Proof of God

[pocaracas]

Who made the quantum vacuum?
Who caused the quantum vacuum?

Note the "who" in those questions, poised perfectly to "poison the well" and add some "bias" to the question and the subsequent answer, as well.

[Harris]

Harris Wrote:
...give thanks to the balance and harmony among the forces and objects of the universe that provide you most comfortable atmosphere and all life supporting resources without any of which you would not be able to survive. Fine-tuning works so well that you even do not bother to contemplate over the reality of this universe. You think that nature should work for your comfort and enjoyment as if it is your servant.

Robvalue Wrote:
How am I meant to do this? How do I give thanks, and to what? Also, my life is fucking shit, so really I'm not all that thankful.

Robvalue Wrote:
Atheists are not in general claiming there is no god.

Can you really still not understand this Harris? I've written about this in detail on my website. Please check it out if you are still confused about this.

Robvalue Wrote:
Apparently I should be more grateful to an indifferent universe for my brief and highly unenjoyable existence.

Robvalue Wrote:
If God is as obviously real as we keep getting told, why all the dishonest tactics all the time?

Robvalue Wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear how I'm meant to give thanks to this creator thing, Harris, whatever it may be.

Where do I go? What do I do? How can I know it is getting my message?

Robvalue Wrote:
Most likely One started taking off his clothes, so I think that must have been the wrong one to see about this.

Since Harris gave me this advice I'm hoping he will take ownership of it and tell me what I'm actually meant to do.

Do I just think thankful thoughts?

Robvalue Wrote:
Why should we need anything in its place?


robvalue Wrote:
I'm still waiting to hear how I'm meant to give thanks to this creator thing, Harris, whatever it may be.

Where do I go? What do I do? How can I know it is getting my message?

Norman Humann Wrote: It depends.

If you ask a priest, the answer will be his bank account number.

First, let me make it clear that whatever I am writing here is not to get any material gain or appreciation from any one. I am not hoping to get true justice from this meniscal life.

I am only trying to convey the truth by using best logical reasoning in hope perhaps some of you might be able to understand that human life is not Hee Hee Haa Haa and no one can get absolute knowledge and ultimate satisfaction within this short life span.

People have intuition through which they judge between right and wrong and they have power of analyses, which they can use to build logic to get to the unseen realities. This life is sufficient for a person that he could realise the reality of the universe and then accept the existence of God or reject it. No more and no less.

I would be in position to give you some advice only once I feel that you really do not perceive the universe including your own body as a product of chance, accident, or nothingness.

Until you adhere the idea that Universe is the product of chance, accident, or nothingness your thoughts would endure a nomadic state about everything including your own being.

In this rootless state occasionally, you may cling to the idea that your ancestors were monkeys or donkeys. Seldom may you have thoughts that your life is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Sometimes you may think because death is the end of you hence all your endeavours should be targeted to the maximum gain of enjoyment.

Is pleasure, comfort, and satisfaction the ultimate goal of your minuscule life or perhaps you are simply abusing your freedom by misusing intelligence and logic for the fulfilment of your selfish desires?

The folly of the hedonistic life turns man into a slave or a beast. Because so many of our pleasures are either ephemeral or unattainable, we are assailed by anxiety or grief.

The true believer in God and in the day of judgment will not succumb to grief, because he understands that nothing in this world of generation and corruption is ever permanent and that whatever cannot be turned away should be ignored or disregarded, since it is often the product of passion and not of reason, for reason summons us only to what is susceptible of bringing about profit sooner or later; grief does not bring any advantage. That is why the perfectly rational man will only follow the summons of reason and will never follow the summons of passion or allow himself to be led by it or get close to it.

Harris Wrote:
The right way to say is:

Atheist: there is no God
Theist: Prove it.

Bennyboy Wrote:

That's retarded. /thread

From you I was not expecting such a serious reaction on a simple joke.

Harris is blatantly misrepresenting the atheist position and being dishonest about what we think?

I'm shocked. Absolutely and utterly surprised. I've never seen this before.

You have full right to disprove my argument against atheism and represent atheist’s worldview (if there is any) in honest and diligent manner.

"We are star stuff".
Electrons and other elementary particles, the sort that make up everything we know of... those are eternal, in a time-forward sense.

Going back in time, we hit the Big bang and we can't say...

“Anything that has a beginning has an end.” That means a thing that has a beginning cannot be eternal. This is the law of nature and no one can challenge that.

It means the building blocks of the Universe have always been there. Like the building blocks of my body had been around for a long long while before they assembled into me.

You have a unique identity. There is no other you. You had a beginning and you will have an end. After your end, nature would not reassemble you again and you will never come back to this earth. End of the story.

Does that matter whether your elements were present in the eternal past or they will remain in the eternal future when there is no you? Do you have any reason to think that matter is eternal?

Harris Wrote:
Is “Natural” some law or force or is it some mystical phenomenon. How and why NATURAL is happening. What exactly NATURAL is? Do you have ANY scientific definition for it?

Pocaracas Wrote:
In this case, Natural phenomenon is mindless.
Can be studied, probed, measured... somehow...

You are trying to assimilate something, which is mindless as the foundation to develop your mindful arguments. Amusing!

errr.... I am aware of no beings apart from this universe. So sentient and non-sentient begins are part of the universe and have come about through a long, long chain of events.
If causality is a strict thing for all fields, even quantum, then it was going to be this way.... if not, then some randomness played a part.

Either way, I am not aware of any being apart from the Universe and I cannot fathom how could someone become aware of such beings... can you?

You are not aware of:

1. what life is
2. What is death
3. what is sense
4. what is consciousness
5. Why we sleep, (science does not have a clue.)
6. what is gravity,
7. Is the universe finite or infinite?

Yet you are conscious being living in the universe, you sense and feel, you sleep and wake, and you use gravity in every moment of your life.

You believe in all those unknown things without knowing them but you are reluctant to use your logic to realise an obvious fact that:

Why there is something rather than nothing?

You missed my point. I wasn't talking about the multiverse, I was talking about the pre-expansion state of our immediate universe. Pre-expansion, there was no time and no space. All that we know regarding the laws of physics (and thus causality) are made a nonsense by this state. Consequently we can't assume that causality has any meaning in the context of a pre-expanded universe and I certainly can't imagine how anyone would be able to know enough about it to posit the existence of a disembodied mind with universe-causing abilities, especially since, as you say "if they do indeed exist, for they are forever outside observational reach."

If we consider time as 4th dimension then our minds have trouble in perceiving 5th. We cannot give analogies or metaphors to depict 5th dimension without having any sense of it. By looking at 4 dimensional world we may come to a logical sense that there may be more dimensions and perhaps we are right because mathematics and physical laws force us to think in that direction. Take the example of string theory, which states there are 11 dimensions. The question is how to explore those dimensions when we have no physical and no logical tools in hands.

Consider we are part of those dimensions and events in them are affecting our physical and psychologies states. Perhaps our mind is part of those dimensions and because those dimensions are unapproachable therefore, we cannot give proper explication to our minds no matter we are using it in every mundane activity of our daily life.

Perhaps universe emerged in one of those unknown dimensions and because its laws and principles are unknown, the cause of the universe is yet not identified.

Think if we (somehow) get observational access in those dimensions, can you imagine what kind of world we may encounter, the world of which we have no sense and no knowledge, the world to which no one could ever give definition by means of physical properties of the 4 dimensional world.

Data from near death experiences shows that a person somehow start perceiving the other world (other dimensions) at the time of his/her death.

If you bring unknown dimensions as depicted by physics and mathematics and the experiences of dying people together then it makes sense that those dimensions and the invisible world about which all Prophets of Bible and Quran had reminded unequivocally are only two different approaches to the same reality.

By the way, Quran does give solid understanding on how God has created the universe. Compare the following verses with the modern theory of Big Bang.

“Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?”

Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-

I thought you said that god's "forever outside observational reach"? How can you be in the position to talk about the known qualities of something, which is, by your own definition, fundamentally unknowable?

We have come up to the ideas of multiverse, string theory, and black holes through the forms of objects and by the pattern of activities they contain and the final causes of their different vital processes. Not necessarily, we should observe in order to believe, we could reach the unseen truth by using logical structures and pattern within the observational reach.

Consider the following series of numbers:

1, 3, 9, 27, 81, - - -, n

By looking at the pattern it is not difficult to make a logical prediction what would be the “n”

The design, pattern, sequence, harmony, order, symmetry, etc. in the universe and in our ever-changing bodies provided us logical reasons to believe in the unseen “forever outside observational reach” God.

Something which is unobservable & unknowable can't have any 'logical evidences'. You're contradicting yourself.

Universe is more than sufficient evidence for the existence of God if you observe it with an honest eye.

Harris Wrote:
God is an uncaused being because once you answer, “who created God?” that answer fires infinite series of question, “who created the second God that created the first God?” and so on. In simple words, the question “who created God?” means there is no universe but because there is universe therefore the question “who created God?” is wrong.

Ben Davis Wrote: This is just gibberish.

Do you have something better than that?

I've already done the 'cosmological' argument in this (& my previous) post. If you'd care to present any arguments from fine-tuning or intelligent design, I'd be happy to address them.

I already had responded to your reasoning against cosmological argument. In few of my responses, I also touched intelligent design and fine-tuning.

FatAndFaithless Wrote: Harris is blatantly misrepresenting the atheist position and being dishonest about what we think?

I'm shocked. Absolutely and utterly surprised. I've never seen this before.

Stimbo Wrote: It's the only way he can make his own argument work. It's sad, really.

Your sadness shows that atheism is indeed facing profound conceptual problems.

Simple. We're all here talking about 'god'. It is obviously a thing. The question is what kind of thing. Damned if I know.

The form of a thing is its shape, appearance, pattern of reaction, and (in the case of a living thing) its way of changing over time and acting, in fact, all the properties that make it the kind of thing it is. However, human sensation and human consciousness is entirely a different realm and should be handled in different manner.

Can you define feeling of taste in terms of physical thing by giving it properties of physical objects? It makes no sense to suppose some one kind of thing to be the common referent of expressions of completely different logical types.

All monotheistic religions agreed that God is outside space and time and God is immaterial. Being outside space and time itself opens a whole new universe of entirely unknown laws and principles in entirely unknown dimensions. Therefore, metaphors like “thing” may not be pertinent to portray God.

Quran has not left humanity in darkness and has given some understanding about the appearance and personality of immaterial God. People cannot grasp the idea of immaterial realm, as they do not have the access to it and their knowledge and sense are extremely limited. Therefore, Quran has given examples form the physical world to define things in the immaterial world so people could comprehend the ideas with ease.

“Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light: Allah doth set forth Parables for men: and Allah doth know all things.”

An Nuur (24)
-Verse 35-


Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

Al Ikhlash (112)
-Verses 1 – 4

Harris Wrote: The right way to say is:

Atheist: there is no God
Theist: Prove it.

Esquilax Wrote:
If you have to lie about what your opponents say to win an argument, then you don't have much of a position.

I thought you are a talented guy and would grasp the idea behind my response but unfortunately I was wrong.

Argument like:

Question: Prove there is God
Answer: Prove there is no God

is kind of stuff that has no weight in it.

If you want to disprove God then give proper logic and reason. Otherwise repeating prove, prove, prove means nothing.

I'm on record, multiple times, even in conversation with you, indicating that this is not my position. So you're either not reading my posts, or you're lying about what I think in order to gain some rhetorical advantage. Either way is a completely dishonest and shitty way to go about an argument.

Here in this forum most of the time I am facing short and duplicitous kind of phrases the target of which is mostly to create an attack on my person. There are perhaps only couple of people who really conduct discussion in a proper unpretentious sense. Unfortunately, I found you to be in love of making attacks on my person rather than bringing proper influential arguments in a literary manner.

ChadWooters Wrote: Always setting up the same straw man, I see.

Harris Wrote: Perhaps you have some alternate of God.

Esquilax Wrote:
So, here's another perfect demonstration that Harris is not reading what people are saying before he disagrees with them: Chad is another theist, agreeing with what Harris says, and yet Harris posts a response as though he's disagreeing. The man literally has no reading comprehension skills.

I have mistakenly took Chad’s phrase as a critique on my argument for that I apology. Although you have raised this point to attack on my personality, yet I am thankful to you that you had directed my attention to this mistake.

Harris I assume you don't believe in fairies.
Now prove there are no such things as fairies.

Now this is unfair isn't it, the one putting the "there are faries" argument is the one who supplies the evidence then the unbeliever gets to evaluate it.

How do we provide the evidence for no god?

Well there is no evidence FOR a god but apparently the complete lack of anything tangible is no barrier to the belief that something exists because hey c'mon you know.

Theists set out your proof and I get to look at it and see if I am convinced.

And I want actual physical things that can be verified by scientific method not namby pamby "arguments"

I do not believe in fairies as I found no evidences favouring them. I believe in unseen God because universe, my own body, and my consciousness provided me sufficient evidences for the existence of God.

When I say, “prove there is no God” it is only a rhetorical response to the question “prove there is God.”

Science is helpless in giving explanation to many phenomenon. These even include scientific stuff for example, gravity that we use and exploit everyday but have no idea what it is. I hope you get the idea.

There is solid theory that demonstrates our Universe could have come from 'nothingness'. your assumption is incorrect, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not true. Which is a theme that runs through most of this abject nonsense.

“Absolutely nothing caused the Big Bang” presupposes that “Absolutely nothingness once existed,” but no conceivable experience could ever directly verify this affirmation. Any confirming or disconfirming experience would exist and would thus falsify the claim. No examples of absolute non-existence, or of causation by non-existence, could ever be given directly in any conceivable experience. In addition, we cannot reason inductively about such things since we have no instances with which to start.

Nothingness = Not Anything

In fact, theory without anything is no theory. Nothingness cannot be based upon:

Quantum particles
Quantum fluctuations
Gravity
Microwave
Energy
Vacuum
Dark energy

All these have physical properties. They are “things,” they are not “nothing.”

Thanks for the video. See how a theist philosopher responded to an atheist physicist who had used metaphysical question “Why there is something rather than nothing” to prove physical world out of nothingness.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing

[robvalue]

Did you answer my question about what I'm meant to actually do to "give thanks" to this creator? You clearly judge me for selfishly accepting the universe as it is, yet if you have no more idea than I do how to communicate with the creator, what is your point? Science has failed to answer this question completely, should I just be making random guesses?

If you have no suggestion at all, then I'm back where I already was, creator or no creator makes no practical difference.

My life is shit, by the way. Any creator which is interacting and has the power to help me is pretty powerless, or else is horrid and doesn't deserve worship.

---

You're also making a whole lot of assumptions about the way I live my life, when you know next to nothing about me.

And one cannot choose their beliefs. Telling me what I should believe is nonsensical.

[pocaracas]

"We are star stuff".
Electrons and other elementary particles, the sort that make up everything we know of... those are eternal, in a time-forward sense.

Going back in time, we hit the Big bang and we can't say...

“Anything that has a beginning has an end.” That means a thing that has a beginning cannot be eternal. This is the law of nature and no one can challenge that.

What if nothing has a beginning?
You ever thought of that?

It means the building blocks of the Universe have always been there. Like the building blocks of my body had been around for a long long while before they assembled into me.

You have a unique identity. There is no other you. You had a beginning and you will have an end. After your end, nature would not reassemble you again and you will never come back to this earth. End of the story.

Does that matter whether your elements were present in the eternal past or they will remain in the eternal future when there is no you? Do you have any reason to think that matter is eternal?

Me... I'm a high-level object made of of many low-level objects. Sadly, the way they assemble to make me is ephemeral.

And no, matter is not eternal... but energy is... apparently.
Like Lavoisier said "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed".
Quantum vacuum does break this nice rule once in a while, though...

Harris Wrote:
Is “Natural” some law or force or is it some mystical phenomenon. How and why NATURAL is happening. What exactly NATURAL is? Do you have ANY scientific definition for it?

Pocaracas Wrote:
In this case, Natural phenomenon is mindless.
Can be studied, probed, measured... somehow...

You are trying to assimilate something, which is mindless as the foundation to develop your mindful arguments. Amusing!

Amusing how you cannot grasp the notion that highly complex high-level processing is what you call consciousness...
And it all goes on your brain.

errr.... I am aware of no beings apart from this universe. So sentient and non-sentient begins are part of the universe and have come about through a long, long chain of events.
If causality is a strict thing for all fields, even quantum, then it was going to be this way.... if not, then some randomness played a part.

Either way, I am not aware of any being apart from the Universe and I cannot fathom how could someone become aware of such beings... can you?

You are not aware of:

1. what life is
2. What is death
3. what is sense
4. what is consciousness
5. Why we sleep, (science does not have a clue.)
6. what is gravity,
7. Is the universe finite or infinite?

Yet you are conscious being living in the universe, you sense and feel, you sleep and wake, and you use gravity in every moment of your life.

1. who said I'm not aware of what life is?
2. Who said I'm not aware of what death is?
3. I know very well what a sensory input is.
4. I'm quite aware of what consciousness is.
5. I know why I sleep... if you don't know why you sleep, then maybe you should try sleep deprivation for a week or two.
6. Gravity is a force exerted on all matter and by all matter, proportional to the amount of matter and inversely proportional to the distance between the two pieces of matter.
7. The known universe is finite. The unknown universe could be many things and infinite is one of them... who knows?

You believe in all those unknown things without knowing them but you are reluctant to use your logic to realise an obvious fact that:

Why there is something rather than nothing?

Why do you was a "why" question?
Don't you think you're intentionally poisoning the well?

"Why" presupposes some sort of reasoning behind the fact. If the chain of events leading to there being matter was mindless, then no reason can be invoked and the "why" becomes moot...
I admit it's common for human language to ask a "why" question when they mean to ask a "how" question... is this what you're doing?
The "how" refers you back to the present state-of-the-art theory on this: quantum vacuum. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it needs a lot of tweaking to be right, maybe it needs to be completely scrapped and replaced by something far better... But, nowadays, it's the best we have.

[Harris]

Did you answer my question about what I'm meant to actually do to "give thanks" to this creator? You clearly judge me for selfishly accepting the universe as it is, yet if you have no more idea than I do how to communicate with the creator, what is your point? Science has failed to answer this question completely, should I just be making random guesses?

If you have no suggestion at all, then I'm back where I already was, creator or no creator makes no practical difference.

My life is shit, by the way. Any creator which is interacting and has the power to help me is pretty powerless, or else is horrid and doesn't deserve worship.

Until you force your mind to think that Universe and your own being are the outcome of chance, nothingness, or accident and contradict the reality for the sake of your personal convenience, you are trying to eliminate God from your mind set because that is fortunate and beneficial in your personal opinion.

Having doubt in the existence of God, if you pay gratitude to God because you have no other option left to get rid of your pain and anxiety then that gratitude is a hypocrisy.

If you want to pay sincere gratitude to God then use your intuition to understand the reality of universe and your own self for the reason that intuition is the cleanest form of knowledge.

God’s help is for everyone who seeks it with sincere intentions. He may help you by means of putting sympathy in people’s hearts or by making beneficial circumstances for you. However, if your intentions are not sincere then you are at the risk to forget God in place of paying Him more gratitude right after you get relief from your calamity.

“Now, when trouble touches man, he cries to Us: But when We bestow a favour upon him as from Ourselves, he says, "This has been given to me because of a certain knowledge (I have)!" Nay, but this is but a trial, but most of them understand not!”
Az-Zumar (39)
-Verse 49

In the light of the above verse if you closely analyse calamity then it is obvious that calamity brings person closer to God and makes purpose of life clearer. Therefore, I see at calamity as mercy and guidance of God for those who totally forget the day of judgment.

Frankly speaking, if I come across the knowledge that you doubt in my empathy then I will never think of helping you. However, God helps everyone who is in trouble and who asks for His help. God helps even knowingly whether a person is sincere in his/her intensions or not.


“O ye who believe! Seek help with patient perseverance and prayer; for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 153-


"And those whom you call upon besides Him (Allah) cannot help you nor can they help themselves."
Al A'raf (7)
-Verse 197-


"(And to preach thus), 'Seek ye the forgiveness of your Lord, and turn to Him in repentance; that He may grant you enjoyment, good (and true), for a term appointed, and bestow His abounding grace on all who abound in merit! But if ye turn away, then I fear for you the penalty of a great day:”
Huud (11)
-Verse 3-


“Covetous over you. Then when fear comes, thou wilt see them looking to thee, their eyes revolving, like (those of) one over whom hovers death: but when the fear is past, they will smite you with sharp tongues, covetous of goods. Such men have no faith, and so Allah has made their deeds of none effect: and that is easy for Allah.”
Al Ahzab (33)
-Verse 19-

What if nothing has a beginning?
You ever thought of that?

We cannot reason inductively about nothingness since we have no instances with which to start.

Me... I'm a high-level object made of of many low-level objects. Sadly, the way they assemble to make me is ephemeral.

And no, matter is not eternal... but energy is... apparently.

Like Lavoisier said "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed".
Quantum vacuum does break this nice rule once in a while, though...

Quantum Field Theory
In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible ENERGY.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Quantum Fluctuation
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or quantum vacuum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of ENERGY in a point in space as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Thanks to E = MC^2 that has provided us a profound understanding that without ENERGY there would not be any matter in the universe.

I do not think ENERGY is equal to NOTHINGNESS and I do not think that any scientist think that ENERGY is NOTHINGNESS.

Here arises another question:

What is the origin of this ENERGY?

Harris Wrote:
You are trying to assimilate something, which is mindless as the foundation to develop your mindful arguments. Amusing!

Pocaracas Wrote:
Amusing how you cannot grasp the notion that highly complex high-level processing is what you call consciousness...

And it all goes on your brain.

Consciousness is:

a. Knowledge in general,
b. intentionality,
c. Introspection (and the knowledge it specifically generates) and
d. Phenomenal experience.

Which one of these topics has the element of mindlessness?

1. who said I'm not aware of what life is?

Why we take conscious decisions? What keeps our bodies lively?

2. Who said I'm not aware of what death is?

Only dead can tell what death is and I think you are still alive.

3. I know very well what a sensory input is.

Perhaps you know the mechanics of sensory system and I do not argue on that but can you or anyone interpret what actually SENSE is.

4. I'm quite aware of what consciousness is.

Wow! I am keen to hear about that.

Please explain what experiences are, such as tastings and seeing; bodily-sensational experiences, such as those of pains, tickles and itches; imaginative experiences, such as those of one’s own actions or perceptions; and streams of thought, as in the experience of thinking ‘in words’ or ‘in images’.

5. I know why I sleep... if you don't know why you sleep, then maybe you should try sleep deprivation for a week or two.

Science has no definition for sleep.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/s...leep.shtml

6. Gravity is a force exerted on all matter and by all matter, proportional to the amount of matter and inversely proportional to the distance between the two pieces of matter.

Do not overlook the fact that the law of gravity is based only on experience.

“Gravity must be Caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether that agent be material or immaterial I leave to the consideration of my readers”
(Newton’s Letter to Bentley 25 February 1692).

7. The known universe is finite. The unknown universe could be many things and infinite is one of them... who knows?

My question was “Is the universe finite or infinite?” and
Your answer is “Who knows?”

Harris Wrote:
You believe in all those unknown things without knowing them but you are reluctant to use your logic to realise an obvious fact that:

Why there is something rather than nothing?

pocaracas Wrote:
Why do you was a "why" question?
Don't you think you're intentionally poisoning the well?

"Why" presupposes some sort of reasoning behind the fact. If the chain of events leading to there being matter was mindless, then no reason can be invoked and the "why" becomes moot...

I admit it's common for human language to ask a "why" question when they mean to ask a "how" question... is this what you're doing?

The "how" refers you back to the present state-of-the-art theory on this: quantum vacuum. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it needs a lot of tweaking to be right, maybe it needs to be completely scrapped and replaced by something far better... But, nowadays, it's the best we have.

Let us first analyse “present state-of-the-art theory: the fabulous Quantum Vacuum.”

If you bring Quantum Vacuum to describe origin of universe out of nothing then you or anyone who supports this idea is a deluded person.

Quantum Vacuum has PHYSICAL PROPERTIES and so it is not NOTHINGNESS.

Now come to the “Why” and “How” problem.

G.W.F. Leibniz rightly asked, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

This question is rather an expression of wonderment that there is a world in the first place, when there could presumably quite easily have been nothing.

Leibniz’s question is based on the principle of sufficient reason:

“No fact can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence.”

No one lives as if the principle of sufficient reason is false. The principle presupposes the existence of reason. When one argues against the principle, he/she begins to question the existence of reason itself. The conundrum of using reason to argue against the existence of reason appears odd if not self-defeating. The intelligibility of physical reality appears to require the principle of sufficient reason.

Everything that exists is either contingent or necessary. A contingent thing depends on something else for its existence. In contrast to a contingent thing, a necessary thing does not depend on anything for its existence. A contingent thing can be otherwise, but a necessary thing cannot be otherwise. A necessary thing cannot be anything except what it is; its existence is indefeasible and cannot be taken away.

If you closely analyse Leibniz’s question there you will find a certain element of humour.

The fact that one can ask this question only if the questioner already exists shows that the possibility of requesting a reason for the persistence of every existent is absurd. Now, that there is necessarily some existent is different from the statement that existence of the Necessary Existent is phenomenologically prior to all other concepts.

“Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.”
Al An'am (6)
-Verse 116-

“But most of them follow nothing but fancy: truly fancy can be of no avail against truth. Verily Allah is well aware of all that they do.”
Yunus (10)
-Verse 36-


“And they say: "What is there but our life in this world? We shall die and we live, and nothing but time can destroy us." But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture:”
Al Jaatsiyah (45)
-Verse 24-


“Verily We have propounded for men, in this Qur'an every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities."
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 58-

[robvalue]

Why are you quoting the bible quran at me? I said if there is "a god", what difference does it make? Are you just switching in your God and hoping I won't notice?

[Pizza]

He's quoting the Quran.

[robvalue]

Oh! Yeah, you're right, whoops. Is Harris a muslim then? Or is he trying to put me off Islam?

More about "paying gratitude", but no mention of how I actually do that.

[paulpablo]

The important point here is if your mind does not exist in the physical realm and yet it effects your physical body then why you think God is unreal outside time and space.

There could be some debate about what is actually effecting reality, the brain vs the mind, but that debate is really besides the point because as I said it isn't just the fact that god would be outside of space and be non physical and effecting physical things it's the concept of him also being outside of time.

My mind isn't outside of time and space, it flows through time and my mind reacts with physical things within space like you said, if I drink a bottle of scotch my mind is effected.

God is outside of time outside of space and not effected by anything physical yet somehow manages to tell angels to tell a human about some statements he wants him to recite to his friends in order for them to write down.

And I don't necessarily think that god is unreal, the only claim I'm making is that I don't understand enough about time and space to make a positive judgement about that topic and using god as a solution to a problem I don't understand seems illogical to me.

The basics of that kind of logic is that there's a process you don't understand so all you have to do to solve that issue is imagine there's a being who can do anything, be anywhere, exist without physically existing, think without having any time to think, exist forever, and that's basically the problem solved.
It's basically a more extreme version of how people said aliens built pyramids because of a lack of understanding as to how they were built.

[robvalue]

Say I believe there is a god, and I'm thankful. That's enough right? Or do I have to go further and degrade myself by grovelling to him?

I could thank him by leading a good life, but I do try and do that regardless.