It's quite possible that
God did indeed create the heavens and the earth. Scientists generally agree that matter/time burst forth in the big-bang 14 odd billion years ago. Either that occurred through chance or by design. Both seem to me equally astounding and bizarre. It is alas impossible to ascribe a definitive scientific solution to what is a metaphysical problem.

I think most on b3ta would agree that the God, as sold by the major Abrahamic religions, is the porkie that has and continues to bite us in the arse.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 17:08, 57 replies)

I know a couple of physicists who'd agree
...and quite a lot more that think there's Something behind the Big Bang, but that man has definitely described God in his own image.
( sanityclause is waiting until, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 17:24, closed)

Well, Einstein certainly spoke of
wanting to read the mind of God. If you stop for a moment to consider the utter weirdness of the universe and human consciousness, you would either be lacking in imagination or have a Dawkins-style axe to grind, to dismiss outright the possibility of a God.

People who boldly state, "There is no God" - especially those who do so brandishing their scientific erudition before them - get my goat because this is not an issue that can be resolved scientifically. And lesser minds are impressed and thus absolve themselves of the responsibility of - and joy in - finding their own truth.

Of course, just as bad are the religious nutcases who try to convince their flock that they have all the answers, too. In fact, if anything they're freakier because of the minutely detailed yet completely arbitrary dogma they've swallowed.

Apologies for length but the issue is infinite.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 18:10, closed)

I may not believe in God, but I certainly don't believe in Richard Dawkins.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 18:23, closed)

You don't have to. He's still there.

(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 19:51, closed)

if there is one
we don't know what it is,

Science has done a good job of explaining how organinc life (and hence ourselves) came to be in existence on this planet i fail to see at what stage in the process a deity clicked his fingers and created life, since all the steps involved don't require any magical input and they can happen on their own.

However there is yet to be any major consensus on what happened prior to the big bang, so the another being casuing the event, can't be logically disproven, not with current knowledge anyway. Although if this "god" did exist, i severly doubt that it is even close to any of incarnations of god(s) that have been developed by mankind, and i severley doubt that this being has any divine plan for us, or even any active input in the workings of the world!

God/religion as we know it is just a system of social management born out of an understanding of the world based soley on what can be observed with the naked eye. What most relgions teach about generalties are of life are fine, and most people seem to get on well regardless of religion or lack of. It's when you get the dawkins on one side and hamzas or Hovinds on the other it just drives a wedge between people who otherwise would have not cared!

apols for length, but you are very right the subject is infinitly improbable!
(dougthegoat trapped his mohawk in the car door, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 18:55, closed)

It may be impossible to determine the existence of a supreme being, true
but if it does exist, bollocks is it the god of the Bible.
(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 19:55, closed)

+1

(Vice Admiral Sir Charles Cockbrush KCB MBE DSO, who is finding it increasingly difficult to log into b3ta.com wants to duck your aunt and kick your puppy, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 10:17, closed)

Agreed.
Still, there is much wisdom in the Gospels and the teachings of Christ. And alas much vindictive bollocks in the likes of Lamentations and Leviticus.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 10:55, closed)

Einstein was speaking figuratively.
Noone sensibly - not even Dawkins - claims definitively that there is no god. The claim is that there is no place for god, no need for god to explain the world, that the god hypothesis actually makes explanations more complicated, no reason to believe in god... therefore why bring god into it?

If someone can produce one single phenomenon that is best explained by a deity - and "I can't think of a better explanation" is not good enough - then that's evidence for a deity. Not proof, but evidence. No such phenomenon has yet been produced.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 23:45, closed)

The laws of physics as they're currently understood
account for everything that happened after the Planck era (from the supposed beginning of the universe to 10^-44 seconds after it.) What happened during or before the Planck era is anyone's guess. Who's to say some incredibly powerful being(s) didn't set it all in motion? Till we understand how everything began, we can only speculate.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 18:20, closed)

But there's no reason to rope god in, even by your own lights.
So why? It just looks gratuitous.

I agree that, once you go before the Planck era, things get a bit messy. But so what?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 23:46, closed)

enzyme.... enzyme....

(Kip, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 18:04, closed)

*parachutes in*
I've just found this. Oh, Lord.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 23:29, closed)

I presume you all ready the story in the newsletter a couple of weeks ago - quite a charming take on the whole God thing, I thought. Here, if you missed it.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Thu 12 Aug 2010, 18:34, closed)

even so, "there is no god" makes infinitely more sense than "there is a god", based solely on lack of evidence/input since big bang/need, for Him.

Plus, if god isn't anything like the constructs humans have formed, with all the talking to people, setting things on fire, living on clouds and shit, then there is no value in caring about/questioning the concept of Him at all, because everything we associate with Him is bollocks, and nothing of any use will come of Him.
(shanterbabs, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 3:51, closed)

all very worthy
but did you actually read the story? It rather stands on its own merits, theology aside.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 11:57, closed)

No it doesn't.
It's utter drivel.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 11:37, closed)

Oh, really - I hadn't realised that bioethics incorporated literary criticism.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 16:33, closed)

I'm not speaking as a bioethicist particularly.
I'm speaking as someone - anyone - with a half-functioning brain.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 21:47, closed)

Speaking as a lecturer, I guess you're entitled to dismiss the intelligence of others - in which case, I wonder why you freely admit to having a 'half-functioning brain'; I assume you were implying that those who liked this little story would be intellectually defficient, but grammatically, you've actually argued the opposite. For my part, I've not done badly, academically-speaking - I've gone as far as an MSc (scholarship), via a BA, and only turned down the doctorate (fully funded) because I was bored of uni at that point. Perhaps that final step is the one that separates those with a fully-functioning brain from those with a mere half. I would note, however, that I took several modules from your stomping-ground (philosophy) as an interesting, easy-going aside from a course that actually demanded some effort.

Your arrogance is outstanding. Have you ever tried to write? I have. It's tricky, and short-stories are the hardest to accomplish. The subject of religion aside, this one is quite well done, but the massive chip on your shoulder prevents you from seeing beyonf the "OMG IT MENTIONS GOD!!!11!!eleventy!!!22" aspect of things.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 23:06, closed)

This is the last one before I give up on this thread, I think - I don't think we're getting anywhere.
I think that the egg-think behind the link is awful, awful writing. It's also intellectually vacuous - mental mogadon. I'm baffled as to how anyone, irrespective their academic record, can see any virtue in it.

I can't comment on your experience of academic philosophy: if you found it easy, good for you. Plenty of people don't. Some people have a natural aptitude for it; others have an aptitude for maths, or languages, or biology, or whatever. I'm not quite sure what that adds to the debate in this thread, though.

Of course writing's tricky. I'm a pretty good academic writer, but I suck at most non-academic writing; I know it's difficult. The person who wrote this piece demonstrates that. I don't see what's arrogant about making a claim that it's terrible; you don't have to be a decent writer yourself to be able to comment on others' writing, any more than you have to be a baker to tell when the toast is burning.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 18:50, closed)

I didn't suggest you were arrogant for disliking the story - that's your perogative. Rather, I suggested you were arrogant for proclaiming that anyone who might not agree with your position must be mentally deficient. This is where the mention of my dabbling in philosophy came in; I quite liked the story, and yet am almost-certainly using both hemispheres.

I have no idea if it's been done before, but I quite liked the concept of there not being any humanity, as such - or rather, all of humanity as one being, and that being happens to be the offspring of some undefined higher power who invented the entire universe simply to train his kid. I'm not suggesting there's any previously-unrevealed truth here, any deeper meaning, but I did quite enjoy it for what it was.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Mon 16 Aug 2010, 2:01, closed)

That's rather lovely, Happy P.
I just started this thread to try to counteract the knee-jerk reaction, which is part of B3ta's prevailing culture, to state a belief, "There is no God" as a fact;

To put the often dangerous absurdities of religion/the religious and the idea of God in the same box;

And to use science to discuss the probability of God's existence when you might as well try to write an algebraic equation to describe how you felt when you read the winning story on last week's QOTW.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 11:27, closed)

I've never really understood militant atheists
"Hey, Mrs Timmins - you know that thing that's giving you some comfort and solace in the twilight of your years, the only thing that helped you through the death of your husband, the community that was there for you when it seemed life could get no worse - IT'S ALL A BIG STINKING LIE, YOU STUPID COW! HAHAHAHAHAHA. Also, fuck your coffee mornings - by donating your time and effort to raise a little money for people less fortunate than yourself, you are indirectly responsible for every religious war throughout history, ever. Gullible, evil old harpy."

Cunts. Leave well enough alone, it ain't your business.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 12:00, closed)

Well,
I suppose the militant atheists (What the hell is wrong with Dawkins btw? Is it his ongoing existential crisis making him so bloody tetchy?) quite reasonably see the enormous damage caused by faiths and inter-faith wars and simply don't have time to differentiate the poor Mrs Timminses from the leaders and noisy fringe elements of the churches to which they belong.

My own personal belief is that if there is a God then His state of perfection would preclude him from wanting anything, because want derives from lack. For that reason I personally steer clear of organised religion and its attempts to dictate human behaviours.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 16:09, closed)

and there are those
that value truth for itself. And if you believe that there is no god, which is a fair deduction from the available evidence, then you might want this truth held out for itself. In very much the same way that so many religious evangelise.

And if you've seen some of the utter shit that's put about (creationism, for example), then the urge to defend the truth can be quite overpowering.
( Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 17:01, closed)

But then you're making the mistake
of stating belief as truth. By all means confront the creationist morons with the fossil record. I think it can be safely demonstrated that the world is not just 6000 years old, for example. Religious nuts and dangerous dogma need confronting, although don't hold your breath for many 'conversions'.

But stating that there is no God is stating a belief, nothing more, nothing less. It is not "a fair deduction". The laws of physics explain most of the 'how', although they are continuously expanding and mutating to encompass new perceptions of reality; they do nothing to explain the why and the wherefore.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 17:37, closed)

hmmm
how is belief different to truth? This is a not a simple question to answer. How do we know anything?
As far as most are concerned, if you believe something to be true, that's as much as you can hope for.
As regarding to whether or not to believe in god, from a scientific perspective, it is not generally held reasonable to regard something as truth with evidence or reason, in that sense it falls outside of science. But if you prescribe to a broader positivist empiricist philosophy, you would probably tend to say that there is no reason to believe that God exists.
To say that science does not explain the why and wherefore is to miss the point entirely. You can happily keep asking why, at some point you need to say enough. A great many scientist would happily say that they answer the why questions, small whys perhaps, but still whys.
Science and religion are as compatible as you'd like. The (popular) atheist perspective builds on the philosophy underpinning science, things like falsifiability, empiricism and occam's razor, to arrive at the conclusion: there is no god. The Catholic church is quite happy to believe in the big bang and evolution as they don't see it as incompatible with their theology, it doesn't matter how the world came to be as long as God is still in that world. Large numbers of scientists are quite happy to hold a variety of religious beliefs. Where there is no conflict there is no problem.
( Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 3:24, closed)

Except that there is a conflict.
They're utterly incompatible: science (and most other disciplines since the Enlightenment) are built on methodological naturalism. Religion and theology are built on methodological anti-naturalism.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 11:14, closed)

Utterly incompatible?
So any scientific works undertaken by a theist should be stipped of all merit and disregarded? Presuming there's any science left at all, given that Christianity played a major, possibly crucial role in the development of modern science, you'll be leaving the cupboard somewhat bare.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 16:27, closed)

Oh, don't be silly.
Of course people can and do compartmentalise. It's perfectly possible for a person to wear, say, a geologist hat and a Christian hat. But there's no such thing as Christian geology, nor could there be. And the same applies for any other religion and any other science. The religion bit cannot but to skulk around in the corners where the science hasn't reached.

As for the legacy of religious thinkers - again, you're being silly. I'll ignore Christianity's role in book-burning over the years (Savonarola, anyone?); it's obviously true that religious people throughout history have had an interest in understanding the world, perhaps as a means of understanding the mind of god. However, it's also true that the investigations they instigated moved the world away from the god that they thought they'd come to know. That's why the Enlightenment was not just a threat to religion, but a profound cultural crisis. It's a crisis that haunted Nietzsche - it's at the core of his analysis of nihilism (the phenomenon by which the highest values devalue themselves - and section 125 of The Gay Science for one of the most moving accounts of this crisis I've ever read.

None of this alters the fact that you can't in good faith marry religion and science, though you might try.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 21:56, closed)

This isn't actually what you said. You understand what 'incompatible' means, I assume?

The role of Christian(ity)/(s) in modern science is not a matter for debate, it's a matter of checking the historical record. They attempted to understand their god, and unravelled him instead. I have no problem with this - but it must really frost your cookies thinking that you owe such a debt to theists.

And yes, of course, religion has been a massive hinderance and burdern to science at times, too. I'd not argue this point for a second, and have not attempted to.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 23:08, closed)

also, a question for you, Mr (bio)Ethics. Presuming there's no transcendental right, and equally, no transcendental wrong - essentially, no man on a cloud deciding how we should live our lives - your field of study is based upon and predicated by the whims and mores of a given society. You've based your whole career on something transient, something no more scientifically legitimate than religion; an agreement of the masses, with no recourse whatsoever to scientifically-reproducable facts and figures. So - why is it OK to draw a pay-cheque by arguing unscientific concepts such as 'good' and 'bad', and somehow illegitimate to devote your life to an equally-unscientific 'god' who - wait for it - also tells you what's right and what's wrong?
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 1:51, closed)

Hahahahah!
I'm trying to translate this, and can get no further than "Either morality is divinely ordained, or it's arbitrary. I can't think of any other option, so that must be the whole story." False dichotomy.

Also, you have rather an impoverished view of what academic ethics does. I don't think I've ever, in the course of my professional career, made any claims as simplistic as "This is right" or "This is wrong". Good attempt on the ad hominem attack, though.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 9:49, closed)

Sprinkling the odd Latin phrase into your diatribe does not make it any more correct. The above was not particularly difficult to understand (for those happy with polysyllabic words), does not require translation, and was not an attack of any sort. If you think one can have ethics without having morality - essentially, right and wrong - I fear you may have misunderstood the term. And being as you brought it up, where do you imagine ethics/morals come from, if not concensus? Is there a metaphysical yardstick by which we can tell right from wrong? Where is this false dichotomy to which you refer?

Ad hominem, indeed. I've done nothing other than argue for people's right to believe in and live by whatever set of rules they choose - how can you possibly think that conceive of the above as an attack, ad hominem or otherwise? Do you imagine, for one moment, that I'm arguing against the concept of morality? No, no - an ad hominem attack would be something more clear cut - such as an ill-conceived assertion that I had only half a brain, starting your reply with 'hahaha' and implying a perfectly-readable comment required translation, or similar.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 10:36, closed)

I'm beginning to wonder whether I can be arsed with this any more, to be frank...
Ethics concerns itself with right and wrong, of course: but it's not reducible to statements about right and wrong. It's to do with a more general inquiry into how we think about right and wrong, how we should act, how we should live, and so on. Aristotle managed without talking about right and wrong in the modern sense - that's a comparatively modern addition.

As to the false dichotomy: there's plenty of ways that you can get to a version of morality without god or consensus. Kant did it one way. Mill did it another way. There's a huge tradition of metaethics - moral realism and quasi-realism, for example - holding that morality can be naturalised. Granted, realism is a bit unfashionable at the moment, but it's not laughable; quasi-realism is taken very seriously by a good many people.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 18:37, closed)

Right - you're a lecturer in (bio)ethics, so you obviously have a fair degree of familiarty with the subject. I am really trying to understand this. If you've bailed on the thread, fair enough - but I'm still not getting how morality can exist without concensus, given that it's certainly and demonstrably not defined on the level of the individual.

It seems, from above, that you dislike the term 'transcendental' - so I shall stick with 'external'. Is there an external right, or wrong, by which we can be judged? I'm going to procede on the assumption that there's not, as the alternative would involve invoking Him Upstairs. Therefore, as I understand things, morality is a human conceit - not a part of nature, and not supernatural. We all know in our hearts what is good, what is bad - where did this knowledge come from? Why does it seem oddly-specific to the society we grew up in?

No one person can define his own morality. He can't say - 'On balance, I have decided that X is good!" - if X happens to be something like 'only killing people who look at me funny', most societies will deem him to be a cunt. However worthy the thought process that led him to this point, he's going to be forever known as a wrong 'un, becuase he's done something society deems to be morally bankrupt. His personal morality is an irrelevence, and barely deserves the label; it's the wisdom of the masses that decides and judges such things.

Surely, morality cannot exist without concensus. Individually, it's merely an idiosynchracy.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Mon 16 Aug 2010, 2:20, closed)

It doesn't "frost my cookies" at all.
Perhaps religion motivated the scientific revolution. It doesn't follow from that that the two are in any way compatible. Even at the point of motivation, the methodologies are mutually exclusive.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 9:45, closed)

If you agree that religion gave rise to what we now understand as science, and accept that many fine scientists - historical and current - have chosen to follow a religion - you're on rather shaky ground by declaring the two 'incompatible'. Clearly, a great many people who have made genuine advances to science have thought otherwise, and lived their lives accordingly.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 10:51, closed)

No shaky ground at all.
It's plain that anyone can separate what they do during working hours from what they believe outside. But the point remains that you can't do decent science (or anything else, for that matter - the same applies for the humanities to at least some extent) at the same time as being religious. The two simply don't belong in the same thought process.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 18:32, closed)

I honestly don't think they clock in at 9am and mutter 'right, I'm not going to be religious for the working day'. As I understand things, it's more of a means by which one lives one's life. Joe Q. Scientist attempting to cure cancer can, and probably does, achieve some very good, reproducable, scientific results whilst asking guindance from, and giving thanks to, his invisible friend. He might even cite said friend as his motivation for trying to help out his fellow humans, on scientifically-flimsy grounds such as 'love thy neighbour', or similar. It might not form a crucial part of the work he does, but his religion is still going to be there in the room with him as he goes about he serious business of Science. Which more or less means it's not really that incompatible at all.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Mon 16 Aug 2010, 2:27, closed)

You're right, you don't understand militant atheists.
Very rarely do they target old biddies as opposed to, oh, say for example, the heads of theocracies, fundamentalist lobbyists and any other influential people who try to force their bigotry on everyone else.
(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 11:11, closed)

Nonsense. They take pot-shots at anyone who's decided - for whatever reason - to follow a religion. Very, very rarely to they direct their ire towards the heads of these institutions - how many of the people railing against religion in the comments sections of online fora have troubled themselves to contact the pope? It's simply easier for them to criticise and castigate poor ol' Mrs Timmins.

Test this for yourself. Make a new account, log on, and write 'I live my life as decreed by my god'. If you're right, no-one will question this - instead, they'll write to the head of your church. If I'm right, they'll either try to convert you or, more likely, call you a gullible cunt.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 16:11, closed)

And vulnerable old grannies are very unlikely to be online
thus I stand by my point. :P

On a more serious note, anyone doing anything in any internet forum that goes against the grain of that particular forum is going to get ripped into, so it's not like atheist ones are different to every other forum, ever. Of course religious people in these places are going to get 'pot shots' taken at them; in fact by logging on to such websites they've openly invited it. Even if they are poor, trembling, innocent, fallacious-appeal-to-emotion grannies called Mrs Timmins.
(Falstaff's Spiritual Successor, Mon 16 Aug 2010, 15:17, closed)

I think you used the word "charming"
where you meant to use the phrase "nauseating pointless hippy crap".
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 23:41, closed)

No, no - I found it quite charming. Obviously, I'm not suggesting for the barest hint of a second that it's portraying any deep truth behind the universe - but if you're going to write a short story about a god, this one's really quite well done. It's a nice piece of fiction, a fairly interesting concept, and has very little to do with 'hippies'. If you think you can do better, by all means, knock yourself out.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 16:13, closed)

I don't have to do better
any more than I have to be a baker to see that the cake is burned.

Look: if you really want panpsychism, read Spinoza, caught beautifully in his own trap. Read Kant in his flinty, cold magnificence. If you must, read Schopenhauer, who took started with Kant and ended with Buddha. They'll all give you a decent intellectual workout. The garbage in your link won't.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 22:00, closed)

I read plenty of philosophy, thanks - at degree level, no less. I enjoyed some (particularly Nietzche - depserately unfashionable for genuine philosophers, as I understand, but he struck me as a very bright man), other bits bored be to tears (Kant). None of it left me so jaded that I'd judge a well-crafted piece on its subject matter.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 23:07, closed)

But it's not even well-crafted!
Forget the content: the writing is teenage.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 9:49, closed)

There is no reason at all to believe that a deity exists, let alone created anything.
You're falling into the trap of thinking that, because we don't know the reason that the universe began, deities are a legitimate hypothesis. They aren't, any more than they're a legitimate hypothesis to explain anything else we don't understand.

Besides: if you go for the deity claim, you still have to explain where the deity came from. Either it was created by another deity, and it by a third, and so on forever (in which case, there can have been no starting point, and therefore the universe would never have begun), or it was self-created ex nihilo. But if one entity - a deity - can self create, then why can't any other? Why not a universe?

None of this is new. Hume did it all in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion 300 years ago.

Science is doing a pretty good job of explaining how the universe works. It's not got the full picture, and perhaps it never will, but it's made impressive inroads on the problem. As TWC mentions above, though, once you run the clock back to a certain point a fraction of a second after the big bang, things get very messy. But so what? That doesn't legitimise throwing in any old explanation.

As for the big question behind all this - what it was that got the universe as we know it running - I'm tempted to get Wittgenstinian here and just insist that it's a non-question. So we should stop asking it.

EDIT FOR CLARITY, 14.viii.10, 11:30 - By the non-question thing, I mean this: imagine that someone gives an account of what happened at the big bang; it's possible for someone else to ask what caused that. Now imagine that this question is answered; but it can be asked again straightaway: but what caused that? And so it goes on, forever. There is no way the open question can be satisfactorily answered - not just because of the limits of science, but in principle. But a question that can't be answered satisfactorily as a matter of principle is a non-question.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 13 Aug 2010, 23:38, closed)

Utter bollocks. I'm not falling into any such trap, on account of not personally subscribing to any religion, and being 100% in the 'science' camp (my undergraduate degree incorporated a great deal of evolutionary theory, and I never saw any particular reason to invoke gardens, apples, snakes and so forth). My point - which you have conspicuously missed - is simply that it is not my place (or yours, for that matter) to evangelise.

People do not 'have to explain' where their deity comes from, should they wish to believe in one; that's asking them to rationalise the irrational. "I don't give a shit if it makes any sense, this is what I choose to beleive, and this is how I choose to live" is a perfectly valid position: there's no rule mandating that we all have to be rational, scientific, and logical - and if someone chooses not to be, if they're happy lying to themselves to gain a little comfort - that's pretty much up to them.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 16:21, closed)

You say:
"I don't give a shit if it makes any sense, this is what I choose to beleive, and this is how I choose to live" is a perfectly valid position

That's exactly what I deny. The position that you've described makes no distinction between the well-founded and the ill-founded account; it's complaisant, giving no credit to rigour, analysis, or sound argument, and - I fear - deeply undesirable for that reason.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 22:06, closed)

A non-question as a matter of principle?
Two fallacies for the price of one. Define a matter of principle. Are you saying that even addressing this issue is morally redundant or even inappropriate? Deeming it a non-question is an insult to the many remarkable minds, Hume included, who have poured their energies into addressing it - regardless of the conclusions they ultimately drew. The questions that cannot be answered satisfactorily are the greatest questions of all and form the basis and continuing catalyst for a school of thought known as ...philosophy. You may be familiar with some it.

If you go for the deity claim, as in plumping for the omnipotent creator option, then one of the possibilities you have to entertain is that there is a God whose existence is unfettered by space and time and thus never began, never sprang "ex nihilo" but rather has always been and will always continue to be.

As for 'throwing in any old explanation' for the big bang, I see only two possibilities available: Either it just happened or it was made to happen. Both perfectly, and I would argue equally, legitimate hypotheses.

Science has indeed done a pretty good job of providing us with insight into how things work, but some of our finest quantum physicists now see intelligence as they grapple with superstring theory. Why not drop the Hume and the Wittgenstein and read Michio Kaku and perhaps a bit of Meister Eckhart instead.

As for God, I'm not decided; I'm still enjoying the journey. Yours is already over.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Sat 14 Aug 2010, 22:21, closed)

Eh?
Are you saying that even addressing this issue is morally redundant or even inappropriate? Um... no. There's no moral claim here. It's simply to point out that the question won't admit of a satisfactory answer.

Deeming it a non-question is an insult to the many remarkable minds, Hume included, who have poured their energies into addressing it - regardless of the conclusions they ultimately drew. No it isn't - and, anyway, there's no rule that says that remarkable minds can't make mistakes and oughtn't to have those mistakes pointed out.

you have to entertain is that there is a God whose existence is unfettered by space and time and thus never began, never sprang "ex nihilo" but rather has always been and will always continue to be. But that won't tell us anything about the universe; and, as I (and Hume) said, if one thing can be eternal and without beginning, why not the universe. (Also, I'd dispute on Kantian grounds the coherence of an entity that never began but still is.)

and read Michio Kaku and perhaps a bit of Meister Eckhart instead. Well, Kaku is without doubt an interesting physicist; but unless you think that metaphysics is reducible to physics, it's unclear why that's important. As for Eckhart: why? What would medievalism add to the debate?

My claim here, incidentally, has not been that there is no god: it's that there's no reason to believe in any such thing. Maybe you missed that blindingly obvious distinction.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Aug 2010, 9:55, closed)

Re: 'Eh?'
Girlfriend, by using the phrase “a matter of principle,” you imply a moral framework from which that principle was derived. Sounds like a moral claim to me. Hope you’re OK with the whole girlfriend thing btw. I’m experimenting with more intimate forms of address. You may reciprocate if you wish.

To brand any question a "non-question" simply because you believe it will not “admit of a satisfactory answer” is just weak, weak, weak, honey. Satisfaction is in the heart, mind and eye of the beholder. Unless of course by satisfactory you mean accurate to the point of standing up to remorseless scientific scrutiny, in which case you might as well write off all but the most simplistic and utilitarian philosophic enquiry as pointless navel-gazing. There’ll never be consensus on the matter. For every Aquinas who finds meaning in a search for God there’s a Sartre who doesn’t.

I mentioned Kaku because he’s an example of an individual at the cutting edge of scientific enquiry, which you cite as doing a good job of explaining the universe, who would absolutely refute your/Hume’s argument. He finds reason to believe in a creator; it inspires and informs his work. And, treasure, I don’t think metaphysics is reducible to physics but you know as well as I do that, at the quantum level at least, the two have unavoidably overlapped for the best part of a century.

As for Meister Eckhart, he’s only a mediaevalist in the sense that he happened to be born in the middle ages. He also happens to be a personal hero of mine. I suggested you read him because I wanted to give you another dose of nauseating hippy crap. Here, try this: “All God wants of man is a peaceful heart.”

I read your posts and I wonder whether they stem from sheer intellectual vanity or from a genuine desire to engage and enlighten. I mean, what’s behind all the posturing? Your heart seems far from peaceful. Can we put you on the couch, sweetie?
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 13:04, closed)

Is it me...
Or do Enzyme and Happy Phantom kinda hate each other?
(Sir Itchalot has a very self-referential signature, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 14:54, closed)

I don't know.
Maybe it's just highly charged mass-debating!

Although I'm bound to say that HP's style of argument is certainly less waring, less pretentious and less gleefully self-regarding than Enzyme's.

Thank goodness I'm lucky enough to have had a classical education otherwise I'd have to constantly refer to google just to engage.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Tue 17 Aug 2010, 15:15, closed)