Important Questions For Atheists: No. 1

[Khandro]

Why is there something instead of nothing ?

[naomi24]

//The alternative to something is 'nothing'//

 

Is nature 'God'?

[Hopkirk]

Religion has a use. It gives us regular excuses for a knees up.

[Ellipsis]

> Is nature 'God'?

There are around 4000 religions. Some have one god, some have many gods and some have no god. It's likely that some of them think that nature is god, or a god. 

[naomi24]

You're skirting the question, ellipsis.  You said there's something.  I've suggested what that something might be.   Is that good enough - or do we have to invent a supernatural entity?

[Khandro]

Perhaps the epilogue by the presenter can be left out for now, but this lecture by renowned scientist, Francis Collins contains some interesting questions - including the one in the OP- & some pretty compelling answers, imo.

[naomi24]

He desribes himself as 'a serious Christian', Khandro.  Therefore he cannot be considered objective.

[Ellipsis]

> You're skirting the question, ellipsis.

Eh, what? What question? Is nature god? No, there is no god ... that's my opinion, but lots of people disagree.

> You said there's something. I've suggested what that something might be.

It's something as opposed to nothing. The stuff, the matter of the universe ...

> Is that good enough

Yes.

> or do we have to invent a supernatural entity?

No, we don't ... 

[THECORBYLOON]

KHANDRO, if there is a creator, there has to a process involved in that creator's existence.

What if that same or similar process, resulted in the creation of the universe instead of a creator?

[naomi24]

Thank you.  That's clearer.

[Khandro]

Watch the video Corby

[ClareTG0ld]

Just flicking through that video, it seems to rehash the same old arguments.

In the minimal sense, yes it's possible to be a scientist and believe in (a) God. But there seems to be a group of people who seem determined, for whatever reason, to have to try and justify that belief, or even to argue that it's the most sensible view. The problem they run into is the same, though: no matter how hard they try to insist otherwise, there is nothing in science that has anything to say about the question at all. How can it? By definition, God is supposed to be an entity existing outside the Universe, not subject to its laws or limitations. But, by definition, Science is confined to a study of those laws, for it is only those that we are capable of measuring and testing. There is, in the end, no overlap. Conversely, of course, this means that any scientific effort to rule out the existence of (a) God is equally futile.

The rest is just a "God of the gaps" argument, wrapped up a little to hide that it's that, but otherwise adding nothing new.

 

[naomi24]

//Just flicking through that video, it seems to rehash the same old arguments.//

 

That's all anyone trying to promote the concept of God can do.

[THECORBYLOON]

"Watch the video Corby"

Which bit?

[Khandro]

CTG saying  // the rest is just a "God of the gaps" argument, wrapped up a little to hide that it's that, but otherwise adding nothing new.//

Who said anything about new arguments, why not answer some of the old ones? Like the one in the OP, or about the fine tuning of the universe, why is it that the tiniest alteration to the force of gravity would not allow the universe to exist? and the patterns in maths & geometry. Do these not indicate some form of intelligent plan behind everything?

And no one has answered my other previous question about consciousness, where does that come from?

Your belief that organic matter can spring somehow from inorganic matter & that in turn can develop consciousness is actually quite risible, both scientifically, rationally and theologically.

[Radagast]

Khandro, you're beginning to sound like a creationist.

[ClareTG0ld]

// ... why not answer some of the old ones? // 

That's the point, though: they have been answered. Fine-tuning arguments, for example, are nothing new, and only provide evidence for what we already knew, namely that we have barely started to understand the Universe and have loads left to learn about how it works. 

// Your belief that organic matter can spring somehow from inorganic matter & that in turn can develop consciousness is actually quite risible, both scientifically, rationally and theologically. //

I don't care much about the last one, and you're in no position to evaluate the first (suffice it to say that you have no idea what you're talking about); but, rationally, we observe inorganic matter, and we observe organic matter, and they are buitl from fundamentally the same thing - ie, different arrangements of chemical elements. So it's obviously at least plausible that the one could emerge from the other.

This is not meant to settle the question: I don't know how this would have happened, I have no idea in fact, and I hope very much that we continue to investigate this. But it's completely plausible: structure can arise all the time from basic rules and principles, as can self-replication. The irrational position is to conclude, from the fact that we don't understand this yet, that we never will, without invoking something supernatural.

[Khandro]

ClareTGold: So what you're saying is you don't know. You can't answer any of the questions, you kick the can down the road, opining that someday we may find out (brilliant!). You show  your talons with a waspish, "suffice it to say that you have no idea what you're talking about", something only a scientific mediocrity would come up with, I'm sure Francis Collins wouldn't, who by the way is an American physician-geneticist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and led the Human Genome Project.

I wonder how your CV would line up against his? 

[ToraToraTora]

khandro: //ClareTGold: So what you're saying is you don't know. You can't answer any of the questions, you kick the can down the road, opining that someday we may find out (brilliant!).// - at least science is not claiming it's all the work of an omnipotent being with zero evidence. Science has overwealming evidence of it's claims and theories and it is prepared to admit there is still much to discover and comprehend. Yet you have the bare arised cheek to try and claim that your fairy tales in some way beat that! 

[ToraToraTora]

overwhelming! Wish the spell check would work again!

[mibn2cweus]

Invoking the supernatural as an explanation is the refusal to acknowledge you do not know the what, why, or how.