The Problem Of Evil?

[Machinist]

Even without the singularity, you've still got a big bang. (You can confirm that with both of your sources.)

Yeah. Something still went bang. The Universe got a little stranger to me when I learned that it wasn't from a single point.

[Sparko]

If I'm reading Siegel correctly, he's saying there was a Big Bang, but it didn't start with a singularity

and

Nicole Rager Fuller's write up confirms:

observations have well established the state that occurred prior to the hot Big Bang: cosmic inflation. Before the hot Big Bang, the early universe underwent a phase of exponential growth, where any preexisting components to the universe were literally “inflated away.” When inflation ended, the universe reheated to a high, but not arbitrarily high, temperature, giving us the hot, dense, and expanding universe that grew into what we inhabit today.
...
The Big Bang still happened a very long time ago, but it wasn’t the beginning we once supposed it to be.

Thanks for the information, tis much appreciated.

Sounds like they are just wanting to redefine the beginning of the universe to "inflation" instead of "explosion" but it basically boils down to the same thing: It started really small and expanded. And the key point is "it STARTED" - neither theory can explain HOW it started, WHY it started or where the initial state came from.

[Sparko]

Your “example after example showing why knowing doesn't equal causing” ignores the issue that you were (supposedly) created by an all-knowing deity who knew, even as he was creating you, every decision that you would make throughout your life. In short, you are predestined - your ‘free-will’ is an illusion.

There you go again merely repeating your assertion without being able to explain why you think knowing what someone will do means they have no free will. I know every decision I made in my whole life, but I only know it because I did it and I know that everything I did was free will. Every single thing I have ever done is completely fixed in the timeline and can't be changed. But it was all done freely. Same with everything I will ever do. I might not know what I will do tomorrow, but I can guarantee that it will be done out of free will and it will happen whether I know what the choices are or not right now. If you want to call it "predestined" that is fine, but the thing doing the 'predestining' is my free will. Prove it otherwise.

[Markus River]

Sounds like they are just wanting to redefine the beginning of the universe to "inflation" instead of "explosion" but it basically boils down to the same thing: It started really small and expanded. And the key point is "it STARTED" - neither theory can explain HOW it started, WHY it started or where the initial state came from.

³⁴ years, that’s a long time.

That being the case, and in the absence of definitive data either way, you just have to ask yourself, which of the two is the more likely.

[Markus River]

God's "gaps" and Science's "gaps" - which gaps are shrinking and which are expanding?

Before the codification of science, it was all gaps. God could be invoked to explain any observed phenomenon. Once science and the scientific method gained a rigorous footing, its power to explain the naturalistic nature of observable phenomena squeezed God as an explanation into ever smaller gaps.

Once, they had the whole physical universe. Now the faithful are pretty much left bickering over the infinitesimal instant of time before the Big Bang and the philosophical meaning of morality and free will. And experimental neuroscience is possibly making free will look less free than the faithful would have us believe.

Atheists are frightened of God and that's why they deny him

This atheist isn’t frightened of God. In fact, with every reiteration of his alleged powers; omni this, omni that, omni the other, together with his historical propensity for using said powers against those he feels less than pleased with, he becomes more and more like a comic book super villain, but without the traditionally accompanying charisma.

And I deny him, because I see no reasonable evidence to support accepting him. Sorry.

What atheists dislike is the Christian (yes, I know there is huge variation of belief within Christianity) belief in things like infinite punishment for finite sins, and so on and on.

It’s not a question of liking or disliking the proposition of the endless torture of sinners in the flames of hell. More that the whole concept seems utterly ridiculous, and belief in it, by otherwise clearly intelligent people, just a little bit sad.

[tabibito]

³⁴ years, that’s a long time.

That being the case, and in the absence of definitive data either way, you just have to ask yourself, which of the two is the more likely.

? The one "accident" of an intelligent being as the ultimate cause; as against the myriads of myriads of "accidents" involved in bringing into being the various forms of life and the various inanimate objects, and natural laws ...
There doesn't seem to be whole lot in favour of the "everything happened for no particular reason" argument.

[Alien]

Before the codification of science, it was all gaps. God could be invoked to explain any observed phenomenon. Once science and the scientific method gained a rigorous footing, its power to explain the naturalistic nature of observable phenomena squeezed God as an explanation into ever smaller gaps.

Once, they had the whole physical universe. Now the faithful are pretty much left bickering over the infinitesimal instant of time before the Big Bang and the philosophical meaning of morality and free will. And experimental neuroscience is possibly making free will look less free than the faithful would have us believe.

My point exactly, and all squeezed into one little sentence.

This atheist isn’t frightened of God. In fact, with every reiteration of his alleged powers; omni this, omni that, omni the other, together with his historical propensity for using said powers against those he feels less than pleased with, he becomes more and more like a comic book super villain, but without the traditionally accompanying charisma.

And I deny him, because I see no reasonable evidence to support accepting him. Sorry.

I was describing a claim that some theists make, which is that atheists refuse to believe in God because that would make them open to God's punishment, so they make up and believe spurious "alternative facts". Your response mirrors my own.

It’s not a question of liking or disliking the proposition of the endless torture of sinners in the flames of hell. More that the whole concept seems utterly ridiculous, and belief in it, by otherwise clearly intelligent people, just a little bit sad.

I don't like it. Either intellectually or emotionally. In fact, if there is a God I consider it to be insulting to him. It makes him out to be the greatest monster of all time, before whom Stalin and the rest pale. And ridiculous as well. For example, what would be the state of mind of a soul that had endured that version of hell for a while? Insane at least, catatonic more likely.

[Alien]

? The one "accident" of an intelligent being as the ultimate cause; as against the myriads of myriads of "accidents" involved in bringing into being the various forms of life and the various inanimate objects, and natural laws ...
There doesn't seem to be whole lot in favour of the "everything happened for no particular reason" argument.

It's the sheer improbability of God that is the problem. Occam's Razor. In the case of the universe, it exists and we don't have to add to it to construct theories. God, on the other hand, has lots of stuff added to what we already experience. A being that is somehow not made of matter and energy, but nevertheless has ultimate powers. What is God made of, by the way? How much energy would it take to manipulate the entire material universe? And where did that all come from? "Turtles all the way down"? If you are constructing a theory of God, you can't just say "it's magic".

[tabibito]

It's the sheer improbability of God that is the problem. Occam's Razor. In the case of the universe, it exists and we don't have to add to it to construct theories. God, on the other hand, has lots of stuff added to what we already experience. A being that is somehow not made of matter and energy, but nevertheless has ultimate powers. What is God made of, by the way? How much energy would it take to manipulate the entire material universe? And where did that all come from? "Turtles all the way down"? If you are constructing a theory of God, you can't just say "it's magic".

Errm - I didn't mention God. One being, with no attributes beyond existence stipulated. No teachings about the nature or activity of that one being stipulated, but creation of the universe implied.

[Tassman]

There you go again merely repeating your assertion without being able to explain why you think knowing what someone will do means they have no free will.

NO. There YOU go again misrepresenting the argument. The argument is NOT simply about “knowing what someone will do”. It’s about an omnipotent deity creating you in full knowledge of everything you would ever do. You are predestined by an omnipotent, omniscient deity to make the choices you make – they were built into you as you were being made at your creation.

I know every decision I made in my whole life, but I only know it because I did it and I know that everything I did was free will. Every single thing I have ever done is completely fixed in the timeline and can't be changed. But it was all done freely. Same with everything I will ever do. I might not know what I will do tomorrow, but I can guarantee that it will be done out of free will and it will happen whether I know what the choices are or not right now. If you want to call it "predestined" that is fine, but the thing doing the 'predestining' is my free will.

You subjectively think you “know that everything I did was free will” but it was merely an illusion of free-will not actual free-will. Your "decisions" have existed eternally and were incorporated into your psyche before the beginning of time by your omnipotent, omniscient creator deity.

Prove it otherwise.

The proof is in the implications of the doctrinal definitions of your God being omnipotent and omniscient.

[Tassman]

? The one "accident" of an intelligent being as the ultimate cause; as against the myriads of myriads of "accidents" involved in bringing into being the various forms of life and the various inanimate objects, and natural laws ...
There doesn't seem to be whole lot in favour of the "everything happened for no particular reason" argument.

The overriding factor in the "everything happened for no particular reason" argument is the utter lack of evidence for an entity that has a purpose for anything. Religion arose as a way of trying to make sense of the universe in a prescientific age. But now we have science and religious belief is redundant - it has been superseded. ..

[EvoUK]

You accused me of believing in such a God merely on want. But that is not true, there are good reasons, even if wants enter in.

We may be speaking cross purposes - people believe for all sorts of reasons, which the specific religion they choose largely being cultural. In the context of this conversation, I was speaking about morality specifically - that your issue with the idea of a morality without an omni-powerful creator god usually boils down to you not liking the idea of morality without one, not actual reasons why it cannot be the case.

But it is not, you are begging the question. We have an ordered, precise, finely tuned cosmos. If it was created by an intelligence then it is not natural. You said you have no opinion concerning said creation - so you should have no opinion as to whether it is natural or not.

I said everything about the universe and how things happen always have a natural cause, and I have no reasons to believe gaps in our current knowledge would be any different. I see since I last posted other posters have picked this up.

No, you are making an assumption that can not be backed up. We have an ordered, precise, finely tuned universe - therefore it was brought into being by natural forces?

What assumption? That everything we can see and measure has natural causes, thus there's no reason to assume things we don't currently understand also have natural causes? Doesn't seem like a stretch. I'd also argue against the ordered, precise fine tuning of the universe as over simplistic and wishful thinking, but we're getting away from your beliefs regarding morality now into generic arguments about the existence of deities.

[EvoUK]

Strictly, and this is important, (according to current theories) the singularity is a point from which we can no longer "see" the past. This is because the matter/energy comprising the universe becomes homogeneous and no change can be observed. That is not the same as saying that nothing existed "before" (time gets difficult here) the "big bang". It just means that we can't (ever) know what that was. Science gives up at this point, pending further evidence (and I await data from the Webb telescope with interest.

Adding thoughts on a couple of other subjects ...

God's "gaps" and Science's "gaps" - which gaps are shrinking and which are expanding?

Creation and a creator - even if we came to agree that the universe had to be created, all we have is "something, let's call it 'X', created the universe". The next question has to be "what is X?". We can't jump straight to assuming the Christian concept of God. That's a mighty leap indeed!

Atheists are frightened of God and that's why they deny him - I don't think it's fair to say most people don't want a system of moral rules. How many people disagree with the prohibition of murder, do you think? What atheists dislike is the Christian (yes, I know there is huge variation of belief within Christianity) belief in things like infinite punishment for finite sins, and so on and on.

I see others have already responded to this, and based on their posts and your answers to them, I don't think there's much disagreement - I was oversimplifying the concept of the singularity as it wasn't key to the point I was making

[EvoUK]

1. We don't always do what we know is right. In other words we often fail our own moral standards.

2. If atheism is true, when you fail this standard you could simply change it. Which means there are no meaningful standards to begin with.

Even assuming for the sake of argument the above is a correct representation, of course this is not an argument that therefore it is incorrect. Only that you don't like the implications.

[EvoUK]

³⁴ years, that’s a long time.

That being the case, and in the absence of definitive data either way, you just have to ask yourself, which of the two is the more likely.

A nice summary of the point I was (lazily) making to seer.