AudioFreak
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 374
One of the biggest topics in these debates between believers and non-believers is on the origin of the universe. If the model of the universe that I'm often seeing presented by believers is correct, you're merely looking at adding another layer to the onion when you say "God made the universe." It doesn't answer the question because you then must ask "where did God come from?" to which we're usually told something along the lines of how we're not meant to understand or how our human minds can't fathom God.
Well... isn't it just as meaningful then to say that our human minds can't fathom the start of the universe? It's a much more honest answer and with no ability to observe it, it may well prove to be true. Sure, we'll keep trying, but as we presently are, the micro (quantum) and macro (cosmic) worlds are still very far from the total grasp of our consciousness. Why is it not okay to say "we don't know" to the origin of the universe but okay to say "we don't know" about the origin of God? The only difference is that you're throwing in a cosmic boogeyman which can be exploited.
If your question is simply "how did the universe start?" I will answer that I do not know. I've heard many theists saying that atheism makes the claim that "something came from nothing" however I've NEVER heard any atheist make that assertion. There are theories and a divinity is as good an answer as anything else for that question alone. But that's as far as I'd give any credence to it. That is simply because we have such little evidence to go on. It's because the only real evidence we have is that things exist and a "divine" origin is as good an explanation as any other from a philosophical standpoint. But it leads down a shady road of using God to simply fill in the blanks. You can throw it into the pool as a possibility but it has no more truth or evidence to it than the idea that matter just came into existence. They're both evidently empty assertions to make. So what do we do? We follow where the evidence leads us. We don't theorize and then say "well that one makes me feel happy, lets pick it." No, because how we feel about something has no bearing on its truth. We theorize and then we test. We make predictions and look to confirm or deny them. It's science and it's our best tool for advancing human knowledge.
As creationists often argue that by evolution's process no new information is added into the genome, only mixed and matched and therefore no progress could be made in the world beyond the microscope, I'll turn that (flawed) argument around. What could human knowledge possibly gain from saying "God is the answer"? What good can come? What progress could be made? How many diseases could we cure? How many people could we feed and shelter? What forward movement does it have to offer?
I say the answer is none. Perhaps such beliefs make you feel better, give you a sense of peace, etc... And I won't deny that those are good things. Children feel good about Santa, but it's still false. Without scientific inquisition, we wouldn't have been to the moon or made use of antibiotics or even discovered microorganisms to begin with. We'd still have a life expectancy of 30! Can any of these claims be made of religious inquisition?
Of course some may also argue that things like atomic energy are to blame for our current fear of WMD's. But where does the threat come from? Surely not from the world of science. Nobody is afraid those mooks up in the lab are going to try and blow us up. It's the religious extremists. You don't blame the Swiss Army when someone uses one of their knifes to slash your tires. You blame the vandal who has forced you to call a tow truck. The same vandal would inflict damage by any other means at his disposal. It's not the instrument or the inventor but the user who is at fault.
So, returning to my original point, I ask what is so wrong about saying "we don't know" when posed a question to which we do not have any really good answers? Why is there a demand for the answer right now so great that people will just attribute magic to fill in the hole even at the expense of throwing reason out the window? And why is there a double standard to being agnostic to the specifics of God's nature versus being agnostic to the mysteries he's used to explain?
Thank you for reading. Please share any thoughts.
Well... isn't it just as meaningful then to say that our human minds can't fathom the start of the universe? It's a much more honest answer and with no ability to observe it, it may well prove to be true. Sure, we'll keep trying, but as we presently are, the micro (quantum) and macro (cosmic) worlds are still very far from the total grasp of our consciousness. Why is it not okay to say "we don't know" to the origin of the universe but okay to say "we don't know" about the origin of God? The only difference is that you're throwing in a cosmic boogeyman which can be exploited.
If your question is simply "how did the universe start?" I will answer that I do not know. I've heard many theists saying that atheism makes the claim that "something came from nothing" however I've NEVER heard any atheist make that assertion. There are theories and a divinity is as good an answer as anything else for that question alone. But that's as far as I'd give any credence to it. That is simply because we have such little evidence to go on. It's because the only real evidence we have is that things exist and a "divine" origin is as good an explanation as any other from a philosophical standpoint. But it leads down a shady road of using God to simply fill in the blanks. You can throw it into the pool as a possibility but it has no more truth or evidence to it than the idea that matter just came into existence. They're both evidently empty assertions to make. So what do we do? We follow where the evidence leads us. We don't theorize and then say "well that one makes me feel happy, lets pick it." No, because how we feel about something has no bearing on its truth. We theorize and then we test. We make predictions and look to confirm or deny them. It's science and it's our best tool for advancing human knowledge.
As creationists often argue that by evolution's process no new information is added into the genome, only mixed and matched and therefore no progress could be made in the world beyond the microscope, I'll turn that (flawed) argument around. What could human knowledge possibly gain from saying "God is the answer"? What good can come? What progress could be made? How many diseases could we cure? How many people could we feed and shelter? What forward movement does it have to offer?
I say the answer is none. Perhaps such beliefs make you feel better, give you a sense of peace, etc... And I won't deny that those are good things. Children feel good about Santa, but it's still false. Without scientific inquisition, we wouldn't have been to the moon or made use of antibiotics or even discovered microorganisms to begin with. We'd still have a life expectancy of 30! Can any of these claims be made of religious inquisition?
Of course some may also argue that things like atomic energy are to blame for our current fear of WMD's. But where does the threat come from? Surely not from the world of science. Nobody is afraid those mooks up in the lab are going to try and blow us up. It's the religious extremists. You don't blame the Swiss Army when someone uses one of their knifes to slash your tires. You blame the vandal who has forced you to call a tow truck. The same vandal would inflict damage by any other means at his disposal. It's not the instrument or the inventor but the user who is at fault.
So, returning to my original point, I ask what is so wrong about saying "we don't know" when posed a question to which we do not have any really good answers? Why is there a demand for the answer right now so great that people will just attribute magic to fill in the hole even at the expense of throwing reason out the window? And why is there a double standard to being agnostic to the specifics of God's nature versus being agnostic to the mysteries he's used to explain?
Thank you for reading. Please share any thoughts.
