The Atheism/Agnosticism Thread

Do you think God exists?


  • Total voters
    253

Two Minutes To Midnight

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2022
Messages
302
Likes
1,881
Country flag
If God made us, What made him
Was He/it Pre existing?
Was he before creation or a Product of creation?
The Universe certainly needs a cause to exist. But why think that every mind must have a cause for its existence? There doesn’t seem to be any logical contradiction in thinking that a mind could have existed forever, especially if it is a perfect, divine mind that exists timelessly and without change. On the contrary, there does seem to be a contradiction in saying that something could begin to exist without a cause.

Every mind we know is also a human mind, but that wouldn’t show there are no minds that are not human, like aliens or God. We can imagine fairly easily other minds existing that are not human (fiction writers have been doing this for millennia), but we really can’t do the same and imagine something coming from nothing.

Remember that the first cause of the universe was responsible for the existence of space and time; this means that this cause must also be immune to the restrictions of space and time (that is, be immaterial and eternal). This means the first cause could not be a mere material object (like an alien).

Also, to create the universe as we know it today would require a being of considerable power and intelligence. Especially intelligent, because it created a universe with a precise balance of conditions that are favorable to life.

Or is the Universe itself is "God"
No, rather God caused the Universe to exist.

He would obviously define it in Relative Terms, isn't that a Given?
It is the only way we can define things which cannot be Quantified, it is by using relative reasoning
No, but how would he even define something as evil based on the atheistic worldview? If we're all just stuff, just all a bag of chemicals and atoms, our ancestors were fish, and there is nothing more to us than that, there is no God, no absolute standard to measure something, no ultimate standard of good then how would they even call something evil?

It's just, whatever happens just happens, there's nothing we ought to do, there is no real basis for moral indignation at anything.
 

mokoman

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
4,701
Likes
27,316
Country flag
The Universe certainly needs a cause to exist. But why think that every mind must have a cause for its existence? There doesn’t seem to be any logical contradiction in thinking that a mind could have existed forever, especially if it is a perfect, divine mind that exists timelessly and without change. On the contrary, there does seem to be a contradiction in saying that something could begin to exist without a cause.

Every mind we know is also a human mind, but that wouldn’t show there are no minds that are not human, like aliens or God. We can imagine fairly easily other minds existing that are not human (fiction writers have been doing this for millennia), but we really can’t do the same and imagine something coming from nothing.

Remember that the first cause of the universe was responsible for the existence of space and time; this means that this cause must also be immune to the restrictions of space and time (that is, be immaterial and eternal). This means the first cause could not be a mere material object (like an alien).

Also, to create the universe as we know it today would require a being of considerable power and intelligence. Especially intelligent, because it created a universe with a precise balance of conditions that are favorable to life.



No, rather God caused the Universe to exist.



No, but how would he even define something as evil based on the atheistic worldview? If we're all just stuff, just all a bag of chemicals and atoms, our ancestors were fish, and there is nothing more to us than that, there is no God, no absolute standard to measure something, no ultimate standard of good then how would they even call something evil?

It's just, whatever happens just happens, there's nothing we ought to do, there is no real basis for moral indignation at anything.
Also, to create the universe as we know it today would require a being of considerable power and intelligence. Especially intelligent, because it created a universe with a precise balance of conditions that are favorable to life.

there could have been many universes , maybe infinite . we are in this one , cause its the only one that can cause life.

just like there are trillions of planets , only handful will have conditions to create life . doesnt mean those handful planets were created by a intelligent being .

IMHO , there is no god . ancient people worshipped lighting as a god , because they didn't understand it . as science progress maybe in a 100 years . god will no longer be needed to explain existence.
 

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
8,296
Likes
50,518
Country flag
Also, to create the universe as we know it today would require a being of considerable power and intelligence. Especially intelligent, because it created a universe with a precise balance of conditions that are favorable to life.

there could have been many universes , maybe infinite . we are in this one , cause its the only one that can cause life.

just like there are trillions of planets , only handful will have conditions to create life . doesnt mean those handful planets were created by a intelligent being .

IMHO , there is no god . ancient people worshipped lighting as a god , because they didn't understand it . as science progress maybe in a 100 years . god will no longer be needed to explain existence.
Bhārat was Home to some very wild n1ggers back in the day

Screenshot_20220628-083436~2.png
 

Two Minutes To Midnight

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2022
Messages
302
Likes
1,881
Country flag
there could have been many universes
Why is there an universe at all? According to the atheistic worldview, it might have been true that nothing ever existed: no minds, no atoms, no space. When we imagine this possibility, it can seem astonishing that anything exists. Why is there a universe?

Imagine I showed you an object like a fork and you asked me where it came from. What if I responded, “Nowhere; it has just always existed.” I highly doubt you would say, “That’s really cool” and then ignore it. Wouldn’t you want an explanation as to why it had existed for so long? Why it even exists at all? Why it is a fork and not a spoon?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

maybe infinite
Even those infinite universes would need a cause to exist, and there can't be an infinite regress of causes.

we are in this one , cause its the only one that can cause life.
How? Just sheer dumb luck?

just like there are trillions of planets , only handful will have conditions to create life
You know of any more than Earth?

doesnt mean those handful planets were created by a intelligent being .
Is that so?

There are six universal physical constants and conditions that, if altered by even a fraction of a percent, would eliminate any possibility of intelligent life evolving in our universe. Here are a few of them:

Weak gravitational force: Although gravity may seem like a very strong force because of its ability to hold all of us on the earth, in comparison to the other forces in nature, it is extremely weak. Gravity is 1036 times weaker than competing forces within atoms. The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for if it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.

If gravity were stronger, stars would burn out very quickly and the planets that orbited them would be tiny. Any life form on those planets would be crushed if it were larger than an insect, thus making the evolution of intelligent life almost impossible. Only the middle ground, where the expansion and the gravitational strength balance to within one part in 1015 (or one part in a quadrillion) at one second after the big bang, allows life to form.

Strong nuclear force: The strong nuclear force is what contains the protons inside atoms. Take two magnets and try to touch the positive ends of each magnet together. They repel, right? It requires strength to get them to touch. Much the same way, the protons in an atom have a positive charge, so we would expect them to fly away from each other. But the strong force holds them together.

So why does this force need to be fine-tuned? If the strong force was two percent weaker, then hydrogen atoms would repel one another, and there would only be hydrogen atoms in the universe. But if the strong force was two percent stronger, then all of the hydrogen atoms would quickly attach to one another, and there would just be helium.

Without free hydrogen you can’t make atoms like H20, or water. This would make life’s existence highly unlikely, if not impossible. The density of matter in the universe: In the first seconds of the universe’s existence, matter could not have differed in density by more than one part in one quadrillion. If matter were more dense (or if the matter were more “crowded together”), there would have been a “big crunch” that collapsed the universe.

If matter were less dense (or more spread out), it would have kept the galaxies from forming as the universe rapidly expanded. Without galaxies there would not be stars or planets and presumably there would not be any life.

The expansion rate of the universe: The cosmological constant represents the strength of gravity in an empty vacuum of space. This constant also controls how fast the universe expands. Once thought to be zero, this constant is actually fine-tuned to the 120th power—a decimal point with 199 zeros and a one. In other words, the constant could have been 10120 times larger than a life-permitting value, and so there needs to be an explanation for the constant’s incredibly small, yet non-zero value.

A non-religious scientist, Alexander Vilenkin writes:

"A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty. . . . This is the most notorious and perplexing case of fine-tuning in physics."

String theorist Leonard Susskind, a non-religious scientist, as is Vilenkin, writes in his article, “Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant” that unless this constant was fine-tuned, “statistically miraculous events” would be needed for our universe to be life-permitting. He suggests that, in light of this, it is possible that an unknown agent set the early conditions of the universe we observe today.

The low level of entropy (or disorder) after the Big Bang: Why was the universe not simply at a high level of entropy at the beginning of time? Imagine pouring a bucket of billiard balls onto a standard pool table. It would be unlikely, almost impossible, for the balls to assemble into an initial rack formation after being randomly poured, since there are just so many more possibilities of being disordered than there are of being ordered.

The same is true for the arrangement of thermal energy just after the Big Bang. Using a calculation based on the universe’s potential entropy, coupled with the unlikeliness of such a huge universe smoothly expanding from the primordial Big Bang, Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of our universe having such low disorder at the beginning of time are 1 in 1010^123 power. This number is so large that if you wrote out all the zeroes it would stretch across the galaxy.

You’re more likely to win 10,000 lotteries in a row and get struck by lightning every time you won than you would be to find a universe with low disorder at its beginning. Atheist John Loftus agrees with the reality of fine-tuning, and while citing the work of other physicists, he writes:

These examples can be multiplied, but the point is that “with a change in any one of a number of factors,” the “universe would have evolved as a lifeless, unconscious entity.” Don Page of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, calculated the odds against the formulation of our universe. His exact computation was 10,000,000,000 to the 124th power, a number so large that to call it “astronomical” would be to engage in a wild understatement.

Either it all just happened by chance or it was designed.

God seems more likely.

ancient people worshipped lighting as a god , because they didn't understand it
The fine-tuning argument does not say, “We don’t know what caused this life-permitting universe, therefore it was God.” The fine-tuning argument uses the same inference you would use in a poker game involving a player receiving ten royal flushes in a row. The other players don’t simply tell him, “I don’t know how you got ten royal flushes so you must have cheated.”

They say, “You didn’t have to get those hands (it’s not a trick deck) and you could never have gotten it by chance. Therefore, you ‘designed your victory,’ or you cheated at the game.”

Our knowledge about the world (not our lack of knowledge) points to a designer that exists beyond it. Even the discovery of particles like the Higgs boson (the so-called “God particle”) would not yield an ultimate explanation for the constants of nature. It would merely deepen the mystery.

as science progress maybe in a 100 years . god will no longer be needed to explain existence.
The philosophical arguments from necessity, first cause, design, and morality don’t start from what we don’t know and say, “God must have done it.” Instead, they start from what we do know and conclude that God is the best explanation for certain features of the universe we observe.

For example, the kalam cosmological argument uses philosophical and scientific evidence to demonstrate the nonreligious truth that the universe began to exist from nothing. Then the argument joins that evidence with the philosophical truth “Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.” It follows logically from these two known truths that a cause brought the universe into existence.

An atheist may claim at this point that the theist is saying, “I don’t know how the universe was caused to exist, therefore God did it” and thus is still committing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy. However, the theist doesn’t reason this way. Instead, he reasons about what it means to be a “cause of the universe” and arrives at the conclusion that a being like God is the best answer. This is similar to the reasoning a scientist might use if he discovered the ruins of an ancient civilization on the moon and concluded that aliens
existed.

The theist arrives at the logical conclusion that the cause of space and time cannot be bound by those things, and thus the first cause must have the divine properties of eternal, immaterial existence.

Moreover, The God-of the-gaps objection also seems to commit an equivalent “science-of-the-gaps” fallacy, which presupposes that any question about anything can be filled in with the answer, “Science knows or will know some day.” But this seems to rule out theistic explanations right from the start.

For example, many atheists say they would believe God exists if a priest could perform some publicly verifiable miracle, or if God appeared to everyone on Earth at the same time. But consider the following exchange:

Theist: Look, a giant being proclaiming to be God just resurrected every man named Freddie and caused them all to sing “Don’t Stop me Now’, ’’ by Queen!

Atheist: Well, one day science will be able explain this supposed miracle. Maybe there is a natural principle that explains it, or an alien species that can perform this feat using advanced technology. Ancient people used to be impressed by thunder just as we are impressed by this event. If we say this happened because God did it . . . well . . . that doesn’t explain anything!

Since it is restricted to explaining the natural world, science can’t answer every claim about reality. If there is a supernatural world, it is beyond the means of science to explore it. But if supernatural proofs for God are always dismissed in this way, then no evidence could falsify atheism, and atheism would be as unprovable as the religious beliefs it wants to criticize.
 

mokoman

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
4,701
Likes
27,316
Country flag
Why is there an universe at all? According to the atheistic worldview, it might have been true that nothing ever existed: no minds, no atoms, no space. When we imagine this possibility, it can seem astonishing that anything exists. Why is there a universe?

Imagine I showed you an object like a fork and you asked me where it came from. What if I responded, “Nowhere; it has just always existed.” I highly doubt you would say, “That’s really cool” and then ignore it. Wouldn’t you want an explanation as to why it had existed for so long? Why it even exists at all? Why it is a fork and not a spoon?

Why is there something rather than nothing?



Even those infinite universes would need a cause to exist, and there can't be an infinite regress of causes.



How? Just sheer dumb luck?



You know of any more than Earth?



Is that so?

There are six universal physical constants and conditions that, if altered by even a fraction of a percent, would eliminate any possibility of intelligent life evolving in our universe. Here are a few of them:

Weak gravitational force: Although gravity may seem like a very strong force because of its ability to hold all of us on the earth, in comparison to the other forces in nature, it is extremely weak. Gravity is 1036 times weaker than competing forces within atoms. The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for if it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.

If gravity were stronger, stars would burn out very quickly and the planets that orbited them would be tiny. Any life form on those planets would be crushed if it were larger than an insect, thus making the evolution of intelligent life almost impossible. Only the middle ground, where the expansion and the gravitational strength balance to within one part in 1015 (or one part in a quadrillion) at one second after the big bang, allows life to form.

Strong nuclear force: The strong nuclear force is what contains the protons inside atoms. Take two magnets and try to touch the positive ends of each magnet together. They repel, right? It requires strength to get them to touch. Much the same way, the protons in an atom have a positive charge, so we would expect them to fly away from each other. But the strong force holds them together.

So why does this force need to be fine-tuned? If the strong force was two percent weaker, then hydrogen atoms would repel one another, and there would only be hydrogen atoms in the universe. But if the strong force was two percent stronger, then all of the hydrogen atoms would quickly attach to one another, and there would just be helium.

Without free hydrogen you can’t make atoms like H20, or water. This would make life’s existence highly unlikely, if not impossible. The density of matter in the universe: In the first seconds of the universe’s existence, matter could not have differed in density by more than one part in one quadrillion. If matter were more dense (or if the matter were more “crowded together”), there would have been a “big crunch” that collapsed the universe.

If matter were less dense (or more spread out), it would have kept the galaxies from forming as the universe rapidly expanded. Without galaxies there would not be stars or planets and presumably there would not be any life.

The expansion rate of the universe: The cosmological constant represents the strength of gravity in an empty vacuum of space. This constant also controls how fast the universe expands. Once thought to be zero, this constant is actually fine-tuned to the 120th power—a decimal point with 199 zeros and a one. In other words, the constant could have been 10120 times larger than a life-permitting value, and so there needs to be an explanation for the constant’s incredibly small, yet non-zero value.

A non-religious scientist, Alexander Vilenkin writes:

"A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty. . . . This is the most notorious and perplexing case of fine-tuning in physics."

String theorist Leonard Susskind, a non-religious scientist, as is Vilenkin, writes in his article, “Disturbing Implications of the Cosmological Constant” that unless this constant was fine-tuned, “statistically miraculous events” would be needed for our universe to be life-permitting. He suggests that, in light of this, it is possible that an unknown agent set the early conditions of the universe we observe today.

The low level of entropy (or disorder) after the Big Bang: Why was the universe not simply at a high level of entropy at the beginning of time? Imagine pouring a bucket of billiard balls onto a standard pool table. It would be unlikely, almost impossible, for the balls to assemble into an initial rack formation after being randomly poured, since there are just so many more possibilities of being disordered than there are of being ordered.

The same is true for the arrangement of thermal energy just after the Big Bang. Using a calculation based on the universe’s potential entropy, coupled with the unlikeliness of such a huge universe smoothly expanding from the primordial Big Bang, Oxford physicist Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of our universe having such low disorder at the beginning of time are 1 in 1010^123 power. This number is so large that if you wrote out all the zeroes it would stretch across the galaxy.

You’re more likely to win 10,000 lotteries in a row and get struck by lightning every time you won than you would be to find a universe with low disorder at its beginning. Atheist John Loftus agrees with the reality of fine-tuning, and while citing the work of other physicists, he writes:

These examples can be multiplied, but the point is that “with a change in any one of a number of factors,” the “universe would have evolved as a lifeless, unconscious entity.” Don Page of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, calculated the odds against the formulation of our universe. His exact computation was 10,000,000,000 to the 124th power, a number so large that to call it “astronomical” would be to engage in a wild understatement.

Either it all just happened by chance or it was designed.

God seems more likely.



The fine-tuning argument does not say, “We don’t know what caused this life-permitting universe, therefore it was God.” The fine-tuning argument uses the same inference you would use in a poker game involving a player receiving ten royal flushes in a row. The other players don’t simply tell him, “I don’t know how you got ten royal flushes so you must have cheated.”

They say, “You didn’t have to get those hands (it’s not a trick deck) and you could never have gotten it by chance. Therefore, you ‘designed your victory,’ or you cheated at the game.”

Our knowledge about the world (not our lack of knowledge) points to a designer that exists beyond it. Even the discovery of particles like the Higgs boson (the so-called “God particle”) would not yield an ultimate explanation for the constants of nature. It would merely deepen the mystery.



The philosophical arguments from necessity, first cause, design, and morality don’t start from what we don’t know and say, “God must have done it.” Instead, they start from what we do know and conclude that God is the best explanation for certain features of the universe we observe.

For example, the kalam cosmological argument uses philosophical and scientific evidence to demonstrate the nonreligious truth that the universe began to exist from nothing. Then the argument joins that evidence with the philosophical truth “Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.” It follows logically from these two known truths that a cause brought the universe into existence.

An atheist may claim at this point that the theist is saying, “I don’t know how the universe was caused to exist, therefore God did it” and thus is still committing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy. However, the theist doesn’t reason this way. Instead, he reasons about what it means to be a “cause of the universe” and arrives at the conclusion that a being like God is the best answer. This is similar to the reasoning a scientist might use if he discovered the ruins of an ancient civilization on the moon and concluded that aliens
existed.

The theist arrives at the logical conclusion that the cause of space and time cannot be bound by those things, and thus the first cause must have the divine properties of eternal, immaterial existence.

Moreover, The God-of the-gaps objection also seems to commit an equivalent “science-of-the-gaps” fallacy, which presupposes that any question about anything can be filled in with the answer, “Science knows or will know some day.” But this seems to rule out theistic explanations right from the start.

For example, many atheists say they would believe God exists if a priest could perform some publicly verifiable miracle, or if God appeared to everyone on Earth at the same time. But consider the following exchange:

Theist: Look, a giant being proclaiming to be God just resurrected every man named Freddie and caused them all to sing “Don’t Stop me Now’, ’’ by Queen!

Atheist: Well, one day science will be able explain this supposed miracle. Maybe there is a natural principle that explains it, or an alien species that can perform this feat using advanced technology. Ancient people used to be impressed by thunder just as we are impressed by this event. If we say this happened because God did it . . . well . . . that doesn’t explain anything!

Since it is restricted to explaining the natural world, science can’t answer every claim about reality. If there is a supernatural world, it is beyond the means of science to explore it. But if supernatural proofs for God are always dismissed in this way, then no evidence could falsify atheism, and atheism would be as unprovable as the religious beliefs it wants to criticize.
best explanation is universe is going in a infinite loop , there a big bang explosion , galaxies form , planets form , life exists , this thread exist , we argue . universe keeps on expanding , then dies in what people call 'heat death' , then contracts , then explodes again .

each cycle has a different set of physical constants and rules - things u listed . there is no luck involved, because there was infinite universes , we only exist in this one , because its one where we can exist . there could have been others in past . since we cant see past the big bang there would be no way of knowing .

this loop can exist for same reason god can exist , there is no beginning or end . so no one has to create it .
IMHO we dont need god to justify existence.
 
Last edited:

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
8,296
Likes
50,518
Country flag
In this Sanskrit movie(at 1:25:02) Adi Shankaracharya explains how we are born from Panchabhutas
o_O
Profound

Beautiful Narration

Just one doubt though

He says we are born of the Panchabutha
How is Soma(moon) included in our building Block (Adi Shankaracharya quotes Upanishads for this)
 

tribendra bisoi.

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
258
Likes
1,099
There is school of Hinduism advaitabada ( non duality ) which seems to be popular these days . It focus on making your self aware of the consciousness separated from objective world .

In buddhism also not so much focus on existence or non existence God but its more about philosophy to life , making you aware about the sunya ( would recommend vipasana meditation ) .

Then there is yoga school in hindusim which balances your body mind .

Now God may or may not exist . But these philosophies , mental physical activities have profound impact upon the mental physical state and tour brain chemistry . I wld not say this if i had not experienced .
 

Vamsi

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
2,247
Likes
14,438
Country flag
o_O
Profound

Beautiful Narration

Just one doubt though

He says we are born of the Panchabutha
How is Soma(moon) included in our building Block (Adi Shankaracharya quotes Upanishads for this)
Generally Soma means moon, but here I guess it is Soma plant used in Yajnas as mentioned in Rigveda & Yajurveda.
 

Tactical Doge

𝕱𝖔𝖔𝖑𝖘 𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍 𝖆𝖓𝖉 𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑𝖘 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖗
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2019
Messages
8,296
Likes
50,518
Country flag
First time hearing about "Jinasena Mahapurana".
Jinasena is the person's name, Mahapurana is the scripture
The very same Verse was quoted by Carl Sagan in cosmos the original series
 
Last edited:

Two Minutes To Midnight

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2022
Messages
302
Likes
1,881
Country flag
best explanation is universe is going in a infinite loop
Nope, the infinite explantion doesn't work.

Imagine a calendar stretching back in time forever. Time moves through the calendar one day at a time (it’s more precise to say one event at a time, but days will suffice for our discussion). If the universe had existed forever, then there would have been an infinite number of days before today. But how could time have reached this present moment if it had to traverse an infinite number of previous days to get here?

If there were an infinite number of days before today, then there would always be “one more day” in history for time to move through, and today could never happen.

Here’s another example that illustrates this concept. Let’s say your Uncle Bill owns a flower shop. Each day Bill counts all his flowers, and only after he counts each one will he open his flower shop for business. Now, if Bill has only a dozen flowers to count, he will open up the shop pretty quickly. But if he has a million or a billion flowers to count, then it will take him much longer before he can open the shop.

But even if he has a trillion flowers to count, eventually enough time will pass and the shop will open after Bill finished counting them (that is, if Bill has enough coffee to keep him awake). But imagine that Bill has an infinite number of flowers he needs to count. Remember, he still has to count all of them before he can open the shop. How long will it take before he’s able to open the shop?

Well, because there would always be at least one more flower to count, Bill could never finish her task. This means that the shop could never open. But if you went to the shop and saw an “OPEN” sign on the door, then that would tell you that Uncle Bill did not have an infinite number of flowers to count. The fact that today is happening is like the flower shop’s being open. Neither could happen if an infinite number of days (or flowers being counted) had to occur first.

Therefore, the past is not infinite, and the universe had a beginning. Even the skeptic David Hume admitted this: “An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit it.”

But maybe infinity is something we don’t really understand, so that is why the infinite flower shop doesn’t make sense. Fortunately, modern set theory developed by the mathematician Georg Cantor allows us to do mathematical operations with infinite quantities; but it does not show us how these infinite quantities could exist in the real world. According to mathematicians Edward Kasner and James Newman,

“the infinite certainly does not exist in the same sense that we say, ‘There are fish in the sea.’ . . . ‘Existence’ in the mathematical sense is wholly different from the existence of objects in th physical world.”

there a big bang explosion , galaxies form , planets form , life exists
Because it was caused to exist by something. Everything that came to exist has to have an explanation, and there is no plausible one except God.

universe keeps on expanding , then dies in what people call 'heat death' , then contracts , then explodes again .
I don't think you really understand what heat death is.

I'm sure you're aware of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy always tend toward disorder (or what scientists call entropy). The second law explains why striking billiard balls with a pool cue never results in the balls rearranging themselves into the standard rack formation. Such behavior would violate the universe’s tendency to always move toward disorder and decay.

You especially see the second law of thermodynamics at work in heat reactions. For example, have you ever taken dinner out of the oven, gotten ready to take that first delicious bite, but then get interrupted by a phone call? After the call, you sit down to eat, only to find that your dinner is cold.

Why does your dinner get cold over time? Why doesn’t it stay warm, or get warmer? According to the second law, all systems move toward disorder and as a result, everything, including heat and energy, moves toward equilibrium. This tendency causes your hot dinner to get cold and the room to get a tiny bit warmer until the two objects are at the same temperature. The second law also applies to the universe as a whole.

Eventually, all the stars will burn out or explode until there is a thin mist of atoms spread throughout the universe at absolute zero, the coldest temperature anything can be. Scientists have a name for this future condition: heat death. There can be no contraction or explosion possible after this, unlike the Big Bang which happened due to a very particular set of conditions and environment.

While some physicists claim that the total amount of entropy in our universe may be larger than originally thought, they generally agree the observable universe is not at maximum entropy. If it were, it would be highly unlikely that you could even be reading this, since entropy increases with all of the biological processes associated with activities like reading. Indeed, because conscious life requires entropy, this means, in the words of physicists Lawrence Krauss and Glenn Starkmann, “[L]ife cannot endure forever.”

But if the universe has existed forever, why haven’t the stars in the universe already burned out? Why hasn’t heat death already happened?

Think of a flashlight. If you see a flashlight that is dead, it could have been sitting there for all eternity. But if the flashlight is shining, then you know it could not have been shining forever, because the batteries would have run out a long time ago.

Likewise, think of the whole universe as having energy and “shining” like the flashlight. If the universe had existed for all eternity, then all of the energy in the universe, like the energy in stars or planets, would have been used up and the universe would be like a dead flashlight—cold, dark, and lifeless. If God does not intervene, then heat death will happen billions of years from now. But if the universe were eternal, heat death should have already occurred.

According to the physicist P.C.W. Davies, “[T]he universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist.”

Maybe there is an unknown exception to the second law of thermodynamics that allows for an increase in order and energy even though the universe is eternal? This is very unlikely, because the second law of thermodynamics is one of the best attested laws in physics. Sir Arthur Eddington, an early twentieth-century physicist, wrote:

"If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."

because there was infinite universes
Except there aren't. According to the second law of thermodynamics all physical systems move toward disorder and decay. If the universe had been eternal, everything in the universe (including biological life and objects like the sun) would have run out of energy a long time ago. But there still is energy, so the universe must be of finite age.

The evidence from science seems to suggest that all matter and energy originated from a single point about 13 billion years ago called the Big Bang.

The past can’t be eternal, even if there was another universe that existed before the Big Bang. For example, if there were an infinite number of days before today, then time could never reach the present moment. But since today did happen, this shows that time must be finite and so the universe had a beginning.

Even if infinite universes did exist, they would still need a cause, and there can't be an infinite regress of causes.

we only exist in this one
How? Why? By design or just by chance?

because its one where we can exist
How is this the only one where we can exist? How was it fine-tuned through impossible odds to make life possible and by whom?

there could have been others in past
Could have suggests it's your guess, doesn't count for much.

since we cant see past the big bang there would be no way of knowing .
Yeah, because time and space started with the Big Bang. Before that, the physical quantities and constants didn't exist. Your multiverse infinite universes cannot stand scrutiny for the same reason.

The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those infinite Big bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis.

The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained—eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.

this loop can exist for same reason god can exist , there is no beginning or end . so no one has to create it .
I addressed this before, let's do it again.

The cosmological argument never says that everything requires a cause. It only claims that everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence. Since we have good reasons to believe that the universe began to exist (Big Bang cosmology, impossibility of infinite days before today, lack of maximum entropy), then the universe requires an explanation for why it exists.

God, on the other hand, never began to exist because he is eternal (he created time itself), and therefore God requires no cause for his existence. He has always existed; but the universe has not always existed.

It cannot be disputed that the universe began to exist. And whatever begins to exist has to have a cause or a creator.

IMHO we dont need god to justify existence.
You haven't provided a plausible and scientific alternative otherwise. God designing the Universe and humans is the most believable explanation.

Also, under your atheistic worldview, it really seems impossible to herald anything as good or bad. What gives you the right to stop someone from raping or murdering or cheating others? We are all just insignificant bags of atoms stuck in an infinite loop with no greater good or moral standard. Just a bag of chemicals stuck in a loop that will eventually destruct, so it doesn't matter what someone does to another in this life. Whatever happens just happens and has been happening since time immemorial.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
10,517
Likes
64,543
Country flag
Even those infinite universes would need a cause to exist, and there can't be an infinite regress of causes.
This whole debate of atheism is nonsensical in our culture. We always have had historically the Sanatanis who had accepted only the Pratyaksh Pramana like Charvaka and those who have accepted Apratyaksh Pramanas as well.
 

Two Minutes To Midnight

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 30, 2022
Messages
302
Likes
1,881
Country flag
This whole debate of atheism is nonsensical in our culture. We always have had historically the Sanatanis who had accepted only the Pratyaksh Pramana like Charvaka and those who have accepted Apratyaksh Pramanas as well.
Yeah, but the thing is, there are a lot of big-brained militant atheists nowadays (not saying anyone here is) who always harp, "MUHHHH I BELIEBE IN MUHHH SCOINCE!!! ALL RELIGIONS ARE UNSCIENTIFIC!!! ATHEISM IS SCIENTIFIC!!!"

Whereas even the most basic science discussion proves the stupidity of their worldview, so it's always fun to debunk atheism using scientific arguments itself, leaving them no room to run.
 

asaffronladoftherisingsun

Dharma Dispatcher
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
10,517
Likes
64,543
Country flag
Yeah, but the thing is, there are a lot of big-brained militant atheists nowadays (not saying anyone here is) who always harp, "MUHHHH I BELIEBE IN MUHHH SCOINCE!!! ALL RELIGIONS ARE UNSCIENTIFIC!!! ATHEISM IS SCIENTIFIC!!!"

Whereas even the most basic science discussion proves the stupidity of their worldview, so it's always fun to debunk atheism using scientific arguments itself, leaving them no room to run.
Because logic systems is flawed in non Bhartiya traditions. ‘True’, ‘False’, ‘Both True and False’, and ‘Neither True Nor False’ is what we have. The Vedanta logic is a clear three-valued concept: satya, asatya and mithya, i.e. true, false, and unreal (having shades of both).
 

Megalomaniac

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2019
Messages
96
Likes
312
Country flag
Yeah, but the thing is, there are a lot of big-brained militant atheists nowadays (not saying anyone here is) who always harp, "MUHHHH I BELIEBE IN MUHHH SCOINCE!!! ALL RELIGIONS ARE UNSCIENTIFIC!!! ATHEISM IS SCIENTIFIC!!!"

Whereas even the most basic science discussion proves the stupidity of their worldview, so it's always fun to debunk atheism using scientific arguments itself, leaving them no room to run.
Debunk atheism? 😂😂😂
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top