Topic: What do you believe about the origins of... everything? (Read 2513 times)

fematheunicorn · « **on:** October 20, 2008, 11:36:43 PM »

This question is posed to atheists and agnostics.

A common question for people to ask when they hear someone is a non-believer is "Well then where did everything come from?"

It doesn't prove their point of view, but it is a legitimate question. I'm not even looking for life here. If everything in the universe(s) came from one great mass, where did that come from? Etc, etc.

So, more specifically:

What do you believe about the origins of everything?

I'm not even looking for what you can prove. I am purely asking what your personal beliefs are. Offer reason if you've got it. Simply saying that you believe in the big band theory is not what I am looking for. I want to know what you think about where that came from, or how it got there. Everything from nothing, etc.

C'mon, let lose and spill it :)

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2008, 10:10:29 AM »

The question is flawed in that it presupposes everything came from somewhere. It is a bit like asking a Christian where God came from. Their usual position is that God is the one thing that always existed--the foundation for everything else. When a Christian asks where everything came from, they usually exclude God from their concept of "everything".

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2008, 11:15:33 AM »

Copernicus,

If there is a better way to ask the question, then I'd be glad to rephrase it. Was it so flawed that you don't know what my intention was for even asking it? I'm really just wanting to know a little more about atheist/agnostic views on anything before the big bang, or whatever else one might believe. Maybe you don't have any beliefs on the subject. Although, it would be understandable to have beliefs even without evidence of any kind. I can believe a picture is prettier than another without having any idea of why.

By all means, if you want, create your own question and answer that. As long as I can gain some insight into something more than just evolution.

EDIT: I noticed I may have missed something. When you say "presupposes everything came from somewhere." are you implying that you believe the matter that exploded and created the universe(s) simply always existed? Or that it would be a possibility?

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** October 21, 2008, 01:20:15 PM »

Quote from: fematheunicorn on October 21, 2008, 11:15:33 AM

If there is a better way to ask the question, then I'd be glad to rephrase it. Was it so flawed that you don't know what my intention was for even asking it? I'm really just wanting to know a little more about atheist/agnostic views on anything before the big bang, or whatever else one might believe. Maybe you don't have any beliefs on the subject. Although, it would be understandable to have beliefs even without evidence of any kind. I can believe a picture is prettier than another without having any idea of why.

Don't be upset by my criticism of the question. Just about everyone takes that question seriously. One of the things that religion does for us is it clears up mysteries for which we have no good answer. The problem is that the religious answer only clears up the mystery by presupposing that God didn't come from anywhere. He just always existed. So it is a "turtles all the way down" response. Atheism per se doesn't really attempt to address the question of what happened before the big bang. That is really a question for science to address, if it can. Right now, there are a few interesting speculations out there that are based on the fact that the background radiation from the big bang is unevenly distributed, leading to the interesting possibility that computer modeling might help us to understand more.

Quote

EDIT: I noticed I may have missed something. When you say "presupposes everything came from somewhere." are you implying that you believe the matter that exploded and created the universe(s) simply always existed? Or that it would be a possibility?

I don't really know, but I think it likely that the so-called "big bang" had causes which we are not able to detect with our present scientific understanding of the universe. I think that physical reality of some sort has just always existed. What caused our specific universe to begin at the "big bang" is a mystery that scientists are trying to solve. Religion does not offer an insightful explanation, since it relies on the existence of an even bigger mystery: Where did God come from?

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #4 on:** October 21, 2008, 01:41:01 PM »

I promise I wasn't offended at you criticizing the question. I legitimately wanted to know if there would be a better way to pose the question that would get the information I was seeking.

"I don't really know, but I think it likely that the so-called "big bang" had causes which we are not able to detect with our present scientific understanding of the universe. I think that physical reality of some sort has just always existed. What caused our specific universe to begin at the "big bang" is a mystery that scientists are trying to solve. Religion does not offer an insightful explanation, since it relies on the existence of an even bigger mystery: Where did God come from?"

This is pretty much what I was seeking.

When I said "let loose" I was intending for people to possibly throw in some really wild theories that may be running around in their own minds.

Anyone else?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #5 on:** November 02, 2008, 08:45:15 PM »

Well... not being a real "christian" (to many) I probly can voice myself here. Cop thinks alot and I can too.

I think that I can conclude that the origin of all things is a real question.. something worthwhile for every human to investigate for themselves.

God may not be the ONLY answer but may be an included answer. I include God only because Athiesm offers nothing better. Since we need more and more info.. and this will continue for eons I think... to sort out what is what is and how to define what is.

What is real? I think Tony answered that well in many of his threads. But since I am my own person I will answer this way.

Since I can't give a definitive answer to anyone... I do give the answer that life begets life only and should be the only logical conclusion of what begets what.. some time ago.. then.... life our life came from another life. Whether that leads to some logic is for your brain to decide.

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 02, 2008, 09:42:56 PM »

Quote from: Zagzagel on November 02, 2008, 08:45:15 PM

God may not be the ONLY answer but may be an included answer. I include God only because Athiesm offers nothing better...

Zag, you are 100% right that atheism offers nothing better. If it were a matter of which belief system offered us more, then most religions would be superior to skepticism and atheism. The problem is that wishful thinking just doesn't work for all of us. If it works for you, then good for you. I honestly wish you the best. It doesn't work for me.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #7 on:** November 02, 2008, 09:55:07 PM »

Thank you Cop. That is very kind. hmmm

Dannyboy · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2008, 03:33:21 PM »

i believe... that there is some truth about the origins of everything, but i don't expect ever to be in a position to say that i know that truth with any degree of certainty, and i am distrustful of anyone who thinks that they can.

i believe that the existence of human beings is a far less significant occurence than many of us would like to think, and that - viewed from the perspective of a hypothetical universe-spanning entity - the prevailing doctrine of most world religions that the entire cosmos was created for our benefit could only be regarded as grimly humorous.

And i believe that scientific enquiry is much more likely to lead to a greater understanding of the origins of everything than the writings of pre-enlightenment cattle herders, or the contemporary rationalisations of people who want me to get up early on a sunday morning to apologise for being human.

End Bringer · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2008, 04:18:08 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on November 03, 2008, 03:33:21 PM

i believe... that there is some truth about the origins of everything, but i don't expect ever to be in a position to say that i know that truth with any degree of certainty, and i am distrustful of anyone who thinks that they can.

You know when someone loses an arguement when they turn to "who can say?' lines.

Quote

i believe that the existence of human beings is a far less significant occurence than many of us would like to think, and that - viewed from the perspective of a hypothetical universe-spanning entity - the prevailing doctrine of most world religions that the entire cosmos was created for our benefit could only be regarded as grimly humorous.

Then it should be acceptable when a belief holds that the universe was made for the Creator's benefit, and we just happen to play an important role to that end.

Quote

And i believe that scientific enquiry is much more likely to lead to a greater understanding of the origins of everything than the writings of pre-enlightenment cattle herders, or the contemporary rationalisations of people who want me to get up early on a sunday morning to apologise for being human.

Hehehe. The writings of 'cattle herders' is far more reliable than the endless 'throwing-theories-till-something-sticks' attitude of scientists if the source of that writing comes from the Being who made the universe to begin with rather than someone thousands (or billions) of years removed from the events. The only way you can say otherwise is if you do indeed believe you can know the truth with a fair degree of certainty. Otherwise you're just question begging.
[/quote]

Dannyboy · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2008, 06:06:38 PM »

You know when someone loses an arguement when they turn to "who can say?' lines.

Only if you take the (frankly infantile) point of view that certainty is possible on any and every subject. There are some questions to which 'who can say' is the only rational response, but fortunately for the hard-of-thinking, religion fills the inevitable gaps in our knowledge and/or possible human experience with handy cut-and-paste dogmas for those who find all the uncertainty just too scary to accept. If you want to ever learn anything you have to accept a little uncertainty. If, on the other hand, you prefer to have a who-is-most-certain competition then please continue your altercation with David Ben-Ariel. It was like watching snakes getting bitten.

Then it should be acceptable when a belief holds that the universe was made for the Creator's benefit, and we just happen to play an important role to that end.

Yeah, and all the other millions of stars were created merely to display the glory of His creation.... to us. Or possibly the panel of judges. If that makes sense to you, then fine....

The writings of 'cattle herders' is far more reliable than the endless 'throwing-theories-till-something-sticks' attitude of scientists if the source of that writing comes from the Being who made the universe to begin with rather than someone thousands (or billions) of years removed from the events.

1) If you're applying that scornful attitude to all of scientific research and discovery then i hope you're doing it consistently. Taken any antibiotics recently? i know you use a computer.

2) Yes, if the writings were ultimately authored by a single omnicogniscent entity then that would make them rather more reliable, but even a casual reading of the disparate books chosen to make up the 'inerrant' Bible does not suggest that this is the case.

The only way you can say otherwise is if you do indeed believe you can know the truth with a fair degree of certainty. Otherwise you're just question begging.

i do not believe that i know anything about the origin of the universe with any degree of certainty. i believe that the god of the bible does not exist with a reasonable degree of certainty. You are free to disagree with that, but the accusation of question-begging is inappropriate since i was not making an argument, but simply stating (as requested in the OP) my beliefs.

End Bringer · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2008, 07:03:16 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on November 03, 2008, 06:06:38 PM

Only if you take the (frankly infantile) point of view that certainty is possible on any and every subject. There are some questions to which 'who can say' is the only rational response, but fortunately for the hard-of-thinking, religion fills the inevitable gaps in our knowledge and/or possible human experience with handy cut-and-paste dogmas for those who find all the uncertainty just too scary to accept.

I find that an apt description for atheism, as 'It MUST have.' is so commonly used in discussions where evolution is concerned. I guess when it comes to considering God's involvement you're more than comfortable with the certainty that God didn't do it. A bit hypocritical really.

Quote

If you want to ever learn anything you have to accept a little uncertainty. If, on the other hand, you prefer to have a who-is-most-certain competition then please continue your altercation with David Ben-Ariel. It was like watching snakes getting bitten.

No, I just find that you have no real concept of genuine self-doubt, but rather appeal to this polite patronizing 'awww-shucks-well-who-knows' concept for every other belief but your own. Of course when a person is right, self-doubt doesn't really help anyone.

Quote

Yeah, and all the other millions of stars were created merely to display the glory of His creation.... to us. Or possibly the panel of judges. If that makes sense to you, then fine....

What's this? You're certain that's not truly the case?

See? This is why I brush off your hypocrisy so easily. If you truly believed what you're asserting, you couldn't be able to mock or dismiss or state as fact....anything really.

That, and you're question begging that they're aren't other entities to equally observe creation other than us. The Creator being one of them.

Quote

1) If you're applying that scornful attitude to all of scientific research and discovery then i hope you're doing it consistently. Taken any antibiotics recently? i know you use a computer.

No, and I don't need to as evolution and much of the origin of the earth and universe aren't truly science. There's no endlessly repeated experimentation and observation you can conduct today for what was a single event in the past, rather than the things you sight. Congradulations for making the classic Dawkin's blunder.

Quote

2) Yes, if the writings were ultimately authored by a single omnicogniscent entity then that would make them rather more reliable, but even a casual reading of the disparate books chosen to make up the 'inerrant' Bible does not suggest that this is the case

Red herring. I'm not going into whether the Bible is indeed the case (it is of course, but that's not relevant). The point is as you admit the source would actually be from the Creator of the universe, making it more reliable, then that would indeed give us certainty on the matter. The only question would be if the Creator was the source or not.

Quote

i do not believe that i know anything about the origin of the universe with any degree of certainty.

You're lying. And you prove it in the next sentence:

Quote

i believe that the god of the bible does not exist with a reasonable degree of certainty. You are free to disagree with that, but the accusation of question-begging is inappropriate since i was not making an argument, but simply stating (as requested in the OP) my beliefs.

And thus believe the origin of the universe wasn't caused by "the god of the bible" with that same degree of certainty you believe He doesn't exist. So you do believe to know something about the origin of the universe with a degree of certainty. And thus your 'beliefs' are founded on question begging, and prove self-contradicting.

Give it up DB, I know having your cake and eating it too is fairly common for athiests, but you should try to do better then contradict yourself in the same breath.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #12 on:** November 04, 2008, 05:59:58 AM »

A classic End Bringer post, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing (cf Macbeth).

"Only if you take the (frankly infantile) point of view that certainty is possible on any and every subject. There are some questions to which 'who can say' is the only rational response, but fortunately for the hard-of-thinking, religion fills the inevitable gaps in our knowledge and/or possible human experience with handy cut-and-paste dogmas for those who find all the uncertainty just too scary to accept."

I find that an apt description for atheism, as 'It MUST have.' is so commonly used in discussions where evolution is concerned. I guess when it comes to considering God's involvement you're more than comfortable with the certainty that God didn't do it. A bit hypocritical really.

If you could provide an example of me saying "it MUST have..." (or words to that effect) in a debate on evolution, or actually any other tennet of my belief system, then your charge of hypocracy might have some weight. As it is, you fall into your usual strange belief that all atheists (including ones that you have made up) are the same person. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Also you entirely miss the point that there is nothing inconsistent in adopting an agnostic position about exactly how the universe began (if it began) while at the same time declining to accept the suggestion that any possible agent might be responsible for it. i can say that i don't know exactly how the universe kicked-off without necessarily having to accept as a possibility the intervention of eight trillion pink bunny rabbits as a causative agent.

I just find that you have no real concept of genuine self-doubt, but rather appeal to this polite patronizing 'awww-shucks-well-who-knows' concept for every other belief but your own. Of course when a person is right, self-doubt doesn't really help anyone.

That person obviously being you. Ironic that you castigate me for lack of 'genuine' self-doubt when your arrogant dogma on every subject under the sun has been tarted around this discussion board for the last few months for all to see. If you review, you might notice that pretty much all our debates have started with me taking issue with one of your certainties, rather than trying to push any of mine on you. In this case, i was not doing what you accuse me of (as usual), but rather expressing uncertainty on a subject which other people - including most religious people but also some atheists - feel they can speak unequivocally on.

You, who would benefit from a little self-doubt more than anyone else here, have a problem with that. Colour me deeply uninterested.

"Yeah, and all the other millions of stars were created merely to display the glory of His creation.... to us. Or possibly the panel of judges. If that makes sense to you, then fine...."

What's this? You're certain that's not truly the case?

No, it's just what i believe.

If you truly believed what you're asserting, you couldn't be able to mock or dismiss or state as fact....anything really.

Absolutely. People who decline to elevate their personal beliefs and prejudices to the level of absolute objective fact should not be entitled to express any opinion on any subject whatsoever. Only fundamentalists are allowed to debate apparently - good luck with that.

"If you're applying that scornful attitude to all of scientific research and discovery then i hope you're doing it consistently. Taken any antibiotics recently? i know you use a computer."

No, and I don't need to as evolution and much of the origin of the earth and universe aren't truly science. There's no endlessly repeated experimentation and observation you can conduct today for what was a single event in the past, rather than the things you sight. Congradulations for making the classic Dawkin's blunder.

Try to be more clear then. You didn't say "scientists studying past events", you said "scientists". Forgive me for assuming you meant precisely what you said.

The point is as you admit the source would actually be from the Creator of the universe, making it more reliable, then that would indeed give us certainty on the matter. The only question would be if the Creator was the source or not.

Indeed. And i conclude, as i conclude with Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam et al, that humans are the more likely authors. That is my belief.

"i do not believe that i know anything about the origin of the universe with any degree of certainty."

You're lying. And you prove it in the next sentence:

You're a wanker. And you prove it in every post.

"i believe that the god of the bible does not exist with a reasonable degree of certainty. You are free to disagree with that, but the accusation of question-begging is inappropriate since i was not making an argument, but simply stating (as requested in the OP) my beliefs."

And thus believe the origin of the universe wasn't caused by "the god of the bible" with that same degree of certainty you believe He doesn't exist. So you do believe to know something about the origin of the universe with a degree of certainty. And thus your 'beliefs' are founded on question begging, and prove self-contradicting.

Feeble. To say that i hold no particular belief about how the universe began is not necessarily to say that i hold no beliefs about how it didn't begin. If it were possible to find a subject on which you were not certain then we might have a useful analogy. Perhaps if you were not sure where you had put your toothbrush we could agree that would not mean that you necessarily entertained the possibility that space monkeys had stolen it as a vital component of their spaceship's ice-cream maker. Does it?

Give it up DB, I know having your cake and eating it too is fairly common for athiests, but you should try to do better then contradict yourself in the same breath.

You've got energy, i'll give you that. It's a shame you use it for so mean and petty a cause.

End Bringer · « **Reply #13 on:** November 04, 2008, 12:43:08 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on November 04, 2008, 05:59:58 AM

A classic End Bringer post, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing (cf Macbeth).

Huh, burying your head in the ground to avoid the obvious. I'd almost mistaken you for Cop. and our discussion is on politics.

Quote

If you could provide an example of me saying "it MUST have..." (or words to that effect) in a debate on evolution, or actually any other tennet of my belief system, then your charge of hypocracy might have some weight. As it is, you fall into your usual strange belief that all atheists (including ones that you have made up) are the same person. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Sure, you're last post state's clearly you don't believe God exists. As such while you may not claim to know the specific details of what remains a mystery (what came first the liver or the kidney? etc. etc.), you do hold that evolution 'MUST have' done it, as you already hold God didn't. I admit this is more an implicit way of saying it, but I never said it was always an explicit statement.

Quote

Also you entirely miss the point that there is nothing inconsistent in adopting an agnostic position about exactly how the universe began (if it began) while at the same time declining to accept the suggestion that any possible agent might be responsible for it.

Obviously I'm going to miss the point if there is none at all. If you hold to the position that "you don't know" then you can't rule anything out. If you rule something out than you are indeed saying you know something with certainty.

Quote

i can say that i don't know exactly how the universe kicked-off without necessarily having to accept as a possibility the intervention of eight trillion pink bunny rabbits as a causative agent.

Then you're saying you do indeed know how the universe kicked off as you can accept it wasn't due to eight trillion pink bunny rabbits. The rule of exclusion demands it. If you don't know, then you can't rule it out. If you rule it out, then you are indeed saying you know something with certainty.

That's why I've never been very sympathetic to agnosticism, as it's nothing more than a giant cop out. "Who can say?" We can say. We are the one's examining the evidence and therefore can come to a conclusion. And when you form a conclusion you are indeed accepting it with the certainty the evidence provides while disregarding all others.

Quote

That person obviously being you.

In the discussions we have, sure. Discussions where I don't believe to know the answer, I generally don't partake.

Quote

Ironic that you castigate me for lack of 'genuine' self-doubt when your arrogant dogma on every subject under the sun has been tarted around this discussion board for the last few months for all to see.

It would be, if I ever claimed to have genuine self-doubt for what I discuss, but I haven't and I'm not the one in this case either. A bit of a difference between knowing what it is, and personally having it.

But if you truly want to see irony look in a mirror, as only atheist's would have the gall to try to pass as 'hand-wringing' while taking the most arrogant position on the planet. I'll put to you the same questions SJ put to Stathei:

Now, you don

Dannyboy · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2008, 03:39:26 PM »

EB,

You seem to have a problem with the idea of belief without iron-hard certainty. i believe there is no god, but since it is impossible to prove a negative my case is purely circumstancial. i do not therefore feel it is intellectually honest to say that i am certain there is no god, but simply that i believe that there is not one. You might say that this makes me an agnostic, not an atheist (although only the insanely confident would be atheists by that standard), but i think atheist is a more appropriate label, since i do not consider myself to be agnostic about the existence of a whole range of other mystical/religious characters whose non-existence is similarly beyond logical proof.

For some reason when i say i 'believe' something, you interpret that as me saying that i 'know' it. Figures.

If you hold to the position that "you don't know" then you can't rule anything out. If you rule something out than you are indeed saying you know something with certainty.

So according to you if i say that i suspect that space monkeys didn't steal my toothbrush that i therefore know what has happened to it? By that standard it is impossible to say that we 'don't know' anything, since there will always be some kind of probability matrix pertaining to the solution. "i don't know where my keys are" is a perfectly valid statement, even if i suspect they are probably not in Siberia.

"i can say that i don't know exactly how the universe kicked-off without necessarily having to accept as a possibility the intervention of eight trillion pink bunny rabbits as a causative agent."

Then you're saying you do indeed know how the universe kicked off as you can accept it wasn't due to eight trillion pink bunny rabbits.

You're being entirely ridiculous.

George W Bush: "My fellow Americans. I don't know where Osama Bin Laden is."
End Bringer: "Mr President? So I assume you agree that it is possible he may be in orbit around one of the moons of Jupiter?"

We are the one's examining the evidence and therefore can come to a conclusion. And when you form a conclusion you are indeed accepting it with the certainty the evidence provides while disregarding all others.

And until you form a conclusion there is still nothing inconsistent about eliminating certain possibilities from your enquiry.

Discussions where I don't believe to know the answer, I generally don't partake.

Pity. You might learn something.

I'll put to you the same questions SJ put to Stathei:

Now, you don

End Bringer · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2008, 05:44:41 PM »

Quote from: Dannyboy on November 05, 2008, 03:39:26 PM

You seem to have a problem with the idea of belief without iron-hard certainty.

How do you come to that conclusion? Faith is exactly about not having iron hard certainty. What I have a problem with is things that are positively asserted as fact without iron-hard certainty. Or things mocked without it.

Quote

i believe there is no god, but since it is impossible to prove a negative my case is purely circumstancial. i do not therefore feel it is intellectually honest to say that i am certain there is no god, but simply that i believe that there is not one.

Same response as last time-you're certain your belief is the correct one. Again you try to come off as it's your subjective opinion to which there's doubt, but you behave or argue as if it was objective fact. As I've said to Cop. many times, doubt is not an option for atheism as you are indeed claiming something as fact. You want to indeed go the 'doubt' road, you'd have to subscribe more to agnosticism.

Quote

You might say that this makes me an agnostic, not an atheist (although only the insanely confident would be atheists by that standard),

Well that includes Dawkins and Stathei, and a whole range of other atheists I've met.

Quote

but i think atheist is a more appropriate label, since i do not consider myself to be agnostic about the existence of a whole range of other mystical/religious characters whose non-existence is similarly beyond logical proof.

This is merely another example of how far the definition of 'atheism' can be stretched to fit whatever you want. I'm a Christian and I don't believe in the existence of a whole range of mystical/religious characters either. If you want to say "You're an atheist too." I can simply turn around and say your a theist yourself as you are your own god.

Quote

For some reason when i say i 'believe' something, you interpret that as me saying that i 'know' it. Figures.

Pretty much because you can not rationally believe something without knowing something. Now I admit, judging your belief as irrational isn't that hard of a stretch for me, but I'm willing to give you some lattitude.

Quote

So according to you if i say that i suspect that space monkeys didn't steal my toothbrush that i therefore know what has happened to it?

No, your saying you do know a particular thing with certainty-space monkey's didn't steal it. That is indeed something.

Quote

By that standard it is impossible to say that we 'don't know' anything, since there will always be some kind of probability matrix pertaining to the solution. "i don't know where my keys are" is a perfectly valid statement, even if i suspect they are probably not in Siberia.

Indeed, such a statement is totally invalid. You don't live in a vacuum. Which is why you're in this mess to begin with.

Quote

George W Bush: "My fellow Americans. I don't know where Osama Bin Laden is."
End Bringer: "Mr President? So I assume you agree that it is possible he may be in orbit around one of the moons of Jupiter?"

You say this mockingly, but that is indeed correct. To disregard the possibility means Osama's location is indeed known: he's on earth.

Quote

And until you form a conclusion there is still nothing inconsistent about eliminating certain possibilities from your enquiry.

No, because then you have indeed concluded something: it's not those possibilities. Pretty much like Benjamin Franklin experimenting with the lightbulb. He did indeed learn something about making one: ways it won't work.

Quote

Pity. You might learn something.

How to come across as putting my foot in my mouth? Oh, I've seen enough examples from Stathie and Cop. to learn that.

Quote

How is this relevant to me? i don't claim to know the answers to any of those questions.

You claim to know God didn't do it. Again, it just goes to show your inconsitency of trying to come off as humbly ignorant, while arrogantly knowing at the same time.

Quote

i wouldn't hold the beliefs i hold unless i thought they were correct.

I say it here, and it comes out there.

Quote

And i think there is a point in dwelling on it, when we're contemplating the level of humility (or lack thereof) that we bring to a debate. Trying to see the other person's point of view can also help sometimes.

Like I said, that's only useful when your wrong. A lot. Humility is worthless when your right. And believing oneself to be right does not curtail a person's ability to see the other side. It's usually helpful when identifying how the other side is wrong.

Quote

*sigh* No.

i wouldn't hold the beliefs i hold unless i thought they were correct.

Apparently yes.

Quote

No. Notice and recognise the difference between someone saying they believe something and someone saying they know something. Maybe some people treat the difference between these two concepts casually, but i do not.

I'm not seeing much evidence you in fact treat any difference. As your trying to come off as mere opinion, but argue and assert it as fact.

Quote

Oh i'm sorry, is 'liar' not an insult where you come from? What would that say about your arguments then?

Hehehe. Something like that as an insult requires that I just stopped at the assertion. I in fact gave proof of it (or you can at least concede a debatable example). As SJ would say-stating the truth is not an insult if you are indeed lying.

Quote

i've addressed this. i can believe that god didn't create the universe and still be entirely consistent in saying that i don't know how the universe began.

As addressed-No you can't.

Quote

You're contradicting yourself. To paraphrase you "If you hold to the position that 'you don't know' then you can't rule anything out", so how can you say that you don't know its location?

Problably because I don't ever say "I don't know it's location." when I've indeed ruled many things out. I say "I don't know where I put it." or to that effect.

Quote

If it is ok for you to say that you don't know where it is while admitting the above qualifications on its possible location, then it must be ok for me to say that i don't know how the universe began but i believe that it was not divine agency.

Because you "know" no divine agent exists. And thus do indeed know something about how the universe began.

Dannyboy · « **Reply #16 on:** November 05, 2008, 07:14:33 PM »

EB,

By all means go on putting words into my mouth and then acting like you've caught me in a contradiction. Presumably if left long enough alone in a locked room you would simply beat yourself up. Could be worth a try.

What I have a problem with is things that are positively asserted as fact without iron-hard certainty. Or things mocked without it.

i do not positively assert my beliefs as fact. That would be saying that i know for certain (i.e. had personal factual knowledge) that there is no god. i say that i believe there is no god, which merely describes my personal reaction to the evidence which i am aware of. i'm sorry that you have difficulty distinguishing between the two, but it's hardly my problem. Consult a dictionary.

you're certain your belief is the correct one.

i have not said this. i am not 'certain' that my beliefs are true. i think they are, but that's not the same as knowing it.

This entire debate stems from you failing to understand that, for most people, the words 'believe' and 'know' are not synonymous. As usual, you're wasting your energy.

This is merely another example of how far the definition of 'atheism' can be stretched to fit whatever you want. I'm a Christian and I don't believe in the existence of a whole range of mystical/religious characters either. If you want to say "You're an atheist too." I can simply turn around and say your a theist yourself as you are your own god.

No, i was merely indicating that the simple fact that it is impossible to prove a negative does not mean that it is impossible to believe that entity X does not exist. You disbelieve in plenty of entities without being able to prove that they dont exist. So, that is why i call myself an atheist and not an agnostic. i was not calling you an atheist.

Pretty much because you can not rationally believe something without knowing something.

Do you mean that to believe something is to know it, or do you mean that you cannot believe something without knowing anything? Obviously if someone knew nothing then they would have no basis for any belief, having no objects to believe in.

i suspect you probably mean that believing = knowing, which i think is inarticulate. Beliefs change, whereas knowledge can only be found to be incorrect. i used to believe in the tooth fairy - does that mean that i had knowledge of her existence?

"So according to you if i say that i suspect that space monkeys didn't steal my toothbrush that i therefore know what has happened to it?"

No, your saying you do know a particular thing with certainty-space monkey's didn't steal it. That is indeed something.

But that does not apply to your point. i can believe, suspect, or even know that option (a) is not the answer to whatever question i am addressing, without necessarily knowing what the answer is. So it is entirely consistent for me to say that i do not know how the universe began while at the same time believing that god did not do it. Jeez!

George W Bush: "My fellow Americans. I don't know where Osama Bin Laden is."
End Bringer: "Mr President? So I assume you agree that it is possible he may be in orbit around one of the moons of Jupiter?"

You say this mockingly, but that is indeed correct. To disregard the possibility means Osama's location is indeed known: he's on earth.

i think you're being deliberately difficult. This case is quite a good example, because it is theoretically possible that OBL could be somewhere in space, but it seems unlikely in the extreme despite the fact that we cannot disprove it without capturing him. In this case, as it was when i said it, "i don't know..." is the appropriate phrase to use, despite your apparently insatiable desire to twist an inconsistency out of it.

You claim to know God didn't do it.

NO. I BELIEVE THAT GOD DIDN'T DO IT. THAT IS A DIFFERENT THING.

Again, it just goes to show your inconsitency of trying to come off as humbly ignorant, while arrogantly knowing at the same time.

i have never said that i 'know' any of these things. You are putting words in my mouth in order to score cheap points.

"Notice and recognise the difference between someone saying they believe something and someone saying they know something. Maybe some people treat the difference between these two concepts casually, but i do not."

I'm not seeing much evidence you in fact treat any difference. As your trying to come off as mere opinion, but argue and assert it as fact.

You expect me not to argue in favour of anything unless i know it to be true? i guess you do.

Something like that as an insult requires that I just stopped at the assertion. I in fact gave proof of it (or you can at least concede a debatable example). As SJ would say-stating the truth is not an insult if you are indeed lying.

So an insult isn't an insult if there is evidence that it is true? Well i guess that mine wasn't an insult either then. Cool!

"You're contradicting yourself. To paraphrase you "If you hold to the position that 'you don't know' then you can't rule anything out", so how can you say that you don't know its location?"

Problably because I don't ever say "I don't know it's location." when I've indeed ruled many things out. I say "I don't know where I put it." or to that effect.

All right. So you wouldn't say "i don't know where it is" in real life, fine - as if you being some kind of empirical-semantic fetishist obliges the rest of us to accept your strange linguistic standards. To clue you in, most of the rest of the world would say "i don't know where it is".

Because you "know" no divine agent exists. And thus do indeed know something about how the universe began.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Use it. i am doing you a favour.

[editted for further thoughts]

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #17 on:** November 08, 2008, 06:18:30 PM »

Ha, kinda figured an argument might show up, but it obviously wasn't the intention of the thread.

I'll share my beliefs for fun's sake:

I believe the likelihood of any particular theory is one in infinity- there are an infinite number of possibilities. Some would be considered reasonable, logical, rational, plausible while others can be considered the opposite. As we know, just because something seems impossible certainly doesn't mean that it is. There are things that science will probably never be able to explain, and because of these phenomena I think we have room to dream big in our theories of the origins of everything.

I believe there exists an intelligent deity (or maybe a few) that exists outside time and space, with some purpose for everything. I can't prove it or argue it, that's just what I believe. But defending what you believe wasn't the purpose of the thread, anyway. If you want to press me on it, though, I'd be more than happy to oblige.

@ End Bringer:

"That's why I've never been very sympathetic to agnosticism, as it's nothing more than a giant cop out. "Who can say?" We can say. We are the one's examining the evidence and therefore can come to a conclusion. And when you form a conclusion you are indeed accepting it with the certainty the evidence provides while disregarding all others."

I've heard several stubborn Christians incapable of thinking outside of the box express the same distaste for agnosticism. I guess it is because you perceive evidence as black and white. When someone realizes you cannot trust evidence, I think that is when they come to consider themselves agnostic. Compare our history books to those of the Koreans, Iraqis, British or Canadians- the stories are going to be a little different. Not even our judicial system thinks you can come to an ironclad conclusion- we have to settle for "beyond reasonable doubt."

So what if someone doesn't believe they can come to a conclusion? What is wrong with that?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2009, 06:12:00 PM »

IF one were serious about this OP question.... ".. the origins of.. everything?" Then one must dream a little.. or have faith... in what is most logical.

Now.. in studying our world doesn't our world show that life begets life? That only another "life"-form can produce another "life" form? One can argue that non-life can beget life.. but that to me would be a dream.. a stretch. Where is the evidence for that?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #19 on:** March 08, 2009, 03:52:57 PM »

Again.. Origins means that something has it's "origin" in something. I think the simple answer is God.. our creator. Athiests have no answer to this.. but doesn't mean eventually they will eventually find a way to eventually answer this.. eventually... perhaps they should start by say.. " we believe"? Eventually? But one must not confess the word "believe". hehe :)

Author Topic: What do you believe about the origins of... everything? (Read 2513 times)