Yes, it occurs independently of our minds. We still have to work out what existence is, and how we perceive it. How you, I, and anyone else perceives it, is subjective. Jan.
Again, it is a perception. It's not that God isn't, for you. But you accept that God isn't. You accept that for God to exist, there must be external evidence. That in and of itself, is a denial. Jan.
Sometimes I think they will accept any old explanation, so they can keep God out of the picture. Jan.
It's not ended until it's ended. The resolution is that atheists are without God. That's not the effect. That you ask for external evidence for God's existence (as if He exists like potatoes and pencil sharpners ), and stick to it, as though that is the God that theists accept, shows you currently have no idea of God. It shows that you are without God. Jan.
I would contend that observable Physics of the Universe make the proposition that the Universe come into existence from Physics more plausible than some super-duper know-it-all entity who happens to look like us who has existed forever decided in a brain snap moment to create the Universe and a bunch of minions to worship him etc etc etc Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Riddle me this... If my understanding is correct, external evidence equals any discernible, objective effect(s) to/on the physical universe, right? Then either: 1.) God does not exist... or 2.) God exists and there is, in fact, external evidence... or 3.) God exists and there is, in fact, zero external evidence - therefore, it makes exactly zero difference whether God exists or not. As in zero difference to you, zero difference to me and zero difference to the universe at large. If you decide to go with option #2 please cite your external, objective evidence. Note that logically there is no option 4. Glad we cleared that up...
Couple of flaws here. Who exactly, here, thinks that 'everything came from nothing'? Anyone? Or is this just an invented target? A straw man? I don't see how it bears on any contributor in this discussion. But let's suppose someone in this thread were to think there's truth to the SfN model. I seriously doubt you will find them asserting that stance. It is a plausible model, sure, but, as rational people we don't go around saying we "know" it's true - for the very reason you invoke - because we don't have compelling evidence. See how nicely that works? We can't be sure, but we can move forward with it as a working model, knowing it makes untestable assumptions - and will be modified as we learn more about our universe. If Jan were as rational about God as rational people are about Big Bang pre-history, we would all be generally in agreement, and this thread would have never existed. Finally, the invocation of God does not solve the problem you pose. If God created the universe, then it simply pushed back the question as to how God was created. 'God always existed' you say? Great. If we suppose that things can have 'always existed', then we can just as easily say the universe 'always existed' (even if in a different form than this one). Your argument commits what is known as the Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
The same logic can be applied to any invention of the imagination. What is the criteria that differentiates God existing without external evidence from Cosmic Unicorns existing without external evidence? You can put any imaginary object in there at all, and it is as valid and as unfalsifiable as any other. Thus, it simply comes down to which one you believe. And that's arbitrary.
Sir, please sir, me sir! I'm currently reading every book of Stenger's that I can get hold of and I'm coming round to his view. (AFAIK he was [at least one of] the original proposer(s). Quite correct: it's a valid natural explanation that relies only on what we already know. Not even he says "That's how it happened" but rather "Since it could have happened this way there's no need to invoke "god" (of which we know absolutely nothing) as the "explanation"".
This isn't the position of the agnostic atheist, though. Their position that is simply that in order to believe that God does exist, there should be some evidence. In the absence of such evidence they do not conclude that God does not exist, only that they don't hold the belief that God does exist. It's a (not so subtle) difference that you continually seem to miss.
Ah, still using "IMO" to absolve you from ever having to support what you state, I see. FYI - putting the letters in capitals and bolding them doesn't replace the need for you to support your claims. As to your point, most scientists don't generally believe categorically and 100% that "everything came from nothing". Those that do also seem to have a rather specific notion of "nothing". Some certainly accept it as the most rational explanation that they are aware of, based on the evidence that we have. But they are willing to change their position as and when evidence to the contrary is presented. Therein lies the difference.
There is no such thing as internal evidence as it applies to anything but your own thought processes or the nature of your own consciousness. What's happened is that theists, having exhausted all other alternatives, are left with justifications for their belief that rely on untestable claims or special pleading. It wasn't always this way, it was a process of winnowing down. We call it the god of the gaps.
Questions: Dave, IYO, where DID everything come from? IMO, Everything is NOT "invented". And Dave, what exactly, IYO, was the physical (as in physics) condition of Big Bang pre-history that rational people are in agreement about? You simply have to digest some of the thread/subfora discussions on Sciforums - over a considerable duration of Sciforums history - regarding e.g., "how can something come from nothing" and related threads to recognize the arguments made. No strawman or homunculus fallacy intended or inferred by my post, but I can see how you might argue such in lieu of the observable evidence that I queried. BTW: "Pushing back the question . . . ." is what scientific investigation/enquiry is all about.
I'm certainly not a scientist, though I do have some undergraduate background in biology. I'm more of a philosopher by training. Not me. See my remarks in this thread, starting with post #12. http://sciforums.com/threads/a-universe-from-nothing-not-that-hard-to-understand.158811/ I think that the metaphysical question might better be put as: Why is there something rather than nothing? That's asking why reality exists at all, it isn't necessarily a claim that something came from nothing. The question isn't even really a question about origins. That's because reality might conceivably be eternal, extending infinitely into the past, without any initial origin event. But even in such a universe we could still ask why there is an eternal reality instead of nothing at all.
There are five known phases, or states, of matter: solids, liquids, gases, plasma and Bose-Einstein condensates http://www.livescience.com/46506-states-of-matter.html That's two up from which I started school I understand that POTATOES and PENCIL sharpeners fit into one one of those groups of matter But wait we have another form Not sure in fact VERY unsure if IT is matter but IT has been COMPARED against POTATOES and PENCIL sharpeners so they either have SIMILAR or DISSIMILAR characteristics This new (in fact IF this form of matter exist it is incredibly ANCIENT) Its called god matter I doubt god matter has SIMILAR characteristics Have not seen people worshipping potatoes at the altar of the pencil sharpener Which leaves us with DISSIMILAR characteristics If only we had someone to ask what those DISSIMILAR characteristics are Any volunteers? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sort of agree It makes zero difference to all your listing However he could still exist Just in hiding bored and not bothered It is true zero difference to us and the Universe has the effect of may as well not exist Does not matter if does not exist equates with may as well not exist Except if he wakes up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm betting (simply because I don't believe he exist) he never wakes up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all This seems a good place to start and read Seems like ' nothing ' is unstable Who knew? Well it seems like some Scientist thought it and even better it almost fits Go Science Boo Religion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Such a well reasoned and argued response. I am in awe. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
