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, 2 replies)

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)