An infinite series of finite causes.

[carpedm9587]

Have you had a chance to think about my response?

Yes. It was thorough. Essentially, it confirmed what I think I knew going in: we don't even have a language for talking about what might exist "outside" or "before" this universe, because we have no access to it. If time/space begin with the singularity, we don't even have a language to discuss it. Words like "before" and "outside" may or may not even have any meaning.

As a thought experiment, in short, it wasn't one of my better ones...

[element771]

Yes. It was thorough. Essentially, it confirmed what I think I knew going in: we don't even have a language for talking about what might exist "outside" or "before" this universe, because we have no access to it. If time/space begin with the singularity, we don't even have a language to discuss it. Words like "before" and "outside" may or may not even have any meaning.

As a thought experiment, in short, it wasn't one of my better ones...

You mentioned in your post that you may have to rethink the God hypothesis as the source of creation if the thought experiment went sideways. It appears now you don't think that your thought experiment was very good. I don't necessarily agree because it does hit on all of salient points.

Question: What would it take you to seriously reconsider the "God hypothesis"?

[carpedm9587]

You mentioned in your post that you may have to rethink the God hypothesis as the source of creation if the thought experiment went sideways. It appears now you don't think that your thought experiment was very good. I don't necessarily agree because it does hit on all of salient points.

Question: What would it take you to seriously reconsider the "God hypothesis"?

I get asked that now and then, though not specifically about creation. I don't know if I have an answer for "creation." I do not replace "I don't know" with "god did it." So to re-examine my beliefs about "creation" would require me to come to a belief that god exists. There are several things that might do that trick:

1) A clear and unambiguous experience of the divine. (Given that I previously thought I had had one of these, my skepticism radar is usually on high)
2) An indication that something in my understanding/perception is wrong that leads to the conclusion, "god is most likely real." For example, one data point that informs my beliefs is the tendency for scientific explanation to replace religious ones, but the opposite I have never encountered. If someone were able to show me that my perception of that trend is an illusion, I would have to rethink at least some part of my beliefs.

I guess those are the big two. Do you think I'm missing anything?

[element771]

I get asked that now and then, though not specifically about creation. I don't know if I have an answer for "creation." I do not replace "I don't know" with "god did it." So to re-examine my beliefs about "creation" would require me to come to a belief that god exists. There are several things that might do that trick:

That is interesting...

I do not replace "I don't know" with "God did it" either... IMO, everything in the natural world should be explainable using science. Otherwise, what kind of deity would God be if he had to stick his finger in now and then to make sure everything is going as planned. Abiogenesis is a big one for me. Every single explanation at this time suffers from a fatal flaw, however, that does not cause me to think that God must have done it.

1) A clear and unambiguous experience of the divine. (Given that I previously thought I had had one of these, my skepticism radar is usually on high)

Looks like you and I are in the same boat. My skepticism meter is also pegged pretty high regarding experiences such as these. However, this sometimes makes me wonder if this would cause me to miss such experiences. Even if I have had an experience, I bet I could find a way to explain it away...even if that experience was "legit".

2) An indication that something in my understanding/perception is wrong that leads to the conclusion, "god is most likely real." For example, one data point that informs my beliefs is the tendency for scientific explanation to replace religious ones, but the opposite I have never encountered. If someone were able to show me that my perception of that trend is an illusion, I would have to rethink at least some part of my beliefs.

Again, this is an interesting position to have. What would cause you to expect religious explanations to answer questions about naturally occurring phenomenon? I never really understood this position as there are a number of my Christian brothers and sisters who have this same point of view.

I always liked this example....

If I ask you why is the water in the kettle boiling...I could tell you about the thermodynamics of the water, heat transfer from the stove to the pot, the physical properties of water, etc. However, an equally valid answer to the question is that I am making tea.

Both of these explanations answer the question and they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they offer a more complete explanation about why the water is boiling.

I guess those are the big two. Do you think I'm missing anything?

I honestly don't know. Two of my best friends are atheist and are in science...we go around and around and around. I don't understand how they cannot believe and they don't understand how I can believe. We both have the same level of reverence for science and both have the same level of scientific understanding. We even have the same political outlook. There is so much we have in common save this question.

I often wonder what it would take for them to believe. I have been arguing with them for 12 years. I have moved one of them to concede that some sort of Deism is possible or even true. This is about as far as I have gotten. In the end, I understand that it is not me who is going to convince them...it will have to come from within or from God if he/she is really there.

[carpedm9587]

That is interesting...

I do not replace "I don't know" with "God did it" either... IMO, everything in the natural world should be explainable using science. Otherwise, what kind of deity would God be if he had to stick his finger in now and then to make sure everything is going as planned. Abiogenesis is a big one for me. Every single explanation at this time suffers from a fatal flaw, however, that does not cause me to think that God must have done it.

Looks like you and I are in the same boat. My skepticism meter is also pegged pretty high regarding experiences such as these. However, this sometimes makes me wonder if this would cause me to miss such experiences. Even if I have had an experience, I bet I could find a way to explain it away...even if that experience was "legit".

That is a legitimate concern. However, I think far too many people take far too ordinary things and base a religious belief on it. One common phenomenon is the phenomenon of understanding how probability and statistics work.

Again, this is an interesting position to have. What would cause you to expect religious explanations to answer questions about naturally occurring phenomenon? I never really understood this position as there are a number of my Christian brothers and sisters who have this same point of view.

I always liked this example....

If I ask you why is the water in the kettle boiling...I could tell you about the thermodynamics of the water, heat transfer from the stove to the pot, the physical properties of water, etc. However, an equally valid answer to the question is that I am making tea.

Both of these explanations answer the question and they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they offer a more complete explanation about why the water is boiling.

I actually don't "expect" religious explanations for naturally occurring phenomena, but that is what I believe is the root of all religions. My examinations of archeology, human history, and other disciplines suggests that religions originated in the human species as a means for explaining phenomena that early man had no means for otherwise explaining. By the time we begin to see the dawn of philosophy and then science, religion was deeply entrenched in our cultures and our behaviors. It has only been a few millennia, since the dawn of those disciplines, and science has really only taken off in the last few centuries. So we live today in a period of transition as we see religious explanations for "what is" give way to scientific ones. I believe, in time, religions will largely disappear, except for small hold-out sects. We are seeing this dynamic beginning in developed countries already, as the population becomes more and more secularized.

I honestly don't know. Two of my best friends are atheist and are in science...we go around and around and around. I don't understand how they cannot believe and they don't understand how I can believe. We both have the same level of reverence for science and both have the same level of scientific understanding. We even have the same political outlook. There is so much we have in common save this question.

I often wonder what it would take for them to believe. I have been arguing with them for 12 years. I have moved one of them to concede that some sort of Deism is possible or even true. This is about as far as I have gotten. In the end, I understand that it is not me who is going to convince them...it will have to come from within or from God if he/she is really there.

I would say some form of deism is possible. After all, if you posit an undetectable, supernatural, all powerful being, there is nothing logically inconsistent about this position, so no way to rule it out as "impossible." I simply consider it implausible. There are simply too many things that do not fit.

[element771]

I actually don't "expect" religious explanations for naturally occurring phenomena, but that is what I believe is the root of all religions. My examinations of archeology, human history, and other disciplines suggests that religions originated in the human species as a means for explaining phenomena that early man had no means for otherwise explaining. By the time we begin to see the dawn of philosophy and then science, religion was deeply entrenched in our cultures and our behaviors. It has only been a few millennia, since the dawn of those disciplines, and science has really only taken off in the last few centuries. So we live today in a period of transition as we see religious explanations for "what is" give way to scientific ones. I believe, in time, religions will largely disappear, except for small hold-out sects. We are seeing this dynamic beginning in developed countries already, as the population becomes more and more secularized.

This has been predicted for a while now and so far it hasn't occurred. I think that there will always be religion because we have an inherent desire to look for something greater than ourselves. I also disagree that the fundamental reason that religion exists is to explain natural phenomena. While I do think it may have played a role, I think it was something greater than that.

I also think it is incorrect to think that religion is merely a substitute for scientific knowledge. Have you read anything by Rodney Stark?

I would say some form of deism is possible. After all, if you posit an undetectable, supernatural, all powerful being, there is nothing logically inconsistent about this position, so no way to rule it out as "impossible." I simply consider it implausible. There are simply too many things that do not fit.

What doesn't fit?

[carpedm9587]

This has been predicted for a while now and so far it hasn't occurred. I think that there will always be religion because we have an inherent desire to look for something greater than ourselves.

So we have two predictions. It remains to see which one will play out. In the U.S. and Europe, however, it seems fairly clear that the population tends to secularization. Even many of those who claim a religion are seldom attending a church, or expressing their religion in any way other than habitual ritual (e.g., marriage, first communion, bar/bah mitzvah, holidays, etc.)

I also disagree that the fundamental reason that religion exists is to explain natural phenomena.

Oh I don't think that's why it exists now. I think that's how the whole thing got started. Over the past two millennia, philosophy and science have taken over that task.

While I do think it may have played a role, I think it was something greater than that.

I agree with this, but it is (at least in part) related to the "why things are." Early man experiences their own sentience, and the resulting ability to choose/act. Around them they saw a world of action well beyond their abilities (e.g., lightning, earthquakes, storms, etc.), so how natural to assume that there is a "greater sentience" capable of all of these things. But we also grow from childhood into adulthood, and that sense of "greater than self" begins in childhood with this huge being (dad) that can lift us, toss us, and make us feel amazing or scared. What would be more natural to assume that a being well beyond that exists beyond childhood. There is a strong psychological component to religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

I also think it is incorrect to think that religion is merely a substitute for scientific knowledge. Have you read anything by Rodney Stark?

You may have read more than I put there, or perhaps I expressed myself badly. I do not think religion is a "substitute for scientific knowledge." I think religions entered the species as a way of grappling with a hostile world, and was originally the only way of explaining "why things are as they are." That role of religion has changed significantly over the years, but even the discussion here still exhibits religion being used as a way to explain "why things are as they are" (e.g., origins of the universe).

What doesn't fit?

Well, that would depend on which specific god we're talking about. Meanwhile, if this discussion is going to head in this direction (and I am willing), we might want to be prepared to be joined by a cast of characters. That might suggest starting a new thread in a different forum, one where we can control the rules of engagement. Otherwise there is a good chance this will spin off into yet another series of hurled insults by the usual cast of characters.

[element771]

Well, that would depend on which specific god we're talking about. Meanwhile, if this discussion is going to head in this direction (and I am willing), we might want to be prepared to be joined by a cast of characters. That might suggest starting a new thread in a different forum, one where we can control the rules of engagement. Otherwise there is a good chance this will spin off into yet another series of hurled insults by the usual cast of characters.

What forum would that be?

lol

I am up for it.

[carpedm9587]

What forum would that be?

lol

I am up for it.

Well...that depends. Apologetics is certainly an appropriate place, but tends to be prone to rock throwing. General Theistics 101 seems to have a better "spirit."

I'll let you choose. And I'll let you begin. I don't really have questions, but I'm willing to bet you have a couple!

ETA: Actually, whoever starts the thread ends up having to police it. If you'd rather not, let me know and I can start it.

[JimL]

Yes - if there is a supernatural god, then creation would be a supernatural (or magical, if you prefer) event. As an event that lies outside the bounds of the so-called "natural order," in theory, anyway, it is not subject to naturalistic investigation. I suspect we all agree on this. That leaves me wondering what your overall point is...

The point is that there is no evidence that, and therefore no sound reason for, believing that anything comes from nothing.

You're using words in ways I am not familiar with. You seem to be suggesting that "this universe" is our space/time, which began with a singularity. I think you them use "greater cosmos" to refer to a context "outside" our universe, or perhaps a context of which our universe is a part? Here's the problem: we can say essentially nothing about this "greater cosmos." We cannot detect it. We cannot investigate it. We cannot even reasonably say anything about what it's nature might be. That leaves the atheist basically in the same place as the theist: "something happened." But the theist replaces "something" with "god." So they say "god happened." For them, they look at the order exhibited by the universe, and cannot conceive of that happening without a sentient mind to guide it. Some of them have personal experiences they interpret as "experiences of this god." I know the power of those - having had an experience I interpreted in the same way for a couple decades. I don't agree with their conclusions, but I don't find them "unreasonable" in general. I think some of the beliefs are riddled with contradictions that folks have to bend themselves into a bit of a pretzel to dismiss, but the general belief "there is an all powerful god out there" has a long and storied history in the context of humanity.

The difference is that the theist concludes that for which there is no evidence, aka god did it, or something from nothing. There are of course other problems with the creation idea, such as temporal acts(creation)occuring in a non temporal setting.

That's pretty much what they say.

So, out of curiosity, why does it matter to you what they believe? Why is it a source of "hope" that their beliefs might change?

It doesn't really, if it makes them happy, but this is a discussion and debate forum, its what we do. Though I do think that religion can have detrimental psychological effects on some people that they may never recover from.

[carpedm9587]

The point is that there is no evidence that, and therefore no sound reason for, believing that anything comes from nothing.

And, of course, there argument is that the atheist is doing exactly that, or getting caught in the "infinite regress" problem.

The difference is that the theist concludes that for which there is no evidence, aka god did it, or something from nothing. There are of course other problems with the creation idea, such as temporal acts(creation)occuring in a non temporal setting.

Your expression "no evidence" is a bit too extreme. While I do not find their evidence compelling, they are certainly presenting evidence (e.g., the ordered nature of the universe, the argument from probability, the argument from infinite regress, etc.). They also offer their bible. Again, I am not saying it is compelling evidence - if it were I would still be Christian, but it IS evidence.

It doesn't really, if it makes them happy, but this is a discussion and debate forum, its what we do. Though I do think that religion can have detrimental psychological effects on some people that they may never recover from.

Does religion offer any benefits at all?

[JimL]

And, of course, there argument is that the atheist is doing exactly that, or getting caught in the "infinite regress" problem.

The infinite regress problem exists whether one posits an eternal and infinite universe, or an eternal and infinite universe creator.

Your expression "no evidence" is a bit too extreme. While I do not find their evidence compelling, they are certainly presenting evidence (e.g., the ordered nature of the universe, the argument from probability, the argument from infinite regress, etc.). They also offer their bible. Again, I am not saying it is compelling evidence - if it were I would still be Christian, but it IS evidence.

No you misunderstand. When I say they have no evidence, what I mean to say is that they have no evidence for their claim that something can come from nothing. Is it a possibility? Anything is a possibility. But is it a reasonable thing to believe? Nope. The more reasonable thing to believe is that there is no such thing as nothing and thus there is no such thing as creation, or creator, in the religious sense of the term.

Does religion offer any benefits at all?

It does, it uses psychology in order to maintain the social order. Even christians such as seer have told me, that if there were no god there would be no reason for them to behave themselves, or as they might put it, to not sin.

[seer]

The infinite regress problem exists whether one posits an eternal and infinite universe, or an eternal and infinite universe creator.

Wrong Jim, as I have explained in the past. An infinite creator is not an infinite series of past events.

It does, it uses psychology in order to maintain the social order. Even christians such as seer have told me, that if there were no god there would be no reason for them to behave themselves, or as they might put it, to not sin.

I never said that Jim, I said there were certainly things I would do that I don't do now...

[JimL]

Wrong Jim, as I have explained in the past. An infinite creator is not an infinite series of past events.

No, he isn't, but his actions would be. Particularly the Christian god who created the universe in time. 6 days!

I never said that Jim, I said there were certainly things I would do that I don't do now...

Yeah, thats basically what I said seer.

[Tassman]

Does religion offer any benefits at all?

Yes, in more primitive societies religion offers a survival advantage because it organises cooperative behaviour and reinforces existing moral values, which are essential for survival as a species. However, just as humans evolved to be religious, they can evolve out of it. As our lives become more stable, societies tend to become more 'godless' as the need for religious strictures fades away.