I think the beginning came about by natural laws of the universe. Have you read up on ekpyrotic universe theory? this theory that something called branes in space triggered big bang-like explosions to create the universe that is seen today.
That may be, but you are not describing a true beginning since "branes" is something and if something exists, then the universe exists. Whatever "branes" is, does the theory posit that "branes" came to be on it's own, out of nothing? Or does it say that it exists outside of time-space? ("infinitely old")
To tell you the truth, I haven't really been thinking about this stuff too much recently. I've been preoccupied with the potential collapse of the US dollar...
I think the 1st cause of everything there is is a subject that cant be adressed (yet) by humans. Atleast not to people that arent religious. But whats allready proven is that reality get incredibly weird and unfamiliar when its about very big, small or fast. And allso that the full picture of reality cant ever by pictured in a human head. But it may be some day be written down in a theory. And i think that cause and effect may lose their meaning in this theory of everything.
Causality is the basis of all human knowledge, but yes, everything you say there I agree with. Again, even religious people cannot truly answer first cause because we define God as he who has no cause. Someday when I kick the bucket it's going to be interesting to see how everything turns out.
And what its not even atheism but its just called science.
Atheists just dont think ur holy book or anyone elses gives an accurate description of reality. And thats because of modern science. But allso because of the huge number of different religions, each with their own different road to salvation, yet claiming to be the only way. Praying doesnt work, god never appeared to anyone in modern times, miracles are nothing more then rare events that still obey the laws of physics.
Your assumption that in order for something to be a miracle it must disobey the laws of physics is wrong. If God is real in the first place, than he invented physics which means he is free to obey them. Also, Catholics do not say that God is appearing in modern times, hence the term "second coming" is used to describe a future event.
Then the definition of a miracle is nothing more then this:
A rare event of which humans believe or declare that its the direct work of god. Yet nothing about this event has any other characteristics then an ordinary rare event. Other then that it may be something 'good' or 'positive'
This is not enough to convince me that something is a miracle.
This kindof 'evidence' for a god (miracles praying etc) isnt enough to make a believer out of me.
They could be rare, common, impossible, or probable, God can do whatever He wants.
Second, yes you're right that stories of miracles are not enough to make a believer out of an atheist. Why should they? (Unless you saw it first hand and concluded so.) If God made himself totally known right now, there would be no atheists at first. Then later as people who only heard the account second hand came along there would be atheists. Miracles aren't really proof unless you see them first hand.
Also, the Catholic Church itself says that most 'miracles' actually aren't so, but are fake, a misunderstanding, or might be true but its too difficult to say with certainty. So when you see people who think dust on a wall is Mary's face, and you look at it and see dust, it's possible, even likely, that you are right and they are wrong. I think if you ever were to see a real first hand miracle, you'd probably know it with certainty.
We dont believe in a story from a book like religeous people.
We dont claim with certainty to know what went on but we do know how likely certain things are. Such as evolution and the big bang.
What happened before the big bang is really hard to prove and maybe humans will never unravel the deepest levels of reality. And thats because humans have evolved on a tiny spec in 3 dimensional space and 1 dimensional time.
Anyway, this doesnt support ur katholic skygod theory in any way.
Classic atheist who puts words in my mouth and then disagrees with the statements I have not made. I don't discount evolution or the big bang, except to say that they do not answer the fundamental question about beginning. Either the the universe is infinitely old, or it came from nothing. Something coming from nothing is not rational, you must therefor believe the universe is infinite. Fine. Myself, I rest infinity on God.
I ditnt mean to put words in ur mouth. Ur not defending a particular god. (even that seems to be what u believe in)
There is no conclusive theory about the highest and deepest reality. Just to me that doesnt point to a god because firstly thats allso an infinate reality in which god exists. Just people think its ok to stop asking questions at that point.
And secondly gods seem to have been invented by mankind. Even a christian still has to believe that the other gods are created by man.
People of other religions I think are trying to get at the same truth. Even the Greeks had "the unknown god" whom they assumed must be above Zeus, Hera, and co. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God, although we disagree on many of the specifics. But agreed, the "First Cause" paradox does not prove God so much as show the trouble with not God. The big mystery for religious people is, how can God always have been?
But the implication of unifying gods is that events and prophets in scriptures arent to be taken literally anymore. The same scriptures that say god is personal, omnipotent and omniscient. Then how do u know that this is still tru?
Its not so much unifying Gods as just historical fact that 3 religions all believe they are worshiping "The God of Abraham." It doesn't mean that all three are correct. Also, the Bible is not a book, but a collection of many books. Some are poetic and some are historical. Catholics leave the final interpretation of scripture to the Popes, Protestants create a new denomination when there is disagreement about scripture, not sure about the other religions.
This is similar to the "why is there something rather than nothing" question. Both the theist and the atheist are not going to be able to answer that. It's almost a non-question.
(why is there something rather than nothing)
(why is there a god rather then no god)
The thing is I really am comfortable not knowing.
Don't catholics embrace science? Don't they accept evolution? You know after all that embarrising Galileo buisness?
I'm not okay with "not knowing" - I want to push science as far as it can go (although with limitations on ethics) and get as many answers as possible. But you're right in that this is not a question that can be answered by evidence since you can't have evidence of nothingness. Still, you can't have something springing from nothing so our reason can tell us that absolute nothingness is impossible.
Yes, optional, and putting someone under house arrest for speaking his mind is sinful.
I do still reserve a little "place in my heart" for something comming from nothing. (I understand this very little) Quantum mechanics seems to be revealing some very strange behaviour of matter on an atimoc level. A single atom being in two different places at once. Even (I think) atomic particles popping into existance from ... nothing. Like I said I only know enough to be dangerous. And I'm just asserting outloud ...
Yes, but even quantum events are something and to have them suddenly occur from nothing is no different than having matter or time suddenly occur from nothing.
..(from below or above)...currently big bang and string theory or 'brane' theory seem to be coming closer to describing the true nature of the universe (i make no claim to have a deep understanding of these theories!). But it is important to realise that things (theorys) that may seem utterly impossibe (counter intuitive) dosent mean that they cant be true... i think you will agree history has provided us with plenty of examples...(continued above or below)....
"infinitlely old" and "from nothing" may seem irrational and counter intuitive, but relativity and quantum theory also have counterintuitive principles but have been experimentally observed. So "just dosent seem like it could happen" isnt really a good arguement against "big bang" or "infinitely old". My 'beliefs': I dont think we have enough theoretical tools yet to describe fully how the universe began, but i dont think that it cannot be done. (continued below........or above maybe?)
In every relative or quantum theory a change is described, not a true beginning. I don't object to the big bang theory, except to ask what caused it to begin, and why is the universe accelerating in it's expansion?
Okay yes you can consider most things to be 'changes' as such and i will agree with that. That obviously brings about the question that maybe the universe itself is such a 'change', but it seems rather pointless to even use such descriptions on quantum or 'big-bang' phenomena because in both cases time dosent 'work' as it would on an everyday level where it seems to 'flow' on a quantum level it dosent do this and at the big bang was theoretically the point where time 'started'....(cont.)
....so its not even really valid to say what 'caused' the universe to start under big bang theory, as causeality depennds on time....of which there was none...there most likely was a definite 'start' but thats just what it was....a start...there was no 'before' to even talk about cause or effect. Like i said we probably dont have the theoretical tools yet to properly describe such a state (if you could even call it a 'state'), although attempts have been made.
Yes, I understand this about time, but If the implication is that all time and all matter began with the big bang, I'm a little curious as to why it decided to happen. If it was brought about by some bizarre phenomenon, I'm curious to know why that phenomenon occurred and so on and so forth to infinity. I don't have a problem with the universe being infinite like that, but...
... I don't see how an atheist can believe in an absolute beginning, I think the atheist must believe in an infinite universe, which is okay I guess. I happen to rest infinity on God's shoulders, if I'm right I'll know for sure when I kick the bucket.
yes exactly, the prevailing stream of thinking (in the scientific community) is that it was brought about by some bizzare phenomenon, and like i said there have been some attenpts so far to explain it, but as yet none have succeeded in doing it properly. But my thoughts are thatits only a matter of time before it can be explained successfully. And i dont doubt that a 'complete' theory can be made (i.e dosent need to infinitely regress into a sort of cause/effect chain)
As an atheist I have no problem believing there is a creator or something that set this universe in motion. But, that doesn't mean it's Yahweh, Allah, etc. My problem is not with Deism, but with theism. Believing that this creator cares about you, and that you (or the pope, the priest, etc.) can talk to him, and that if you follow some certain rules you'll get to party with him for eternity is the crazy thing.
"...but that doesn't mean it's Yahweh, Allah, etc" Yes that is a fair point. I choose the Catholic faith for other reasons, which might just be another video one day...
Great, hopefully that will be soon. Though, and I don't mean this in a condescending way, I pretty sure I've heard the reasons; the argument seldom differs.
That gets to the point: if there was no time or matter, the suggestion that the big bang happened from nothing, of it's own accord is absurd. It may have come from some other form of the universe, but then that would make it a big change, not a beginning. And what ever that pre-universe was, it is also absurd to say that it popped into existence from nothing.
Atheists don't necessarily say they're absolutely sure there's no god. The answer is I don't know, but I suspect that "something" always existed. I'm not sure that we know what "nothing" is or if it's even possible. It's doubtful we even know what "always" means or whether it's possible. (Many are convinced they do, but people lots of false things.)
"I'm not sure that we know what 'nothing' is or if it's even possible."
I like this statement because it gets back to the point that it probably is not possible. If ever there was nothing, how could the universe exist? It couldn't have sprung into existence, from the nothingness on its own, could it? But then if there was never a time when there was nothing, doesn't that imply that stuff has always been around in one form or another? (i.e. infinitely old?)
And I almost forgot, I apologize for mis-characterizing atheists. I had thought that saying you "didn't know" meant agnostic and that atheist meant "you're sure there isn't" But apparently I'm wrong on that because every user seems to disagree :P Sorry!
The universe did not spring from "nothing." All the stuff was in tiny particle, sometimes called the primordial atom, sometimes called the singularity. It's a hell of a lot easier to imagine the infinite existence of stuff right in front of your eyes - that was there an hour ago and was there a million years ago - than to swallow a made-up myth.
The question will always be: So what brought about the (primordial atom, in this example)? I'm going to admit that I'm no better in saying that God is infinitely old than the atheist who says that the universe is infinitely old. In fact, that was my point in the first place, that a true atheist cannot believe that the universe had a beginning, but rather must believe that it is infinitely old.
Nobody's absolutely sure there's no entity that made the universe that we might call a god. Nobody knows where the universe came from. I don't believe god made the universe like i don't believe leprechauns didn't make the universe. Both are possible, and equally unknowable. We don't need to choose to believe something before we have sufficient evidence. secondly, "God is defined as infinite"... Let's just define the universe as infinite and show you how irrational that point is.
I certainly agree that you can't prove a negative, its not fair to ask you of that. But to be fair to me, if there really is a God, would it not follow that he be beyond time and space? If he had limitations in time and space, then he really wouldn't be God. Thats why I call Him "infinite."
Ok, but the term god isn't necessarily defined that way (ex. Greek gods). Just like we could posit that there is an infinite universe and call it "the universe" and then the universe would be defined as infinite. And by that logic, if there were a god, there would be no universe (joke). There could be a creator that isn't infinite, and most people would be justified in calling that a god. Point is, it's just a matter of semantics. And thus YOUR god version isn't necessary.
If there was a creator who wasn't infinite, I would say that he wasn't really a creator but a middle man who was part of the universe. I would want to know who brought about this middle man and everything that came before him. Whoever the first creator was, that's the almighty.
And what if that first one simply appeared as a quantum anomaly, wasn't all powerful, wasn't infinite at all. An original all mighty creator is not necessary that's the point. Without the necessity, there's no reason to say it exists.
You have simply created another middle man who was born from a "quantum anomaly." But the fact that this quantum anomaly could happen suggests that there was something before him too. This could go on and on, of course. Ultimately, either the universe had a beginning and God the creator is infinite, or there is no God, and the universe is infinite (without a beginning)
But, here's a question: You're saying that anything existing means there's a universe WITH THE EXCEPTION of a god. Doesn't god existing mean that there is something, and thus there is a universe? Simply that the universe is completely encompassed by god. Why can't there be something else that preexists the universe that isn't god? Or (looking at it the other way) why isn't god itself the original universe, or the earliest part? It's a semantic loophole, either way the universe is infinite.
Yes, this is a very good point. I think this means if there is no God, the universe must have always been, if God does exist, he has always been. But either way the concept of God or the universe having always existed, I find utterly bewildering and awesome. I most definitely don't buy the thought that God or the universe popped into existence on its own.
I was going to say "I don't know". Gisburne beat me to it. I used to believe in the god of Abraham. Then I read the bible as an adult and realized that there's no possible way it could be true. So I couldn't believe in that god anymore. That left me without belief in a god.
Just because I can't buy bronze age myths about the origin of the universe doesn't mean that I'm compelled to come up with my own explanation.
If the universe had a beginning, than God exists. You cannot have a beginning without something to cause it. (If you believe in causality which is the basis of all scientific knowledge) ...and this is the paradox because any "thing" that causes it to begin is thus part of the universe and so you must ask where did that thing come from. So to be an Atheist you must believe that the universe had no beginning.
"If the universe had a beginning, then God exists"
No, that absolutely does NOT follow. What about "if the universe had a beginning then fairies exist"? EQUALLY valid. How do you know that fairies didn't make the universe? They're just as plausible as God. And why did it have to be one god anyway and not 1000? You are so set on the one God idea that you forget the infinite number of other equally possible (and by equally I mean they are all in the same league as God and fairies) alternatives.
If fairies did indeed bring about the universe, then they are God. You're simply changing the name. As for the numbers, its an interesting point, but I would submit to you that whichever of those gods came first would be the one true God. I do agree, however, that this thought experiment does not lead us to any particular religion. But you can not have an effect without a cause, and if there was no "first cause" then you cannot have a beginning.
I say "God always was" and the Atheist must say "The universe always was." The atheist must say this because, if ever there was a time when the universe was not, then they are saying that it sprang forth from that nothingness. Can you conceive of a way in which the universe had a beginning that does not involve God of some kind?
Not necessarily. Currently, we have no clue as to what was before the Big Bang. For all anyone knows, there could have been something that was not the Universe as we know it, but still not nothing.
Because we don't know for sure that there was nothing before the Big Bang, it is impossible to speculate on what could have led to it. Currently, the answer is simply, I don't know.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was something before the big bang. But that something evolved from something else and so on... either to infinity, or to a beginning point where someone outside of time and space started it all. But then that creates a similair question about that someone and where he came from. My belief is that it's God who has always been, not the universe. But I might be wrong....
I'd take care not to use the word "evolve" in this case. Enough people have difficulty understanding that the theory of evolution only deals with living organisms.
Personally I'd put my money on a point outside space and time. What that is beyond anyone at this point. It doesn't bother me so much that people believe in god to explain what is unknown (as long as that doesn't discourage people from finding out)...
What bothers me is when people refuse to learn or accept what is painfully apparent (such as the universe being a tad older than 6,000 years), and use dogma to justify oppression.
If everyone was willing to admit, that "they could be wrong," then I think a lot of the reasons religion is criticized would fade.
"If fairies did indeed bring about the universe, then they are God"
Exactly. And yet you don't believe that. Why not?
You say that if there is no "first cause" you cannot have a beginning but you are STILL at all times dogmatically clinging to your precious exception: that God doesn't need a first cause. Why not?
You're right, ultimately my view about God having no "first cause" but that the universe does need one is a conflict. So you're saying that they both DO need a cause to have come into existence? Which leaves me with impossibly of God and you with the impossibility of the universe.
And as for why do I choose "God" and not fairies: You're basically asking me why I choose the Catholic Church over other religions and that's a whole other story. But basically I choose the Catholic Church because its the one thats shown me the most truth, and the one that has helped me become a better man. Plus we have some really great art and architecture in Rome : )
No I mean there is some great art which was inspired by the Catholic faith in Rome. (Perhaps one of the few good things to come out of the counter-reformation) It's one of my favorite places in Europe and I look forward to going back soon.
Every question you ask about the universe could also be asked about God. For example if there was nothing, how could God have sprung forth? The alternative is that God is infinitely old (has always been there). Rational? If the idea that the universe cannot have come from nothing is not rational, or that the universe is infinitely old is not rational, then again replace the word 'universe' with 'God'. If by your definition your God is infinite, then why cannot the universe be infinite?
Here is my thinking about where the universe came from:
I simply don't know. But I won't make up some magical story to fit that gap, and I won't use special pleading to say (as you imply) the universe cannot be infinitely old but (special pleading) God can.
Plus, whoever said that an atheist is absolutely sure there is no god? I simply have no reason to believe that there is one, so do not believe in one. That makes me an atheist (without belief) but I am also agnostic (without knowledge).
Why did you say that when I specifically said that 'I simply don't know'. Don't know means don't know. Do you know where God came from? Do you even know why you ignored things I ACTUALLY said and instead tried to suggest I said something I clearly did not? What part of 'I simply don't know' is so hard for you to understand?
What I am trying to emphasise is that you are ascribing attributes to the universe which you say are irrational (two choices: came out of nowhere or infinitely old) but which you happily say do not apply to a god. You make rules for the universe but whoops, God seems to be exempt from the rules, so that's your whole argument. This is, as I say, special pleading, and there can be no reason to discuss it if all you're doing is concluding that God is what you say simply by definition.
Let us assume that there is no God, then you will agree that the universe either began from nothing, or that it had no beginning and is infinitely old. As I say I do sympathize with the atheists who object to this notion of a hands on "God made the Earth and the animals, etc" because, as you say, we must ask by what processes did he do these things.
I don't believe that God took hand to star dusk and built the planets, but rather that he allows this to happen via natural causes by creating the laws that govern the universe. I agree with almost everything you say in your video on the subject.
What do you mean when you say 'creating the laws that govern the universe'? Where in the Bible does it say that? If you don't believe God made everything from dust, or indeed from nothing, that makes the Bible inaccurate, right? And where do you think God came from? I think you should answer that question if you're asking people where they think the universe came from.
And just a thought: if God created the universe but God has been around for an infinite amount of time, what was God doing for the infinite amount of time BEFORE he got round to making the universe? Anything much?
With regard to the Bible, I certainly don't believe everything in the Bible literally. And where did God come from? I don't think an answer to that question is possible other than to say that He always was and will be. If he had a beginning, than he is not really God because some cause existed that began him. (Which I admit is the same paradox that I'm challenging atheists with.) So then my question is: do you agree that either the universe has a beginning, or its infinitely old?
Most of your comment takes us back to my original premise: if it's so for God then it should also be so for the universe. We aren't going to get anywhere are we? You end with a question which is of course nonsensical and amounts to 'is the universe one of two mutually exclusive things: old or not old?'. Obviously the answer is yes. But since the question proves nothing, it is utterly pointless. I could as easily ask 'do you agree that either Meatloaf had a beginning or he is infinitely old?'
So since you agree that either the universe had a beginning, or it is infinitely old, then you can say which one you believe it is, which was the original question.
Even if you're right and there is no God, it's still an awesome mystery, the immense size and age of the universe in comparison to us.
If I tell you that I either own a Toyota or I don't, which one do you believe? The only sensible answer is that you have no opinion or belief on the subject. Why? Because you do not have enough information to make a decision as to the truth of either possibility. In the same way, I will say again: I do not know and CANNOT say which one I believe it is, purely because there is insufficient hard evidence for either one. And it's not something I really need to worry about, to be honest - who cares?
This is not a valid comparison. If causality is true, then you cannot have a beginning from nothing. Therefore you must conclude that the universe is infinitely old, just as I must conclude that God is infinitely old.
If I were talking about the "how" then your comparison would be right because we just don't know yet "how" it all began.
This is why I hate talking philosophy with Christians - they make their own rules then change them at will.
It seems that your only intention is to pester me relentlessly with the same argument until I relent, but it's not going to happen, and if that's your plan I'm pretty much done here. Don't tell me what I MUST conclude, when my conclusion is something else: I don't know where the universe came from, and I said that from the outset. There's your answer. End of story.
Well I'm certainly not trying to be an ass, I realize its not really fair to say "either the universe or God must be infinite" and ALSO say "but the universe can't be infinite and God can." I am taking it a step to far (outside of reason) with this second statement but the first point, I think, is a valid one. You have contributed very interesting commentary and I certainly appreciate your taking the time to talk about this great mystery.
I'm an agnostic, but I can imagine that some atheist dismiss god on philosophical grounds, and still remain agnostic on the origin of the universe. It seems to me that there is no logical inconsistency in holding both of these positions.
Read the library of comments and responses first, or make a specific argument, or hold back from commenting at all.
Mattribute 1 year ago
By definition.... what a cop out!
bjcdrama 1 year ago
I think the beginning came about by natural laws of the universe. Have you read up on ekpyrotic universe theory? this theory that something called branes in space triggered big bang-like explosions to create the universe that is seen today.
HaleyMary 2 years ago
That may be, but you are not describing a true beginning since "branes" is something and if something exists, then the universe exists. Whatever "branes" is, does the theory posit that "branes" came to be on it's own, out of nothing? Or does it say that it exists outside of time-space? ("infinitely old")
To tell you the truth, I haven't really been thinking about this stuff too much recently. I've been preoccupied with the potential collapse of the US dollar...
Mattribute 2 years ago
I think the 1st cause of everything there is is a subject that cant be adressed (yet) by humans. Atleast not to people that arent religious. But whats allready proven is that reality get incredibly weird and unfamiliar when its about very big, small or fast. And allso that the full picture of reality cant ever by pictured in a human head. But it may be some day be written down in a theory. And i think that cause and effect may lose their meaning in this theory of everything.
jamyfromfin 3 years ago
Causality is the basis of all human knowledge, but yes, everything you say there I agree with. Again, even religious people cannot truly answer first cause because we define God as he who has no cause. Someday when I kick the bucket it's going to be interesting to see how everything turns out.
Mattribute 3 years ago
And what its not even atheism but its just called science.
Atheists just dont think ur holy book or anyone elses gives an accurate description of reality. And thats because of modern science. But allso because of the huge number of different religions, each with their own different road to salvation, yet claiming to be the only way. Praying doesnt work, god never appeared to anyone in modern times, miracles are nothing more then rare events that still obey the laws of physics.
jamyfromfin 3 years ago
Your assumption that in order for something to be a miracle it must disobey the laws of physics is wrong. If God is real in the first place, than he invented physics which means he is free to obey them. Also, Catholics do not say that God is appearing in modern times, hence the term "second coming" is used to describe a future event.
Mattribute 3 years ago
Then the definition of a miracle is nothing more then this:
A rare event of which humans believe or declare that its the direct work of god. Yet nothing about this event has any other characteristics then an ordinary rare event. Other then that it may be something 'good' or 'positive'
This is not enough to convince me that something is a miracle.
This kindof 'evidence' for a god (miracles praying etc) isnt enough to make a believer out of me.
jamyfromfin 3 years ago
They could be rare, common, impossible, or probable, God can do whatever He wants.
Second, yes you're right that stories of miracles are not enough to make a believer out of an atheist. Why should they? (Unless you saw it first hand and concluded so.) If God made himself totally known right now, there would be no atheists at first. Then later as people who only heard the account second hand came along there would be atheists. Miracles aren't really proof unless you see them first hand.
Mattribute 3 years ago
Also, the Catholic Church itself says that most 'miracles' actually aren't so, but are fake, a misunderstanding, or might be true but its too difficult to say with certainty. So when you see people who think dust on a wall is Mary's face, and you look at it and see dust, it's possible, even likely, that you are right and they are wrong. I think if you ever were to see a real first hand miracle, you'd probably know it with certainty.
Mattribute 3 years ago
We dont believe in a story from a book like religeous people.
We dont claim with certainty to know what went on but we do know how likely certain things are. Such as evolution and the big bang.
What happened before the big bang is really hard to prove and maybe humans will never unravel the deepest levels of reality. And thats because humans have evolved on a tiny spec in 3 dimensional space and 1 dimensional time.
Anyway, this doesnt support ur katholic skygod theory in any way.
jamyfromfin 3 years ago
Classic atheist who puts words in my mouth and then disagrees with the statements I have not made. I don't discount evolution or the big bang, except to say that they do not answer the fundamental question about beginning. Either the the universe is infinitely old, or it came from nothing. Something coming from nothing is not rational, you must therefor believe the universe is infinite. Fine. Myself, I rest infinity on God.
Mattribute 3 years ago
I ditnt mean to put words in ur mouth. Ur not defending a particular god. (even that seems to be what u believe in)
There is no conclusive theory about the highest and deepest reality. Just to me that doesnt point to a god because firstly thats allso an infinate reality in which god exists. Just people think its ok to stop asking questions at that point.
And secondly gods seem to have been invented by mankind. Even a christian still has to believe that the other gods are created by man.
jamyfromfin 3 years ago
People of other religions I think are trying to get at the same truth. Even the Greeks had "the unknown god" whom they assumed must be above Zeus, Hera, and co. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God, although we disagree on many of the specifics. But agreed, the "First Cause" paradox does not prove God so much as show the trouble with not God. The big mystery for religious people is, how can God always have been?
Mattribute 3 years ago
But the implication of unifying gods is that events and prophets in scriptures arent to be taken literally anymore. The same scriptures that say god is personal, omnipotent and omniscient. Then how do u know that this is still tru?
jamyfromfin 3 years ago
Its not so much unifying Gods as just historical fact that 3 religions all believe they are worshiping "The God of Abraham." It doesn't mean that all three are correct. Also, the Bible is not a book, but a collection of many books. Some are poetic and some are historical. Catholics leave the final interpretation of scripture to the Popes, Protestants create a new denomination when there is disagreement about scripture, not sure about the other religions.
Mattribute 3 years ago
Who knows? Big bang sounds kinda good?
If I had to guess I'd go for infinately old.
But I don't know.
Danmill23 3 years ago
The big question with the Big Bang is "Why did this 'pinpoint of matter' come into existence?"
Mattribute 3 years ago
This is similar to the "why is there something rather than nothing" question. Both the theist and the atheist are not going to be able to answer that. It's almost a non-question.
(why is there something rather than nothing)
(why is there a god rather then no god)
The thing is I really am comfortable not knowing.
Don't catholics embrace science? Don't they accept evolution? You know after all that embarrising Galileo buisness?
Danmill23 3 years ago
I'm not okay with "not knowing" - I want to push science as far as it can go (although with limitations on ethics) and get as many answers as possible. But you're right in that this is not a question that can be answered by evidence since you can't have evidence of nothingness. Still, you can't have something springing from nothing so our reason can tell us that absolute nothingness is impossible.
Yes, optional, and putting someone under house arrest for speaking his mind is sinful.
Mattribute 3 years ago
I do still reserve a little "place in my heart" for something comming from nothing. (I understand this very little) Quantum mechanics seems to be revealing some very strange behaviour of matter on an atimoc level. A single atom being in two different places at once. Even (I think) atomic particles popping into existance from ... nothing. Like I said I only know enough to be dangerous. And I'm just asserting outloud ...
Danmill23 3 years ago
Yes, but even quantum events are something and to have them suddenly occur from nothing is no different than having matter or time suddenly occur from nothing.
Mattribute 3 years ago
..(from below or above)...currently big bang and string theory or 'brane' theory seem to be coming closer to describing the true nature of the universe (i make no claim to have a deep understanding of these theories!). But it is important to realise that things (theorys) that may seem utterly impossibe (counter intuitive) dosent mean that they cant be true... i think you will agree history has provided us with plenty of examples...(continued above or below)....
frosty956 3 years ago
"infinitlely old" and "from nothing" may seem irrational and counter intuitive, but relativity and quantum theory also have counterintuitive principles but have been experimentally observed. So "just dosent seem like it could happen" isnt really a good arguement against "big bang" or "infinitely old". My 'beliefs': I dont think we have enough theoretical tools yet to describe fully how the universe began, but i dont think that it cannot be done. (continued below........or above maybe?)
frosty956 3 years ago
In every relative or quantum theory a change is described, not a true beginning. I don't object to the big bang theory, except to ask what caused it to begin, and why is the universe accelerating in it's expansion?
Mattribute 3 years ago
Okay yes you can consider most things to be 'changes' as such and i will agree with that. That obviously brings about the question that maybe the universe itself is such a 'change', but it seems rather pointless to even use such descriptions on quantum or 'big-bang' phenomena because in both cases time dosent 'work' as it would on an everyday level where it seems to 'flow' on a quantum level it dosent do this and at the big bang was theoretically the point where time 'started'....(cont.)
frosty956 3 years ago
....so its not even really valid to say what 'caused' the universe to start under big bang theory, as causeality depennds on time....of which there was none...there most likely was a definite 'start' but thats just what it was....a start...there was no 'before' to even talk about cause or effect. Like i said we probably dont have the theoretical tools yet to properly describe such a state (if you could even call it a 'state'), although attempts have been made.
frosty956 3 years ago
Yes, I understand this about time, but If the implication is that all time and all matter began with the big bang, I'm a little curious as to why it decided to happen. If it was brought about by some bizarre phenomenon, I'm curious to know why that phenomenon occurred and so on and so forth to infinity. I don't have a problem with the universe being infinite like that, but...
Mattribute 3 years ago
... I don't see how an atheist can believe in an absolute beginning, I think the atheist must believe in an infinite universe, which is okay I guess. I happen to rest infinity on God's shoulders, if I'm right I'll know for sure when I kick the bucket.
Mattribute 3 years ago
yes exactly, the prevailing stream of thinking (in the scientific community) is that it was brought about by some bizzare phenomenon, and like i said there have been some attenpts so far to explain it, but as yet none have succeeded in doing it properly. But my thoughts are thatits only a matter of time before it can be explained successfully. And i dont doubt that a 'complete' theory can be made (i.e dosent need to infinitely regress into a sort of cause/effect chain)
frosty956 3 years ago
If god can be infinite, so can the universe.
moontazer 3 years ago
Yes, thats fair.
Mattribute 3 years ago
As an atheist I have no problem believing there is a creator or something that set this universe in motion. But, that doesn't mean it's Yahweh, Allah, etc. My problem is not with Deism, but with theism. Believing that this creator cares about you, and that you (or the pope, the priest, etc.) can talk to him, and that if you follow some certain rules you'll get to party with him for eternity is the crazy thing.
MononofuBlood 3 years ago
"...but that doesn't mean it's Yahweh, Allah, etc" Yes that is a fair point. I choose the Catholic faith for other reasons, which might just be another video one day...
Mattribute 3 years ago
Matt,
Great, hopefully that will be soon. Though, and I don't mean this in a condescending way, I pretty sure I've heard the reasons; the argument seldom differs.
Cuidate!
MononofuBlood 3 years ago
I don't think you understand the BB theory. Enjoy deluding yourself with strawmen that you create.
And "atheism is stupid" isn't evidence for god anyway. Go take a logic class or something.
newwwfag 3 years ago
Please don't put words into my mouth.
Mattribute 3 years ago
the big bang also created time, so there was no before
Ishta5 3 years ago
That gets to the point: if there was no time or matter, the suggestion that the big bang happened from nothing, of it's own accord is absurd. It may have come from some other form of the universe, but then that would make it a big change, not a beginning. And what ever that pre-universe was, it is also absurd to say that it popped into existence from nothing.
Mattribute 3 years ago
Atheists don't necessarily say they're absolutely sure there's no god. The answer is I don't know, but I suspect that "something" always existed. I'm not sure that we know what "nothing" is or if it's even possible. It's doubtful we even know what "always" means or whether it's possible. (Many are convinced they do, but people lots of false things.)
No idea what other atheists think.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"I'm not sure that we know what 'nothing' is or if it's even possible."
I like this statement because it gets back to the point that it probably is not possible. If ever there was nothing, how could the universe exist? It couldn't have sprung into existence, from the nothingness on its own, could it? But then if there was never a time when there was nothing, doesn't that imply that stuff has always been around in one form or another? (i.e. infinitely old?)
Mattribute 3 years ago
And I almost forgot, I apologize for mis-characterizing atheists. I had thought that saying you "didn't know" meant agnostic and that atheist meant "you're sure there isn't" But apparently I'm wrong on that because every user seems to disagree :P Sorry!
Mattribute 3 years ago
The universe did not spring from "nothing." All the stuff was in tiny particle, sometimes called the primordial atom, sometimes called the singularity. It's a hell of a lot easier to imagine the infinite existence of stuff right in front of your eyes - that was there an hour ago and was there a million years ago - than to swallow a made-up myth.
indignant99 3 years ago
The question will always be: So what brought about the (primordial atom, in this example)? I'm going to admit that I'm no better in saying that God is infinitely old than the atheist who says that the universe is infinitely old. In fact, that was my point in the first place, that a true atheist cannot believe that the universe had a beginning, but rather must believe that it is infinitely old.
Mattribute 3 years ago
Nobody's absolutely sure there's no entity that made the universe that we might call a god. Nobody knows where the universe came from. I don't believe god made the universe like i don't believe leprechauns didn't make the universe. Both are possible, and equally unknowable. We don't need to choose to believe something before we have sufficient evidence. secondly, "God is defined as infinite"... Let's just define the universe as infinite and show you how irrational that point is.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
I certainly agree that you can't prove a negative, its not fair to ask you of that. But to be fair to me, if there really is a God, would it not follow that he be beyond time and space? If he had limitations in time and space, then he really wouldn't be God. Thats why I call Him "infinite."
Mattribute 3 years ago
Ok, but the term god isn't necessarily defined that way (ex. Greek gods). Just like we could posit that there is an infinite universe and call it "the universe" and then the universe would be defined as infinite. And by that logic, if there were a god, there would be no universe (joke). There could be a creator that isn't infinite, and most people would be justified in calling that a god. Point is, it's just a matter of semantics. And thus YOUR god version isn't necessary.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
If there was a creator who wasn't infinite, I would say that he wasn't really a creator but a middle man who was part of the universe. I would want to know who brought about this middle man and everything that came before him. Whoever the first creator was, that's the almighty.
Mattribute 3 years ago
And what if that first one simply appeared as a quantum anomaly, wasn't all powerful, wasn't infinite at all. An original all mighty creator is not necessary that's the point. Without the necessity, there's no reason to say it exists.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
You have simply created another middle man who was born from a "quantum anomaly." But the fact that this quantum anomaly could happen suggests that there was something before him too. This could go on and on, of course. Ultimately, either the universe had a beginning and God the creator is infinite, or there is no God, and the universe is infinite (without a beginning)
Mattribute 3 years ago
But, here's a question: You're saying that anything existing means there's a universe WITH THE EXCEPTION of a god. Doesn't god existing mean that there is something, and thus there is a universe? Simply that the universe is completely encompassed by god. Why can't there be something else that preexists the universe that isn't god? Or (looking at it the other way) why isn't god itself the original universe, or the earliest part? It's a semantic loophole, either way the universe is infinite.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
Yes, this is a very good point. I think this means if there is no God, the universe must have always been, if God does exist, he has always been. But either way the concept of God or the universe having always existed, I find utterly bewildering and awesome. I most definitely don't buy the thought that God or the universe popped into existence on its own.
Mattribute 3 years ago
I was going to say "I don't know". Gisburne beat me to it. I used to believe in the god of Abraham. Then I read the bible as an adult and realized that there's no possible way it could be true. So I couldn't believe in that god anymore. That left me without belief in a god.
Just because I can't buy bronze age myths about the origin of the universe doesn't mean that I'm compelled to come up with my own explanation.
arlopickens 3 years ago
If the universe had a beginning, than God exists. You cannot have a beginning without something to cause it. (If you believe in causality which is the basis of all scientific knowledge) ...and this is the paradox because any "thing" that causes it to begin is thus part of the universe and so you must ask where did that thing come from. So to be an Atheist you must believe that the universe had no beginning.
Mattribute 3 years ago
No, to be an atheist you simply have to lack belief in god(s). I can believe that the universe didn't exist until I was born and still be an atheist.
arlopickens 3 years ago
"If the universe had a beginning, then God exists"
No, that absolutely does NOT follow. What about "if the universe had a beginning then fairies exist"? EQUALLY valid. How do you know that fairies didn't make the universe? They're just as plausible as God. And why did it have to be one god anyway and not 1000? You are so set on the one God idea that you forget the infinite number of other equally possible (and by equally I mean they are all in the same league as God and fairies) alternatives.
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
If fairies did indeed bring about the universe, then they are God. You're simply changing the name. As for the numbers, its an interesting point, but I would submit to you that whichever of those gods came first would be the one true God. I do agree, however, that this thought experiment does not lead us to any particular religion. But you can not have an effect without a cause, and if there was no "first cause" then you cannot have a beginning.
Mattribute 3 years ago
I say "God always was" and the Atheist must say "The universe always was." The atheist must say this because, if ever there was a time when the universe was not, then they are saying that it sprang forth from that nothingness. Can you conceive of a way in which the universe had a beginning that does not involve God of some kind?
Mattribute 3 years ago
"athesits must say the universe always was"
Not necessarily. Currently, we have no clue as to what was before the Big Bang. For all anyone knows, there could have been something that was not the Universe as we know it, but still not nothing.
Because we don't know for sure that there was nothing before the Big Bang, it is impossible to speculate on what could have led to it. Currently, the answer is simply, I don't know.
mtambors 3 years ago
I wouldn't be surprised if there was something before the big bang. But that something evolved from something else and so on... either to infinity, or to a beginning point where someone outside of time and space started it all. But then that creates a similair question about that someone and where he came from. My belief is that it's God who has always been, not the universe. But I might be wrong....
Mattribute 3 years ago
I'd take care not to use the word "evolve" in this case. Enough people have difficulty understanding that the theory of evolution only deals with living organisms.
Personally I'd put my money on a point outside space and time. What that is beyond anyone at this point. It doesn't bother me so much that people believe in god to explain what is unknown (as long as that doesn't discourage people from finding out)...
mtambors 3 years ago
What bothers me is when people refuse to learn or accept what is painfully apparent (such as the universe being a tad older than 6,000 years), and use dogma to justify oppression.
If everyone was willing to admit, that "they could be wrong," then I think a lot of the reasons religion is criticized would fade.
mtambors 3 years ago
"If fairies did indeed bring about the universe, then they are God"
Exactly. And yet you don't believe that. Why not?
You say that if there is no "first cause" you cannot have a beginning but you are STILL at all times dogmatically clinging to your precious exception: that God doesn't need a first cause. Why not?
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
as observed nature always has a cause and they always bring it up, but they don't say that nature always has a natural cause
Ishta5 3 years ago
You're right, ultimately my view about God having no "first cause" but that the universe does need one is a conflict. So you're saying that they both DO need a cause to have come into existence? Which leaves me with impossibly of God and you with the impossibility of the universe.
Mattribute 3 years ago
And as for why do I choose "God" and not fairies: You're basically asking me why I choose the Catholic Church over other religions and that's a whole other story. But basically I choose the Catholic Church because its the one thats shown me the most truth, and the one that has helped me become a better man. Plus we have some really great art and architecture in Rome : )
Mattribute 3 years ago
Funny, you don't sound Italian, and your channel says you are in the US.
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
No I mean there is some great art which was inspired by the Catholic faith in Rome. (Perhaps one of the few good things to come out of the counter-reformation) It's one of my favorite places in Europe and I look forward to going back soon.
Mattribute 3 years ago
Every question you ask about the universe could also be asked about God. For example if there was nothing, how could God have sprung forth? The alternative is that God is infinitely old (has always been there). Rational? If the idea that the universe cannot have come from nothing is not rational, or that the universe is infinitely old is not rational, then again replace the word 'universe' with 'God'. If by your definition your God is infinite, then why cannot the universe be infinite?
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
Here is my thinking about where the universe came from:
I simply don't know. But I won't make up some magical story to fit that gap, and I won't use special pleading to say (as you imply) the universe cannot be infinitely old but (special pleading) God can.
Plus, whoever said that an atheist is absolutely sure there is no god? I simply have no reason to believe that there is one, so do not believe in one. That makes me an atheist (without belief) but I am also agnostic (without knowledge).
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
So then you do believe the universe to be infinitely old?
Mattribute 3 years ago
Why did you say that when I specifically said that 'I simply don't know'. Don't know means don't know. Do you know where God came from? Do you even know why you ignored things I ACTUALLY said and instead tried to suggest I said something I clearly did not? What part of 'I simply don't know' is so hard for you to understand?
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
What I am trying to emphasise is that you are ascribing attributes to the universe which you say are irrational (two choices: came out of nowhere or infinitely old) but which you happily say do not apply to a god. You make rules for the universe but whoops, God seems to be exempt from the rules, so that's your whole argument. This is, as I say, special pleading, and there can be no reason to discuss it if all you're doing is concluding that God is what you say simply by definition.
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
Let us assume that there is no God, then you will agree that the universe either began from nothing, or that it had no beginning and is infinitely old. As I say I do sympathize with the atheists who object to this notion of a hands on "God made the Earth and the animals, etc" because, as you say, we must ask by what processes did he do these things.
Mattribute 3 years ago
I posted that before I saw your next post. I should have refreshed the page before posting I guess.
Mattribute 3 years ago
I don't believe that God took hand to star dusk and built the planets, but rather that he allows this to happen via natural causes by creating the laws that govern the universe. I agree with almost everything you say in your video on the subject.
Mattribute 3 years ago
What do you mean when you say 'creating the laws that govern the universe'? Where in the Bible does it say that? If you don't believe God made everything from dust, or indeed from nothing, that makes the Bible inaccurate, right? And where do you think God came from? I think you should answer that question if you're asking people where they think the universe came from.
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
And just a thought: if God created the universe but God has been around for an infinite amount of time, what was God doing for the infinite amount of time BEFORE he got round to making the universe? Anything much?
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
With regard to the Bible, I certainly don't believe everything in the Bible literally. And where did God come from? I don't think an answer to that question is possible other than to say that He always was and will be. If he had a beginning, than he is not really God because some cause existed that began him. (Which I admit is the same paradox that I'm challenging atheists with.) So then my question is: do you agree that either the universe has a beginning, or its infinitely old?
Mattribute 3 years ago
Most of your comment takes us back to my original premise: if it's so for God then it should also be so for the universe. We aren't going to get anywhere are we? You end with a question which is of course nonsensical and amounts to 'is the universe one of two mutually exclusive things: old or not old?'. Obviously the answer is yes. But since the question proves nothing, it is utterly pointless. I could as easily ask 'do you agree that either Meatloaf had a beginning or he is infinitely old?'
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
So since you agree that either the universe had a beginning, or it is infinitely old, then you can say which one you believe it is, which was the original question.
Even if you're right and there is no God, it's still an awesome mystery, the immense size and age of the universe in comparison to us.
Mattribute 3 years ago
If I tell you that I either own a Toyota or I don't, which one do you believe? The only sensible answer is that you have no opinion or belief on the subject. Why? Because you do not have enough information to make a decision as to the truth of either possibility. In the same way, I will say again: I do not know and CANNOT say which one I believe it is, purely because there is insufficient hard evidence for either one. And it's not something I really need to worry about, to be honest - who cares?
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
This is not a valid comparison. If causality is true, then you cannot have a beginning from nothing. Therefore you must conclude that the universe is infinitely old, just as I must conclude that God is infinitely old.
If I were talking about the "how" then your comparison would be right because we just don't know yet "how" it all began.
Mattribute 3 years ago
This is why I hate talking philosophy with Christians - they make their own rules then change them at will.
It seems that your only intention is to pester me relentlessly with the same argument until I relent, but it's not going to happen, and if that's your plan I'm pretty much done here. Don't tell me what I MUST conclude, when my conclusion is something else: I don't know where the universe came from, and I said that from the outset. There's your answer. End of story.
Gisburne2000 3 years ago
Well I'm certainly not trying to be an ass, I realize its not really fair to say "either the universe or God must be infinite" and ALSO say "but the universe can't be infinite and God can." I am taking it a step to far (outside of reason) with this second statement but the first point, I think, is a valid one. You have contributed very interesting commentary and I certainly appreciate your taking the time to talk about this great mystery.
Mattribute 3 years ago
I'm an agnostic, but I can imagine that some atheist dismiss god on philosophical grounds, and still remain agnostic on the origin of the universe. It seems to me that there is no logical inconsistency in holding both of these positions.
philstilwell 3 years ago