If there is no god, then where did we come from?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

BiscuitTrouser:

Aglynugga:
I will not quit every this is for God The last post will be this.
I claim victory for God.

PPSSSSSTTTT claiming things means you gotta plant a flag! And you didnt. Ergo im gonna plant my flag.

image

I claim victory for CARL SAGAN! And i have a flag. That makes it official.

You cant plant a flag on my flag so i win :P

All bow before the almighty Carl Sagan!!! For he is our one true saviour!!! HAIL!!!

You could just as easily ask "if there is a God where did we come from". Why imagine something that makes no sense in order to explain something that we already have a really solid understanding of.

Ando85:
When an atheist is involved in a debate with a theist, they will often ask this question or similar. The typical answer is simply "I don't know". Often times the theist will not be satisfied by this answer and say the person has no reason to be an atheist. They go further to assert that something cannot come out of nothing. My typical answer is, "So where did god come from?". Then they say that god didn't need to be created with no real explanation as to why.

To an atheist this answer seems satisfactory. There are a lot of things that are beyond our scope of understanding, but that doesn't mean everything beyond our knowledge came from some supernatural being. This is the best explanation I can come up with. I attempt to explain this but like mentioned earlier they don't accept it.

If you have experienced something similar how do you respond to the question in the subject line?

No one can make a logical argument about the origins of the universe, all that can be done is speculation.

lowhat:

Ando85:
When an atheist is involved in a debate with a theist, they will often ask this question or similar. The typical answer is simply "I don't know". Often times the theist will not be satisfied by this answer and say the person has no reason to be an atheist. They go further to assert that something cannot come out of nothing. My typical answer is, "So where did god come from?". Then they say that god didn't need to be created with no real explanation as to why.

To an atheist this answer seems satisfactory. There are a lot of things that are beyond our scope of understanding, but that doesn't mean everything beyond our knowledge came from some supernatural being. This is the best explanation I can come up with. I attempt to explain this but like mentioned earlier they don't accept it.

If you have experienced something similar how do you respond to the question in the subject line?

No one can make a logical argument about the origins of the universe, all that can be done is speculation.

All arguments must be based on at least one irreducible premise which must be taken as a matter of faith.

snowbear:

BiscuitTrouser:

Aglynugga:
I will not quit every this is for God The last post will be this.
I claim victory for God.

PPSSSSSTTTT claiming things means you gotta plant a flag! And you didnt. Ergo im gonna plant my flag.

image

I claim victory for CARL SAGAN! And i have a flag. That makes it official.

You cant plant a flag on my flag so i win :P

All bow before the almighty Carl Sagan!!! For he is our one true saviour!!! HAIL!!!

lol isn't he with Jesus now? Good job show guy who probebly has to say sorry to God now for not beleiving who laugh last now? God.

randomsix:

All arguments must be based on at least one irreducible premise which must be taken as a matter of faith.

Well, yes, if you believe solipsism is a thing. I generally don't. Some things exist because they exist, not because we believe they exist.

Vegosiux:

randomsix:

All arguments must be based on at least one irreducible premise which must be taken as a matter of faith.

Well, yes, if you believe solipsism is a thing. I generally don't. Some things exist because they exist, not because we believe they exist.

Eh, I think he's referring to an Axiom, bro'.
And he's got a point there, due to how we have structured our system of logic and what is deemed to be evidence. In the end, you can't 'prove' everything, because there are some basic stuff which can't be proven true by the same system we use to prove everything else. So it has to be taken as a matter of faith.

Realitycrash:

Eh, I think he's referring to an Axiom, bro'.
And he's got a point there, due to how we have structured our system of logic and what is deemed to be evidence. In the end, you can't 'prove' everything, because there are some basic stuff which can't be proven true by the same system we use to prove everything else. So it has to be taken as a matter of faith.

We don't "prove" the fundamental stuff as much as we "define" it so that we can do any kind of cognitive operations with it at all.

Realitycrash:

Eh, I think he's referring to an Axiom, bro'.
And he's got a point there, due to how we have structured our system of logic and what is deemed to be evidence. In the end, you can't 'prove' everything, because there are some basic stuff which can't be proven true by the same system we use to prove everything else. So it has to be taken as a matter of faith.

We got some Godel in the house.

Vegosiux:

We don't "prove" the fundamental stuff as much as we "define" it so that we can do any kind of cognitive operations with it at all.

Vegosiux:

Well, yes, if you believe solipsism is a thing. I generally don't. Some things exist because they exist, not because we believe they exist.

You should check out Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes. He goes out to try to figure out what we really know for sure and really only gets that his mind exists (I think, I exist).

Also, you must take it on more or less blind faith that solipsism is false if you don't want to believe in it.

randomsix:

Realitycrash:

Eh, I think he's referring to an Axiom, bro'.
And he's got a point there, due to how we have structured our system of logic and what is deemed to be evidence. In the end, you can't 'prove' everything, because there are some basic stuff which can't be proven true by the same system we use to prove everything else. So it has to be taken as a matter of faith.

We got some Godel in the house.

Vegosiux:

We don't "prove" the fundamental stuff as much as we "define" it so that we can do any kind of cognitive operations with it at all.

Vegosiux:

Well, yes, if you believe solipsism is a thing. I generally don't. Some things exist because they exist, not because we believe they exist.

You should check out Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes. He goes out to try to figure out what we really know for sure and really only gets that his mind exists (I think, I exist).

Also, you must take it on more or less blind faith that solipsism is false if you don't want to believe in it.

It took me a few Google-searches before I figured out you meant Gödel. 'Godel'. Sounds like a cheese.

Realitycrash:

It took me a few Google-searches before I figured out you meant Gödel. 'Godel'. Sounds like a cheese.

Oh who can bother with Umlauts nowadays? That said, the guy was a boss.

randomsix:

Realitycrash:

It took me a few Google-searches before I figured out you meant Gödel. 'Godel'. Sounds like a cheese.

Oh who can bother with Umlauts nowadays? That said, the guy was a boss.

Luckily for me, they come preprogrammed on my keyboard, with their own designated keys and all.
And yes, yes he was.

randomsix:

You should check out Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes. He goes out to try to figure out what we really know for sure and really only gets that his mind exists (I think, I exist).

He makes a few interesting points. Been about twelve years since I've gone through it so I don't really recall the details.

Also, you must take it on more or less blind faith that solipsism is false if you don't want to believe in it.

You must ask yourself a simple question. "What's the point of a mind setting up an elaborate simulation for no purpuse whatsoever?" Really, what's the point of a simulation if the only thing that cares about existance of said simulation is the simulation itself? It just makes no sense.

Aglynugga:

lol isn't he with Jesus now? Good job show guy who probebly has to say sorry to God now for not beleiving who laugh last now? God.

He wasnt an atheist, he was an agnostic or possibly a pan theist.

Ouch.

Also he's dead. In the ground. He had no belief he was going to heaven since pan theism dictates God has no personality or human traits like "hate", "Love" or "Jealousy". He met his end bravely and with dignity so i think he deserves the victory :D

What he was was awesome :P And victory in his name was claimed with a flag :D No backsies!

randomsix:

All arguments must be based on at least one irreducible premise which must be taken as a matter of faith.

While its true that logic isnt self proving you can at least reduce the amount of axioms to the smallest number possible, then (slightly circular logic) assume that since said axioms have assisted so far in discovering and predicting the nature of this reality/simulation/delusion that said axioms must to a degree be useful. Its not so much that said axioms MUST be true, simply that for my purpose of exploring this perceived reality (simulation or not) said axioms are useful. Were one to disprove that axiom i would attempt to create another more accurate one. Since the subject is amenable to reason and evidence i hesitate to call it faith since it involves zero emotional investment. You are correct that it is based on the non existence of evidence showing the axiom to be false rather than evidence to show it is true. SO in that sense the system itself fails to prove the existence of the system. Its more of a leap of logic than a faith based assumption.

Also in terms of practicality it definitely doesnt involve the faith centres of the brain to say for example:

"I ordered pickle on this?"

"No sir, reality is subjective and logic is not self proving, ergo pickles do not exist"

"Oh alright then!"

BiscuitTrouser:

"I ordered pickle on this?"

"No sir, reality is subjective and logic is not self proving, ergo pickles do not exist"

"Oh alright then!"

There's a joke I heard once about a philosopher who was thirsty. So, he goes and pours himself a glass of water and sets it on the table. Then he starts "Hmmm, but is this really a glass of water or is my mind just imagining this?" And then he's found two weeks later, having died of dehydration.

What happens when science finds out what caused the big bang? Sure we don't know now, but that doesn't mean we never will. will all creation theists blindly ignore the evidence still? I still can't believe the argument from ignorance is still prevalent amoung theists.

Evolution is a fact and yet people still refuse to acknowledge it. We were not created by some mystical all powerful being in the sky. We evolved over millions of years slowly improving due to the fittest surviving. As for a purpose we have none other than to reproduce and whatever else we chose to do in order to live a fulfilling and happy life.

Vegosiux:

randomsix:

You should check out Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes. He goes out to try to figure out what we really know for sure and really only gets that his mind exists (I think, I exist).

He makes a few interesting points. Been about twelve years since I've gone through it so I don't really recall the details.

Also, you must take it on more or less blind faith that solipsism is false if you don't want to believe in it.

You must ask yourself a simple question. "What's the point of a mind setting up an elaborate simulation for no purpuse whatsoever?" Really, what's the point of a simulation if the only thing that cares about existance of said simulation is the simulation itself? It just makes no sense.

No one ever said that the existence of reality had to make sense as we define sense.

Inception provides an example of a kind of solipsism, and it wouldn't be that incoherent to be in such a state.

Captcha question: Are you loyal to your home insurance provider?

wut?

randomsix:

No one ever said that the existence of reality had to make sense as we define sense.

Inception provides an example of a kind of solipsism, and it wouldn't be that incoherent to be in such a state.

I have not seen that movie, and because of too many cheap "thing-CEPTION!!!!ZOMG" internet memes by people going "Ooh ooh look at me, look at me, I'm so smart" I'm not inclined to, either, but I know the general plot of it. Then again, I have seen Matrix, which tries to tackle the same issue from a different angle, and fails at it as well, naturally, since it's cheap lowest-common-denominator entertainment. Hell, even the Fourth Doctor once said "I deny this reality. The reality is a computation matrix."

Yes, I will concede you can never know for sure, but...

...what does it matter? The reality we're experiencing, true or imagined, is the only reality we have. Al our experiences come from within that reality. There's nothing outside it as far as we're concerned. Nothing even suggests it might be possible there's something outside of it. I might be existing in countless other "realities", sleeping right now, or in a coma, or slaying dragons, unaware that I'm experiencing the writing of this very post, but at this point, real or not, this is where I am and this is what I'm doing, this is what I'm experiencing.

See, solipsism is irrefutable since this, the reality we're experiencing, offers no 100% proof against it. But it's also indefensible, since there's also no 100% proof in favor. And at least in this reality, the onus is on the one making the claim.

This is not a matter of "faith". I can prove that I exist, within this reality. I go out, and people will see me. I exist. Whether or not I am just imagining they see me or they are just imagining they see me is inconsequential.

Our experience is limited to our reality, whether it is real or not. In this reality, I know I exist. In this reality, I know the world and everything on it exists. And I am currently present in this reality, so this is the only reality that can possibly matter to me at this moment.

See, even if we relegate the status of this reality to "just one of the possible realities" as opposed "to the real world", the mere fact that this is the one reality in which we are currently experiencing any kind of sensory input and stimuli makes it superior to all the others.

Vegosiux:

randomsix:

No one ever said that the existence of reality had to make sense as we define sense.

Inception provides an example of a kind of solipsism, and it wouldn't be that incoherent to be in such a state.

I have not seen that movie, and because of too many cheap "thing-CEPTION!!!!ZOMG" internet memes by people going "Ooh ooh look at me, look at me, I'm so smart"

You shouldn't confuse a thing with the people who like or use it. I just saw it for the first time a couple days ago.

I'm not inclined to, either, but I know the general plot of it. Then again, I have seen Matrix, which tries to tackle the same issue from a different angle, and fails at it as well, naturally, since it's cheap lowest-common-denominator entertainment. Hell, even the Fourth Doctor once said "I deny this reality. The reality is a computation matrix."

The part about Inception that I want to reference is basically the matrix except everyone else in it is just a projection of your unconscious instead of wholly separate intelligences. In other words, an entire world created and populated wholly by one mind.

Yes, I will concede you can never know for sure, but...

...what does it matter? The reality we're experiencing, true or imagined, is the only reality we have. Al our experiences come from within that reality. There's nothing outside it as far as we're concerned. Nothing even suggests it might be possible there's something outside of it. I might be existing in countless other "realities", sleeping right now, or in a coma, or slaying dragons, unaware that I'm experiencing the writing of this very post, but at this point, real or not, this is where I am and this is what I'm doing, this is what I'm experiencing.

Functionally, it probably won't matter at all. But the same can be said of string theory. That doesn't keep people from investigating it.

See, solipsism is irrefutable since this, the reality we're experiencing, offers no 100% proof against it. But it's also indefensible, since there's also no 100% proof in favor. And at least in this reality, the onus is on the one making the claim.

This is not a matter of "faith".

It seems to be a definitive matter of faith. You are just creating a rationalization for rejecting it.

I can prove that I exist, within this reality.

And if you throw away everything that is not 100% definitively true, this is all you can prove.

I go out, and people will see me. I exist. Whether or not I am just imagining they see me or they are just imagining they see me is inconsequential.

Would you say that people saw you if you stayed in and looked in a mirror? You cannot assume that there are actually other people (by which I mean their minds) without already rejecting solipsism.

Our experience is limited to our reality, whether it is real or not. In this reality, I know I exist. In this reality, I know the world and everything on it exists.

If by "know" you mean with 100% certainty, then no, you don't, and you can't.

lowhat:

Ando85:
When an atheist is involved in a debate with a theist, they will often ask this question or similar. The typical answer is simply "I don't know". Often times the theist will not be satisfied by this answer and say the person has no reason to be an atheist. They go further to assert that something cannot come out of nothing. My typical answer is, "So where did god come from?". Then they say that god didn't need to be created with no real explanation as to why.

To an atheist this answer seems satisfactory. There are a lot of things that are beyond our scope of understanding, but that doesn't mean everything beyond our knowledge came from some supernatural being. This is the best explanation I can come up with. I attempt to explain this but like mentioned earlier they don't accept it.

If you have experienced something similar how do you respond to the question in the subject line?

No one can make a logical argument about the origins of the universe, all that can be done is speculation.

Do not mistake logically valid arguments for being necessarily true ones. One can make a logical argument about the origins of the universe; however, it does not necessarily make their premises or their conclusions true.

randomsix:

If by "know" you mean with 100% certainty, then no, you don't, and you can't.

Even if I am merely imagining this reality with myself in it, I exist in it by definition, because part of this perceived reality is me being in it.

Vegosiux:

randomsix:

If by "know" you mean with 100% certainty, then no, you don't, and you can't.

Even if I am merely imagining this reality with myself in it, I exist in it by definition, because part of this perceived reality is me being in it.

image

But yeah...

The truth of the matter is that for all we know we could be living in the matrix and all 'reality' is an illusion, your keyboard is digitized, I'm an AI, this conversation never even happened and Neo is somewhere getting ready to free our minds...Or maybe I'm missing the point of this.

Not making fun of you btw, just giving an example so that people who are slow like me and jump in.

I think I'd like that actually. As long as I don't get turned into an agent.

There is no spoon.

Vegosiux:

randomsix:

If by "know" you mean with 100% certainty, then no, you don't, and you can't.

Even if I am merely imagining this reality with myself in it, I exist in it by definition, because part of this perceived reality is me being in it.

This is what I said about Meditations on First Philosophy. It's basically the only thing Descartes gets before his arguments go bad. Cogito ergo sum, and all that. Though that was in a different work.

Edit: note that I refer to the knowledge that you exist, not that reality exists around you.

My answer is someone time travelled to the past and masturbated into the primordial ooze. Time paradoxes ftw

From gradual evolution over millions of years. I thought that was common knowledge tbh.

I don't know.
That's not the same as saying there is no answer. Of course there is (I assume there is). I just don't know what it is. And I'm cool with that.
I'm here now. Not knowing how I got here doesn't change the fact that I am here.

As a Christian myself (and I hate using that word, but it fits best), I never ask such a question, because science has already answered it. We come from the process of evolution over millions of years.

Yes. I'm a Christian who believes in evolution (and not intelligent design).

But to be fair, I'm the ONLY Christian who has the set of beliefs I have.

It's a trick question. There is no 'we' and there is no universe. My disembodied consciousness generates all the images, sights, sounds, people that I perceive as 'real' in order to amuse me. Everything is a figment of my imagination.

PxDn Ninja:
As a Christian myself (and I hate using that word, but it fits best), I never ask such a question, because science has already answered it. We come from the process of evolution over millions of years.

No science hasn't. That's not where we came from, that's a record of how we have changed over time. It's the difference between having pictures of someone on their 1st and 2nd and 3rd birthdays and so forth, and having information on their birth. Science can explain pretty well where we likely came from, experiments were able to generate life through chemical reactions(The Miller-Urey experiment generated building blocks of life by mimicking primordial life on Earth.) We even have a pretty good explanation for how the universe formed.

But no scientific explanation has ever actually been put forward to explain where the matter of the universe came from. We think that the matter was condensed into a ball that then expanded. But we have no idea how all the matter got there; where the electrons, neutrons, and protons all came from. That is the real 'where did we come from?' And no one has any explanation that isn't pure speculation.

PxDn Ninja:
As a Christian myself (and I hate using that word, but it fits best), I never ask such a question, because science has already answered it. We come from the process of evolution over millions of years.

Yes. I'm a Christian who believes in evolution (and not intelligent design).

But to be fair, I'm the ONLY Christian who has the set of beliefs I have.

Really? Because I believe that as well.

Angelblaze:

PxDn Ninja:
As a Christian myself (and I hate using that word, but it fits best), I never ask such a question, because science has already answered it. We come from the process of evolution over millions of years.

Yes. I'm a Christian who believes in evolution (and not intelligent design).

But to be fair, I'm the ONLY Christian who has the set of beliefs I have.

Really? Because I believe that as well.

I should clarify, my belief structure as a whole is what I have found to be rather unique. I know a few Christians who believe in evolution.

That being said, throw me an IM if you ever feel like debating theology and philosophy. :) Maybe we share many common views.

I get the impression that when quite a few modern theists say they believe in god they mean that they believe in the universe, the first words in the bible are "as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be" or are they the last? i dont really know to be honest im sure its in there somewhere though.

You could interpret that as a beatles song if you wanted to, let it be. Its the only logical way to look at a world where were stumbling through the dark in most respects without saying "There was nothing, then there was something, then theres going to be nothing again" as in we come from nothing and return to it, similarly to the whole universe which is the alternative atheist philosophy.

Sorry if im putting words in peoples mouths here which i definetely am. This is why i dont like talking about philosophy, it all comes down to "we just dont know" but id rather say "i dont care" and whittle away my days having fun waiting for the inevitability of death. If theres a god then its a bonus on top of having lived a life. and if there isnt then your dead anyway so what do you care?. Id be a bit pissed off too if science finally had the answer to the meaning of life. I dont think it ever will, but if it did it would probably be some boring as fuck micro particle that started the universe. Id certainly be more enlightened but id be pissed off nonetheless, whereas without that we're free to try and make sense off it for ourselves

Again apologies at the amount of rambling in this post, ive been up 24 hours and i keep looking over my shoulder but it turns out its just my hair.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked