You either believe in something or in nothing. Either way you have to have faith

[applegrove]

because there is no discernable proof of either a deity creating the big bang or nothing creating it. The only thing that does not require faith is saying you don't know.

[marylandblue]

1. This is just a God of the gaps argument

We don't know how the big bang started. But current research seems to indicate that "nothing" is actually an unstable state in which random fluctuations can produce entire universes. Sounds bizarre, I know, but so does most of modern physics. So if we ultimately do prove that something came from nothing, would you drop your belief in God? If not, then that's the difference between relying on faith and relying on evidence.

[Docreed2003]

3. Interesting point...

There was a article posted in the Science group this week about a group of scientists studying the inner workings of the universe that essentially stated their most exciting find would be “nothingness”.

[applegrove]

4. I'm agnostic. Something had to start time. That something i have faith in.

[marylandblue]

6. I am an agnostic as well, but physics as an explanation for things

has defeated God in every battle for the last 300 years. The Big Bang seems to be God's last refuge, and it's not looking good for Him right now.

[safeinOhio]

15. That is a finite view.

No end no beginnig to time or space. That explains it to me.

I might be wrong, but there is plenty of time and space.

[Pope George Ringo II]

5. Yup.

I don't understand the physics, therefore god(s).

And I don't even pretend to understand the physics, but "It's magic" is not exactly a credible alternative.

[longship]

2. No faith necessary. We have data and theories that actually work.

That's never good enough for theists who want everything to be about faith, whether it is or not, and especially if it is demonstrably not.

Tiresome. Really.

[Voltaire2]

7. Why is the choice between nothing and gods?

I get the nothing part. Where did gods get into the mix?

[applegrove]

8. As an agnostic I think a god of some kind created the universe and time.

It could be an inanimate god.

[Voltaire2]

9. Youre welcome to that belief but not to

your claim that it is the logical alternative to “nothing”.

[applegrove]

11. Are we going to have the "something created the big bang" "well someting

created that something" debate?

[Voltaire2]

17. Sure.

But let’s start with why “god” is useless in your original argument.

We start with nothing: N.
Then something unknown happens: ?
Then the universe, all of space-time starts: U.

N + ? = U.

You claim that ? Is god: G.

N + G = U.

Some idiot asks how did god create the universe out of nothing and you say, if you are honest, it is unknown.

So we have:

N + G + ? = U.

Your explanation for ? Has explained nothing. G and ? Collapse into each other. You are simply calling “we don’t know” god.

That’s fine, you can use any symbol you want for “we don’t know” it still means “we don’t know”, but unfortunately the symbol “god” is drastically overloaded with all sorts of other meanings. So the god of the gaps argument becomes an equivocation fallacy where god is initially used to mean “we don’t know” and then is subsequently used in its more common meaning of the standard abrahamic creator sky being. So it is a very suspicious and essentially dishonest choice of symbols to express the meaning “we don’t know”.

[marylandblue]

10. If it's inanimate, what makes it a god?

If, for example, the universe is actually a black hole inside some other universe, is the black hole a god?

[applegrove]

12. I worship the trees in nature, the drumlins in Nova Scotia and the spirits of my dead ancestors.

Those are some of my gods. Not all of them animate.

[longship]

31. Hint: Dryads don't exist. But worship the trees all you want.

Just don't try to convince me that they do exist.

Nature is very cool. However, there are no spooky supernatural entities behind any of it. The universe just is. No Dryads, gods necessary.

[marylandblue]

38. Why worship them, as opposed to just loving then?

Worship is what you do to appease a god, love is what you do to commune with your fellow citizens of the universe.

[Mariana]

13. You believe there is, or was, a god of some kind

and it created the universe (of which time is a property), but you have no idea about the nature of that god, or its attributes. Do I understand you correctly?

[applegrove]

14. Something magic happened. I have faith in that.

[longship]

32. FFS, I love the Harry Potter books.

But they aren't non-fiction.

There is no magic in the universe. No gods either.

[guillaumeb]

44. Perhaps not in your universe.

But in mine, the Creator exists.

[Voltaire2]

18. Oh and you arent an agnostic in the standard

definition of that word.

[edhopper]

16. In a Universe where

there is no evidence for anything but natural causes, why should I consider a supernatural cause tonstart it.

It takes no faith to not accept the existence of God.

[J_William_Ryan]

19. This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

Acknowledging the fact there is no ‘deity’ or ‘creator’ as perceived by theists is not a matter of ‘faith.’

[applegrove]

20. I'm talking about the miracle of the universe. The miracle of time.

Both sides take faith at this point.

[Pope George Ringo II]

21. You're going to double and triple down on your strawman, then?

Look, you don't understand atheism, fine. I can live with that. I can even deal with you trying to approximate a position you obviously find baffling. Really. It's not a big deal. I've got opposing positions I can't wrap my head around too.

But when atheists define the atheist position, you do not get to contradict them and demand that your strawman be used instead. You might have a point arguing about the merits of the atheist position, which might even have some value--assuming you knew what the hell it actually was, which you clearly don't. But at no point do you have either the right or the ability to define the atheist position. If you're going to repeatedly tell atheists that we stand for your strawman rather than what we say we stand for, then the appropriate response is GFY. In all candor, is that an unfair response to your rudeness?

[applegrove]

22. So what do atheists believe in? What gives them faith in what none of us know

because science has not got there yet.

[Pope George Ringo II]

23. Reasonably put, so I do thank you for that

You need to turn the question around to define the atheist position, though. It's not about what atheists believe. The defining characteristic is what atheists don't believe. There's a reason you hear comparisons to "bald" as a hair color or "off" as a TV channel, or "nonsmoker" as a cigarette brand. Put it this way: No positive belief is necessary to not believe in Mithraism; just a conclusion that the arguments for it are unconvincing. Do that with Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Scientology, Judaism, Paganism, Animism, Paganism, Islam, Christianity, Taoism, Rastafarianism, and so forth, and no single religion ever requires an active belief system to be regarded as inadequate. No combination of religions ever requires that active belief, simple refusal is sufficient. You may deny a particular religion because you have faith in something else, but you can't have a positive belief that every other religion is wrong when odds are you've never even heard of thousands of them, let alone evaluated them.

We've heard theists' arguments and found them lacking. We don't have all the answers, but we know theists don't have them and we're generally asking questions trying to get to the endgame. We have different perspectives, different assumptions, different values, and different everythings, and the only common thread is that we simply find arguments for the supernatural to be unconvincing. Atheism was the common denominator to people who had positive beliefs in Stalinism and Secular Humanism because it's not about any number of positive assertions, it's only about one negative one: We don't believe magic molded our universe.

Now, believe what you want to believe. Define your beliefs as you want to define them. And regard atheism as you wish. You've got all those rights and I wouldn't dream of stepping on them. And I'm really okay if you walk away from this saying, "Atheists are just crazy!" After all, there are positions which make me walk away doing the same so I can't really bitch much if you have them too. But please at least try to grasp that atheism is about the negative, as it says right in the name with that "a-" prefix. Almost literally, "no belief" is the name of the position. We mean that.

[applegrove]

24. Thanks for explaining. See we do get along.

[Mariana]

34. I'm an atheist, and I have no idea how the universe came to be.

Why do you think I have to explain the origin of the universe? Something happened, that's as far as I get with it. Maybe it happened spontaneously. Maybe a god did it. Maybe it was something else entirely. I don't see how you get "faith' from this. Maybe you're confused about the definition of the word.

[guillaumeb]

45. This sounds more like the agnostic position. eom

[Mariana]

47. I'm an atheist.

I don't believe any gods exist. That's all that's required to be an atheist.

[guillaumeb]

54. "Maybe a god did it."

Your words.

[Mariana]

55. Well, maybe a god did it.

I don't believe that, though, because I don't believe any gods exist. That makes me an atheist.

I also don't believe in leprechauns, ghosts, or shape-shifting reptilian aliens disguised as human beings, controlling all the institutions of the world for their own nefarious purposes. All those things may be real, but I don't believe they are.

[trotsky]

57. See now this here is a teachable moment.

Because you, too, view atheism as an active belief that "GOD DOESN'T EXIST," you saw that statement as a direct contradiction, and were eager to jump in and point it out.

When you understand why it's not a contradiction (as Mariana explained), you will understand what atheism means.

If you're open to learning and understanding other people's perspective, that is. Or you can keep defining atheism for others. Your choice.

[MineralMan]

36. The word "miracle." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Why is the Universe a miracle? Why is time a miracle?

Just because we do not fully understand something does not make that something miraculous. It just means we don't understand it.

Our abilities to observe and speculate on causation are seriously limited. Recognizing those limitations does not mean that we must assign miraculous events to explain things we do not understand.

Sometimes, things just are.

[Binkie The Clown]

26. I do not believe in god, but nor do I believe in the non-existence of "god".

I put "god" in quotes in the second part because you'd have to tell me what you mean by "god" before I could decide whether or not I believe in the non-existence of that version of "god". If you told me "god" meant an all-powerful, wish-granting unicorn who lived at the south pole then I could say that yes, I certainly believe that that version of "god" certainly does not exist.

If you told me "god" meant the malevolent "supreme being" depicted in the Old Testament, then, too, I could say with certainty that I do not believe in the existence of that version of "god".

If you told me "god" meant any of the old Roman gods or Greek gods, or Norse gods, then I could say with absolute certainty that I believe in the non-existence of those versions of "god".

Do I believe in the non-existence of all versions of "god"? I don't know. Tell me what you mean by "god" and I'll tell you, with certainty, whether I believe in the non-existence of that version of "god".

And by "believe", I mean what I tend to conclude is true based on the preponderance of evidence. I "believe" in the existence of electrons and neutrons. Yes, that's faith. And it may turn out that at some deeper meta-quantum level, those things don't actually exist. If so, my belief may turn out to be wrong. But I don't, ever, believe "just because it feels good." I have to have some compelling evidence before I "believe". People who "believe" in their own particular version of "god" do so without a shred of evidence, and simply because, to them, "it feels good."

As to taking things on "faith", yes, I admit it. I take it on "faith" that a giant purple unicorn is not living at the south pole answering peoples' prayers. But that "faith" certainly seems more reasonable to me than "faith" in some vengeful Biblical "god" who delights in sending tornadoes to trailer parks and giving children cancer.

[applegrove]

27. A miracle. That is God to me.

[Binkie The Clown]

28. what do you mean by "miracle".

I suspect you mean "anything I cannot explain or understand." And that is nothing more than a confession of ignorance, and, once again, "the god of the gaps." That's not any kind of "evidence" as far as I'm concerned.

[applegrove]

29. Everything is part of a miracle. I choose to revere my ancestors and nature.

Love and kindness make me weep. Human rights and equality. Technology. Science. The universe. All part of a miracle.

[Voltaire2]

30. If you leave it there you are a pantheist

but people rarely do.

[Binkie The Clown]

39. So by "miracle" you mean the ordinary things of everday existence. Hmmm.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, but your use of the word "miracle" is metaphorical, then, and not literal.
I love poetry and music and art, but I try not to confuse poetry with science. They are two quite different ways of experiencing the world.

[NeoGreen]

33. Don't put me in a box of your own making...

..to satisfy your own needs.

I DO NOT have "faith".

The Big Bang is our best description (so far) of the processes that happened after the event, it does not have an answer of what happened "before" or what may have "triggered" the event, if anything, other than "We Do Not Know".

Much or what we "know" of the Big Bang has a higher than zero probability of being wrong.

And to be clear, I take it as very rude, at a minimum, when someone feels compelled to tell me I have faith.
(Out of kindness, I will refrain from inserting a series of "colorful metaphors" to express my disdain)

noun: faith fāTH/

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

[Pope George Ringo II]

40. I'm just glad baseball fans aren't like this

Can you imagine telling a baseball fan that you don't follow the sport, and being authoritatively told that you obviously can't mean you aren't a huge fan of baseball because humans are all big fans of baseball. You must just mean that you're really a fan of the team, "Not-Baseball." Here are their colors, the team cheer, and what do you think about the stadium design, the roster, and their chances to win the Super Bowl this year?

Seriously, no other hobby does this, just religion.

[MineralMan]

35. Nope. The Universe Just Is.

How it came to be is almost certainly beyond my ability to understand, so I don't believe anything about that.

I'm interested in people's attempts to explain it, but I don't really "believe" any of those explanations.

For me, the Universe's existence is enough to know. It's also enough to learn what I can about things in that Universe. I do not need to know how or if it began. People are welcome to suppose one thing or another about that, but, since nobody can stand outside of it to observe, humans won't ever "know." I'm OK with that.

[applegrove]

48. Einstein could observe outside of mankind's experience. Lots of thinkers

can. Are the eggheads not building a 'star' to test their theories in Europe as we speak.

[MineralMan]

50. It is certainly possible to "imagine" things

one cannot observe, and to theorize about them. However, one still cannot step beyond the universe to observe it. Einstein's discoveries were all within what is discoverable.

Many people, for example, believe that some sort of deity exists that cannot be directly experienced. Being able to imagine something does not make it real.

The problem with observation simply exists. Imagination is not observation.

[applegrove]

58. But you yourself imagine 'no miracle' started it all.

[trotsky]

59. Nope, that's wrong.

I just don't see any reason to accept that a miracle did. That's your claim. Might be true, but it might not.

[MineralMan]

60. No miracle is needed.

No miracle is possible. I don't imagine impossible things.

[edhopper]

61. "Why sometimes...

“Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

[MineralMan]

62. LOL!

[edhopper]

37. God is only one explanation

among many.
And it is one without any evidence.

It is not binary; God/no God. It is multiple options with God being one without any confirmation.

Just because bronze age people came up with a concept many still believe doesn't mean I need faith to not accept it.

[Thyla]

41. Observable facts require no faith

They just are and it makes no difference what anyone puts faith in, but true when the science breaks down it is fair to say we don't know and to work towards that understanding.

[Voltaire2]

42. We put some small amount of "faith" in the assumption that there is an external universe to observe.

We also assume that independently verifiable test results can confirm or falsify a hypothesis about that external universe. In the case of falsification we can draw a strong conclusion about the hypothesis: if the tests are valid, the hypothesis is false. In the case of confirmation we can only draw a weaker conclusion that the hypothesis appears to probably be true.

However, building on my wretched restatement of the foundations of methodological skepticism, we have, over the last 400 years or so, accumulated an astounding wealth of knowledge about the universe we inhabit, and applied that knowledge to all sorts of endeavors. All of which could of course be a figment of my imagination.

[guillaumeb]

43. True.

Belief in anything unprovable requires faith. Some however, will argue that belief is magically not belief.

[trotsky]

51. No, what some argue is that what you are using the word "belief" incorrectly.

But you just keep misstating their arguments and pretend that you're "winning." It's the Christian thing to do, apparently.

[Iggo]

46. I have seen no compelling evidence for the existence of gods. (n/t)

[Act_of_Reparation]

49. Well gee wiz.

No one's brought that up before.

[trotsky]

53. Don't know if you've learned anything from this thread, but...

I think your initial statement is better expressed like this:

You either believe in something or you don't. You don't have to actively believe in *nothing* to reject someone else's claim of *something.* You can simply reject their claim.

Get it?

[Iggo]

56. Yep.

I either believe in the something he's talking about or I don't believe in the something he's talking about.

I don't see what's so difficult about that.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Wrong.

Way to re-enter the conversation with a decades old argument that has been thoroughly debunked, as if your were making some wild new previously-unconceived-of brilliant point.

Your brilliant point burned out before I was even born.