Q's from a theist

[BloodyHeretic]

Not sure, trying to bend my mind around M-theory just at the moment.

Whilst doing so, bear in mind that there's no experimental evidence whatsoever to support it!

Thanks, I know this, but I was reading Hawking's 'The Grand Design', and it's an interesting prospect. String theory is very interesting too, although it'd be useful to get a prediction out of either of them.

[Anymouse]

Environment:
1. What is the predominate belief of your family and friends?
Mother-Wicca (later has become more of an atheist with Wiccan leanings if such exists), Father (deceased when I was a small child), sister-Christian church deaconess, cousins-Methodists. Friends mostly atheists, except my So. Baptist neighbour.
2. What is your general location? (If U.S. please use northwest, northeast, etc.)
A red state in the middle, town of 142 people, many miles from anything larger than 2,000. Originally from a Great Lakes state and a much larger town of 200.
3. Have you changed your beliefs in the past?
No.
4. What is your highest level of education?
High School and much private study.
Cosmology/Physics:
5. Many people have argued that the “big bang” implies a finite universe. Some people (myself included) believe that a finite universe tends to have more theistic leanings. How would you respond to this?
I do not have sufficient education to hazard a guess; I am comfortable with "I dunno" but am always interested in learning more.
6. If you have not already answered above- do you believe in a finite or eternal universe?
Got me. I suspect any opinion I might have on the subject will make no difference to the Universe.
7. How would you respond to the fine tuning argument?
I'll get back with you after I look it up.
Okay, I looked it up. To me it seems nothing more than coincidence (if nuclear forces were a bit different, atomic structures would not exist in the form we know them as, for example). That is like the ID argument that the atmosphere must have been designed, because it is just right for everything on Earth; the argument ignores the logical premise that everything it is -not- right for is already dead. A similar argument might be that the Farenheit and centigrade scales of temperature are identical at -40 degrees, but this does not show the two scales are related to each other by anything other than an accident.
Biology:
8. Do you believe in IDT (Intelligent Design Theory), TOE (Theory of Evolution), or other? (Seems like a weird question but there are some atheists that believe that we were designed by aliens)
Evolution through Natural Selection seems to be the best bet at the moment, subject to change if we learn something else.
9. Based on the question above, what would you say are the general points that back up your belief in this?
A raft of scientific endeavour and evidence in numerous fields of study.
10. How does a belief in [response above] relate to an atheist/agnostic belief?
Got me, I'm not an atheist. I'll have to ask my wife; she is. Natural selection and evolution do not necessarily require atheism.
11. Do you believe that morals are relative/preference? Please Explain
Depends how you define morals. As a social structure (I don't wish to be killed, therefore it behooves me not to kill, &c) they seem to be pretty much universal.
12. Is your belief partly due to something that you may not be able to explain to others?
They mostly work for me; other people's milage may vary.

There: clear as mud.

[duck101]

Not sure, trying to bend my mind around M-theory just at the moment.

Whilst doing so, bear in mind that there's no experimental evidence whatsoever to support it!

---

Duck, belief that something is false is not the same as not believing that something is true. In terms of what I said above to BH, I don't believe that M-theory is a valid description of the way the universe works, because there's no evidence to support such a belief. However, I dont believe it to be false, since if anyone ever manages to get a solid prediction out of it, it may well turn out to be true.

If something is finite then I think this implies a beginning.

The surface of a sphere is finite. Can the surface be said to start anywhere?

A great book I'd recommend that addresses all of your issues with evolutionary biology is Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.


You didn't really address the main part of my question. Why do you believe what you do? What makes you think that it is true?

That's a good point about the sphere. So you’re saying that the universe can be finite while at the same time being eternal? That's truly a very interesting idea that I have heard proposed to different degrees. I have also heard an adaption of this idea, but by using a donut shape as example. Although these are interesting ideas I don't really think that they answer the question of if our universe had a beginning or if it is eternal. I realize that my view of the big bang might be skewed so correct me If I'm wrong. Here's one definition of the big bang theory "the theory that the universe originated sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature." So despite the argument over the shape of the universe, I think most would be able to make a good argument that the big bang theory is the best explanation thus far for the origins (or non origins) of the universe. You have much, much more knowledge in this area than I do so I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, but I was just looking at getting an idea of what some of your beliefs are as far as the origins or non origins of the universe goes. Hmmm. I feel like I’m taking your point out of context so sorry if I am.

Yes I am sorry as I have yet to explain why I really hold a theistic belief. To be honest, the smoking gun for me has always been the origins of the universe. From what I read I think the Big Bang Theory holds the best current explanation for the origins or non origins of the universe. Now I haven’t actually gone out an experimented with this idea so my beliefs are based on what you would call "authority" (those that have much more experience than I do). I think the idea that the universe had a beginning implies of a creator of some sort. I do not believe that there is a "naturalistic" explanation that can adequately explain this. My belief in a personal creator (theism) is more so based on my lines of reasoning from my life experiences. When I design something I usually don’t design it to have an impersonal relationship with it. I realize that this is not usually a good way to go about answering things, but by my lines of reasoning I think a creator that has a personal relationship with their creation makes the most sense (to me anyways). Again there are many other smaller points (which I don't really feel like going into detail about- maybe later) as far as evidence goes which are partly responsible for my belief. Maybe someday as I get more "hands on" experience I may change my current belief, but as of right now that is what I believe.
I hope this answers your Q(s).

[lilphil1989]

That definition of the big bang theory is fine but for one point. The evidence suggests that in the past the universe was smaller, everything was closer together and the energy density was much larger. Whether or not this corresponds to the origin of the universe is still an open question.
Many common claims based on the big bang theory, such as "the universe came into existence out of nothing", "before the big bang, space and time did not exist" and so on are completely unscientific.

Yes I am sorry as I have yet to explain why I really hold a theistic belief. To be honest, the smoking gun for me has always been the origins of the universe. From what I read I think the Big Bang Theory holds the best current explanation for the origins or non origins of the universe. Now I haven’t actually gone out an experimented with this idea so my beliefs are based on what you would call "authority" (those that have much more experience than I do). I think the idea that the universe had a beginning implies of a creator of some sort.

By introducing the creator, you are not addressing the problem, but simply moving it. In fact you're not just moving it, you're making it worse, because now you not only need to explain the origin of the creator, but you also have to demonstrate that the creator exists.

I do not believe that there is a "naturalistic" explanation that can adequately explain this.

The lack of a competing explanation does not promote a poor explanation to a satisfactory one.

[everythingafter]

Welcome. Like others, I don't have time to go through every question in detail, but I'll do the best I can in a few minutes.

1. What is the predominate belief of your family and friends?
Evangelical Christian.
2. What is your general location? (If U.S. please use northwest, northeast, etc.)
Southeast
3. Have you changed your beliefs in the past?
Used to be a Christian. Slowly moved to something closer to deism. Now, I'm more of an agnostic atheist.
4. What is your highest level of education?
College grad, BA in English
5. Many people have argued that the “big bang” implies a finite universe. Some people (myself included) believe that a finite universe tends to have more theistic leanings. How would you respond to this?
From my understanding, some theorize that the universe may be kind of like individual planets, that is, if you travel in one direction long enough, you will end up back where you started. Even if it is "contained" in this way, it could still be expanding in circumference (if that's even the right word), thereby making the distance one would have to travel to reach the starting point greater over time. I don't think if we one day found that the universe was certainly finite, that we would then have to imply a god or some higher entity to "contain" it or maintain it in some other way. Earth is finite, but those on this side of the Enlightenment find quite reasonable, natural explanations for how our planet developed and no longer look to the heavens for an explanation. Likewise, even if our universe is finite, there's no sense in saying the universe is any different than anything else in the natural world. There could be multiple universes or some other explanation that we can't yet fathom. But bringing a god into the equation raises questions that never needed to be raised in the first place and further complicates the most basic questions about life and the universe.
7. How would you respond to the fine tuning argument?
That we have already discovered several planets that are probably the so-called Goldilocks zone. That we happen to be in such a zone for supporting life is unremarkable, given the sheer number of potential planets in the universe.
8. Do you believe in IDT (Intelligent Design Theory), TOE (Theory of Evolution), or other? (Seems like a weird question but there are some atheists that believe that we were designed by aliens)
Evolution by natural selection.
9. Based on the question above, what would you say are the general points that back up your belief in this?
That 99 percent of our DNA matches that of chimpanzees is a good start. That our human bodies and unborn children show some of the same relics of our evolutionary past. The fossil record. Skulls discovered that show our prehistoric past.
10. How does a belief in [response above] relate to an atheist/agnostic belief?
It's related, of course, but there are other reasons for my non-belief. The problem of evil or intense suffering being one. The moral-trainwreck of vicarious redemption is another.
11. Do you believe that morals are relative/preference? Please Explain
This is a field of inquiry that science hasn't investigated enough in my view, but generally, I think that we can define certain actions or moral codes to be more favorable to societies than others, even within certain groups that we may look unfavorably upon. We can look at the ancient Mayans, for instance. They practiced, what to us is the detestable practice of human sacrifice to an even more detestable angry and blood drinking god. Even though we wince at such barbarity today, the Mayans, within their own society, indeed had codes of ethics that held the society together, otherwise, we may never have known about the Mayans because their society would have imploded without certain codes of ethics. Lying, for instance, will get a person in trouble in almost any society on the planet, no matter how weird or cruel certain practices within those groups may appear to us. Stealing would be another example. In contrast, people generally award individuals for displaying noble, generous or benevolent characteristics within individual groups. They may not display these characteristics to people in rival groups, of course, but they do within their own in-groups. I think this makes a strong case that we can point to some kind of objective moral or ethical framework among in-groups. Germany, of course, remained in tact even under the Nazis because within Nazism, people were generally decent to each other, or else, Nazism would have crumbled long before it did.

I just want to get a better understanding of beliefs that run quite contradictive to mine. Please don’t attack my belief; I respect your beliefs and I hope that you respect mine.

Certainly. They are fair questions. Believers, it seems, often think that there are some questions or issues that unbelievers haven't mulled over in great or enough detail. As if we unbelievers haven't really worked out the implications of the finite universe claim or how something came from nothing. Of course, some unbelievers are just as ignorant on why they disbelieve as believers on these questions. It's good to see you are at least thinking about these issues. You have gotten farther than many of your fellow theists, including nearly all of my believing family and friends.

[duck101]

“That definition of the big bang theory is fine but for one point. The evidence suggests that in the past the universe was smaller, everything was closer together and the energy density was much larger. Whether or not this corresponds to the origin of the universe is still an open question.
Many common claims based on the big bang theory, such as "the universe came into existence out of nothing", "before the big bang, space and time did not exist" and so on are completely unscientific.”

I realize that there is a line that is drawn where science can go no further, and in my past responses I have been partly wrong for blurring this line. It is quite interesting to see how one may believe that something has certain implications where as others don’t see it like that. Often times when I have discussions with people it’s often frustrating when they don’t see what you see, but to be fair I’m quite sure atheists think the same about theists.

“By introducing the creator, you are not addressing the problem, but simply moving it. In fact you're not just moving it, you're making it worse, because now you not only need to explain the origin of the creator, but you also have to demonstrate that the creator exists.”

I see what you’re saying, but I’ll stop at just a creator for right now. I see no reason to believe that we can or will ever know the origins of the creator. In fact I don’t know how we could be so sure that the creator does have origins (in the case that it’s eternal). I would have to disagree on the point that you have to demonstrate that the creator exists. Sometimes we can infer that something exists without actually demonstrating that it does. Looking back in history we see that people used to have all these crazy explanations of how you got sick. Somewhere along the lines some people began to infer that something else must be going on. Without the proper technology they couldn’t demonstrate that there was something else causing people to get sick but they could infer it. Then as technology improved they were in fact able to demonstrate this. So I can’t demonstrate that a creator exists, but I infer that one does and for me that’s enough (for right now anyways).

“The lack of a competing explanation does not promote a poor explanation to a satisfactory one.”

You are very right on this point. It’s just so tempting sometimes isn’t it?

Thanks lilphil1989 for the very insightful discussion.

“Certainly. They are fair questions. Believers, it seems, often think that there are some questions or issues that unbelievers haven't mulled over in great or enough detail. As if we unbelievers haven't really worked out the implications of the finite universe claim or how something came from nothing. Of course, some unbelievers are just as ignorant on why they disbelieve as believers on these questions. It's good to see you are at least thinking about these issues. You have gotten farther than many of your fellow theists, including nearly all of my believing family and friends.”

Thanks, well I’ll admit that I don’t claim most theists, as I’m sure you don’t claim a lot of atheists. It is very interesting to think that when presented with the same evidence often times people can come to different conflicting conclusions.

Thanks everyone for answering some of my questions. Most of the answers were somewhat expected, but I was a little surprised on one of them. I have heard countless atheists claim that the TOE proves that God doesn’t exists. I’m glad that no one argued this, but I was a little surprised that not one of you took that side. So that’s at least one good thing I got from this.

[everythingafter]

I have heard countless atheists claim that the TOE proves that God doesn’t exists. I’m glad that no one argued this, but I was a little surprised that not one of you took that side.

It was apparently a hang up for Darwin himself (since notions of the creation were so bound up with Christianity), but I think more believers today, even unbelievers (while they don't buy it), can at least imagine a god causing the big bang and then perhaps overseeing evolution by natural selection. This is a plausible in theory to many believers, while in Darwin's day, it seems that to reject creationism was pretty much to reject God altogether.

[twocompulsive]

This is what I believe :

The Universe came into existence 13.72 billion years ago after a chemical - or to be more accurate - a quantum expansion commonly known as the Big Bang. Before that nothing existed. No space. No light. No time. Nothing. The Universe is all there is. Nothing exists outside of it. No one knows what actually happened before the Big Bang. However it is possible that it is in a constant state of expansion and contraction and that the current one that now exists is merely the latest manifestation in a continuation. There are three ways in which it may end. It may simply reach a natural state of equilibrium after expansion and revert to the beginning of another. It may contract and return to it's original quantum state. It may expand eternally whereupon all life will cease to exist as temperatures reach virtual absolute zero. Whatever actually does happen, the Earth will cease to be after 5 billion years when the Sun implodes and takes all the inner planets with it. So unless Man can develop commercialised space travel or / and discover habitable worlds that will be the end of Homo Sapiens.

[lilphil1989]

I realize that there is a line that is drawn where science can go no further, and in my past responses I have been partly wrong for blurring this line. It is quite interesting to see how one may believe that something has certain implications where as others don’t see it like that. Often times when I have discussions with people it’s often frustrating when they don’t see what you see, but to be fair I’m quite sure atheists think the same about theists.

It's not that there's a boundary beyond which scientific knowledge may never pass, just that there is an edge to our current knowledge. So I'm not saying that we may never have a scientific explanation, just that we don't have one at the moment.

I see what you’re saying, but I’ll stop at just a creator for right now. I see no reason to believe that we can or will ever know the origins of the creator.

If you're willing to say that it's impossible to know the origin of something, why not let that something be the universe, instead of introducing some new entity to explain away your ignorance just to admit ignorance all over again? That's certainly the better proposition, since the universe is known to exist.

So I can’t demonstrate that a creator exists, but I infer that one does and for me that’s enough

And if your inference is logically sound (which I would disagree with, but I take it as a given for the sake of the argument), then you can further infer the existence of the creator's creator and so on ad infinitum.



As for evolution, it provides no evidence against the existence of a generic deity; however it does provide evidence against the god of the bible, since the explicit claim is made that mankind was brought into existence fully formed.

[frankiej]

Not sure, trying to bend my mind around M-theory just at the moment.

Whilst doing so, bear in mind that there's no experimental evidence whatsoever to support it!

Thanks, I know this, but I was reading Hawking's 'The Grand Design', and it's an interesting prospect. String theory is very interesting too, although it'd be useful to get a prediction out of either of them.

I have an interest in string theories. Wrapping your mind round it all takes some doing... but even with the lack of evidence it still makes far more sense than half of the bible, and seems more plausible aswell... it is after all a scientific theory... however, I do not see it as truth as of yet as not enough is truly known on the subject for me to say.