, it wouldn't be. And to Raphiel, if that makes me a deist, than so be it. But Natachan, throw out god and address "something". It is obviously a human construct, that word, but I do still think it means...no pun on words...something. Were here, something created the rules of physics, chemistry, etc, how do you reconcile that and say that nothing created it and that it just is. I simply cant believe that.

I hope I didn't come across as critical. I only said it because you put agnostic which isn't strictly speaking true because you've made a decision on the origins of the universe. 
Atheism doesn't require the statement that nothing created the universe. Merely that a conscious creature of astounding power resembling a God almost certainly did not.

Not critical at all! This is great! I usually spend my time blabbing about politics and bashing the right wing (hope youre not conservative!).But I would say that you calling me by my self proclaimed title of agnostic says I don't know whether or not the Universe was created by a conscious or astounding power resembling a god. Agnostic is about as close as I can come because I don't know how you can explain existence without A acknowledging we are here, and B why all of the rules? In that I mean the rules of physics, science, etc...

---

On my screen, there were a few happy faces that I absolutely didn't type, just wanted who ever reads this thread to know that!

Ok, let's throw out the word god and just assume that "something" started the universe. I'm still skeptical, since I still think that the universe is past infinite. But for the sake of argument let's just assume that something started the universe. What stops this something from being natural? Our knowledge of the universe still has holes in it, and this is one of them. And while we are assuming, lets assume, for the sake of argument, that one day we are able to find this something and it is natural. Do we then call this god?

When I look at it I see a puzzle, with pieces missing. What you call "something" that fixes the laws of the universe I see shadows of in the spaces of the puzzle. Every time we have sought a missing piece we have always found it to be a natural cause, something that fit into the natural framework. I see no reason now to assume some supernatural causation.

(December 4, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Dooker Wrote: Not critical at all! This is great! I usually spend my time blabbing about politics and bashing the right wing (hope youre not conservative!).But I would say that you calling me by my self proclaimed title of agnostic says I don't know whether or not the Universe was created by a conscious or astounding power resembling a god. Agnostic is about as close as I can come because I don't know how you can explain existence without A acknowledging we are here, and B why all of the rules? In that I mean the rules of physics, science, etc...

---

On my screen, there were a few happy faces that I absolutely didn't type, just wanted who ever reads this thread to know that!

Not conservative. Not anything really. All the parties are the same now once you scratch the surface save for afew minor difference. They ultimately end up doing the same things because the campaigns are funded by the same industries. It amazes me people still humor the idea that the choice isn't meaningless.

The rules are merely consistent observations. The question is better phrased why the universe is the way it is and well, good question.
Thats what we aim to find out. The stance of deism represents one of many possible theories but as it has no evidence it is on par with other theories with no evidence. Science assumes nothing, it makes calculated observations. You list the possibilities as binary. I'm sure its for lack of time to list all but I think its important to state this is not the case.

Welcome matey.
You may as well argue that we are the only life in the universe because ..... Why not?

We have a sample of one of one to make an accurate judgement. Hence, we can't.
Same goes for our universe.

One can easily hypothesize that since this universe exists, why not others?
Either parallel or sequentially...

We can't know how the laws of the universe will manifest themselves in "other" universes.
All we know is under this particular universe, life has resulted.

Under this particular universe, life was mathematically certain to eventuate...
No need for consciousness as a prime mover.

I'm very comfortable not knowing, hence my inability to believe in something even more ridiculous.
It's just not logical....that and the fact that the concept of a god is extremely abstract with no bearing on our current reality.

I would say the natural world can be considered God in this case. Why are the rules of the natural world as complex as they are? Just because? I suppose i need a better description now as you need a little more detail on how we both interpret the word god. Thats a big one though, that you think the universe is past infinite. I subscribe to the big bang, and that changes a lot of this discussion. Do you mean to say that you believe in the bb but that it has been expanding and contracting for infinity?