Dexter wrote:No one is claiming it is a satisfactory answer or "knowledge," not even Blackburn.

You never answered the question, how is "God did it" any different than "Something did it"?

Is there any additional content? Different cultures have different mythologies about creation. Do you believe them all? You must have a lot of negative proofs or else I guess you have to.

From a Judeo-Christian sense and the idea of the nature of God, which I might add no religion or theologian has ever claimed to know the complete nature of God, it is a different answer.

If you reject an intelligence as being responsible for the universe, but are agreeable to saying "something did all this" then you need to come up with your own hypothesis.

"SOMETHING" did all this? Okay, what?
It's not enough to claim that something did it but not god.


If you make a positive claim then you're committed to introducing a hypothesis and providing evidence for it.

So my question is, what is the atheist's position here?

A multiverse gave birth to this universe?
Where's the evidence for that hypothesis?

The law of Gravity and an eternal vacuum caused nothing to become something?
Where's the evidence for that hypothesis?

The universe is eternal?
Although the big bang hypothesis would disagree with that hypothesis, where is the evidence for an eternal universe?


Does that atheist say, "Science is working on it, but God didn't do it"?
That's a complete cop-out. Essentially what is being said is "I don't know, but we know God didn't do it" when what's really known about why something exists rather than nothing is nothing.

Blackburn is just saying he's happy with his belief that "the universe just is"


(The atheist's common tactic here is to say some questions are not questions at all, but if it is a valid question worth asking, 'God didn't do it!")

ant wrote:(The atheist's common tactic here is to say some questions are not questions at all, but if it is a valid question worth asking, 'God didn't do it!")

Saying that a god is responsible just gives us another question. "Why god and not no god?"

That is why it is unsatisfying. Because rather than answer the question, it merely replaces it with another equally unanswerable question.

Most theists get around this by claiming the question is invalid, or some other such nonsense. Consider Ian Simelane's response from above:

"The question about whether God is is absolute. The answer to that question transpires when you ask it, because it is that that you realise that if what is worrying you wasn't, then you wouldn't be worried about it after all."

Unpack that one for us!


I think you'll find that regarding the origins of the universe, most atheists are agnostics, including the most outspoken of neo-atheists.

The wisest position for the origins of the universe is the agnostic position. Anything else is a claim to knowledge that we simply don't have.

Interbane:
That is why it is unsatisfying. Because rather than answer the question, it merely replaces it with another equally unanswerable question.

I think that it's worse that that even. It isn't equally unanswerable, because there is a possibility we could find out something about the way a universe came about through naturalistic events. By insisting on a magical event the question becomes un answerable by design!

This becomes the blanket we throw over our ignorance, and which we protect with scron-full words when anyone attempts to peak under the corners.

You CAN'T know that! It's a mystery. It's god's domain! Stop trying to figure that out, it's nothing you could possibly understand.

If God did create the universe how could you then find a naturalistic materialistic explanation? I don't think anyone is saying it's wrong for scientists to try discover all they can about the universe.Philosophically, the argument is inferring from what science shows to the best explanation for it.Not in absolute proof terms. Other strands like meaning and purpose come into it. The dogmatic assertions ascribing life, existence,intelligence to blind purporseless chance events doesn't fit well with our being living,thinking rational and purposeful beings.
A lot of what I see put forward from atheistic apologists is of the, everything you know is wrong variety. The appearance of design in nature is an illusion. Our sense of the the conscious mind is and illusion. Our sense of making real choices is an illusion. No wonder so many people don't believe you guys.

A lot of what I see put forward from atheistic apologists is of the, everything you know is wrong variety. The appearance of design in nature is an illusion. Our sense of the the conscious mind is and illusion. Our sense of making real choices is an illusion. No wonder so many people don't believe you guys.

If the truth were so easily achieved, we'd have possessed it thousands of years ago. But year by year, we learn how little we really know about how the universe operates. Reality is insanely, unfathomably complex. As naturalistic explanations acquire territory from formerly supernatural explanations, our understanding grows in complexity, getting closer and closer to a fuller understanding. We're at the point now where no single mind can understand it all. Who knows where we'll be in a decade.

It's no wonder that the simplicity offered by religion is so prevalent even in an age when we know better.

On consciousness as illusion. It's not that the conscious mind is an illusion. What we sense of our consciousness is a very real thing. But what we are sensing is an emergent phenomenon, supervenient on physical systems, rather than supernatural.

The dogmatic assertions ascribing life, existence,intelligence to blind purporseless chance events doesn't fit well with our being living,thinking rational and purposeful beings.

Good point.

If there's a positive assertion that purposeless chance is responsible for the universe and the life that it contains, then there must be evidence presented for said assertion.

oh wait a second., the atheist doesn't need evidence here. he's now a happy agnostic when it comes to questions like this.

Those shifty atheists! They're like knowledge sluts! They'll go to bed with most any natural materialistic hypothesis, but when it breaks down, they move on to the next "sexy" hypothesis!

You gonna take a stand with your belief in Odin or not?

Unless you have a proof of non-existence, you best acknowledge your loyalty

NOT WORTH IT ANYMORE

ant wrote:I think you stand for nothing and are useless to a healthy society.

You and your mockery of me can go fuck yourself

Science actually moves towards simplicity rather than complexity. Science explains complexity, but this is achieved by reducing it to simplicity. Equations 30 characters long are still extremely simple compared to complexities that can be tackled with them. People did understand themselves just as well thousands of years ago, perhaps even better than today, even though they misunderstood much natural phenomena outside themselves as being magical in cause.
The power of patterns to to model and encompass the reality of mind, is naturally limited, because everything that exists is not a pattern. Knowledge is always patterns, but a pattern of knowledge to describe all patterns, whilst appealing and godlike in its goal is not achievable due to the nature of sets and the hardware that we use for building and recognizing patterns, having evolved in, and in response to the limitations of its history.
Mind has been recognized in its essence for thousands of years, but due to the nature of that recognition it provides no pattern to philosophize about, without loosing its meaning. Sure its frustrating because you "want to know" but that wanting is just another pattern, and from there you are abstracted from the core of experience.
The ultimate CONTEXT for the patterns of the universe is what you are searching for which is ultimately not physical, or limited in the ways physical systems are. There is no ticket to divinity, but this does not preclude a union with a universal context, or a spiritual life, its just not what you think it might be.
Try my book...or don't. I already know how much you will hate it, but I didn't write it to be liked.
Good luck with all that mental anguish about beliefs and stuff
All The Best
David
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1502909693