Atheism, Agnosticism and Deism
This is a continuation of Jim's questions on "why Deism?" When we last left off, we were discussing whether or not atheism has any assumptions about the universe. Atheism is, by definition, a lack of belief in something not proven so how does this carry any assumptions? Is this any different from my lack of belief in Jesus because there's insufficient reason to believe in Jesus?
Before I answer that, can we review a few facts and see if we agree on them?
1. The universe exists.
2. Science currently believes there was a "creation" some 13.5 billion years ago.
3. The universe continues to expand, casting serious doubts on the "closed universe" theory. This theory would have the universe going through cycles of big bangs and big crunches.
Ergo, there was a creation. The question is whether there was any intelligence behind it or whether it happened by good fortune.
While most atheists will avoid stating with any certainty that the universe happened on its own, this is treated as the default assumption barring proof to the contrary (see the distinctions between "soft atheism" and "strong atheism"). The agnostic doesn't answer the question, citing insufficient data. The deist is obviously inclined toward the former but we don't know much about that intelligence.
Do you understand, Jim, why there's a difference between believing in a First Cause of the universe vs. say, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Jesus or elves?
What? You don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot or elves?
I catagorize belifs into physical, metaphysical and pataphysical.
Physical beliefs are based on what we can observe, these ideas can be proven or disproven with science.
Metaphysical beliefs aren't based on emperical evidence, and as such should be taken less seriously, but not neglected altogether. These ideas should be abonded or adopted based on preference and merit.
Pataphysical beliefs that defy physical ideas, and often conflict with themselves. These ideas can be amusing, but have no practical aplication. If adopted these ideas can be dangerous.
Example of a Pataphysical belief: The resurrection story of Jesus?
Well the whole resurrection story of Jesus is composed of many ideas of all kinds. But I think you already know all the ways it is internally inconsistent. Honestly if there is a god, why would an omniscient infinite being do something it would later change it's mind about (punishing humans with sin) by taking the form of a spirit to impregnate a woman with himself to kill in 30 years in order to appease itself?
I personally don't find the lochness monster or big foot to be 'that' unlikely. We have primate relatives all over the planet. There used to be plenty of enormous aquatic reptiles. We are always finding new species, and we are always wiping some out. So I keep an open mind on that maybe people did make such sightings.
I also keep an open mind about elves and spiritual entities in general.
Here is my take:
1- The laws of conservation of mass and energy predict that all matter and energy in the universe are without beginning or end.
2- Einstine figured out that matter and energy are equavalant (E=MC2)
3- Quantum physics tells us that all matter at the atomic layer exists as a potential (or wave) and only upon "observation" takes on a particular form in space and time.
Conclusion: The universe is eternal and we as human beings through our abiltiy to "observe" are fortunate enough to be apart of it.
John, I disagree emphatically that there has to have been a creation event as an origin to the universe. Not only do I disagree with your choice of the word "creation" but also the notion that the universe had to have a beginning at all. No cosmologist that I am aware of would state that the universe MUST HAVE had a beginning. The notion of a creator is merely begging the question. Alan Guth would argue that even if the universe did have a time zero, that there is no point in even discussing anything previous to time zero as all laws were also set into motion at the point. Mario Kaku would probably state the possibility of the eternal multiverse without beginning or end. ALL cosmologists would agree we don't know and probably just leave the idea to conjecture and poetic musings.
John, I do not see any HUGE difference between believing in the Loch Ness Monster and the creation of the universe. If you want to raise the question which is more probable, creation or some naturalistic cause, well . . . I think that is just an appeal to the god of the gaps. Ultimately for this to ever be in the realm of science, god would have to be a naturalistic force which with understanding would lose any resemblance to or right to be labeled "god" at all.
My ignorance has forced my intellect to say "I don't know", but not knowing is not where I stop . . . not knowing something demands me to investigate and clearly this is not something even possible of investigating. If I can not know and can not find out an answer, there is simply no reason to believe or invent a belief to stand in the place of ignorance. I still understand "Deism" to be a placeholder of ignorance.
I look forward to your reply,
-Jim
By "creation", I mean the big bang, the birth of the universe as we know it. No cosmologist? I'm under the impression, especially from the NASA articles I read and referenced in the research for God vs. the Bible, that the Big Bang and circa 13.5 billion years is fairly well accepted, if with some rival theories. Last I read, prior to my research for GvtB, is that scientists abandoned the "closed universe" theory. The "open universe" theory seems to acknowledge that there was indeed a beginning. Are we tripping up on some kind of semantic distinction here?
I note the qualifier "huge", with all caps emphasis no less. Are we at least coming to a better understanding of one another?
The only qualities required to meet the definition of "God" would be (1) sentient, (2) powerful enough to get the ball rolling and (3) did so. Whether or not a being could meet that criteria and still be "natural" is up for grabs. Our technology might be considered magical to a more primitive time. The technology we may yet discover, to terraform worlds or create artificial life, would be the stuff of gods.
How do we know there was a "Beginning" and what was there before the 'Beginning?"
Brooklyn
It is pure speculation to guess what happened--if anything--before the big bang. Wth the remote possibility of one exception, I know of no way to know anything about who-or what occured before hand. The remote exception is supersymmetry, but I am not current or competent enough on my physics to elaborate.
My belief in God is based on Occam's Razor and my (amittedly limited) understandidng of the fine-tuning of the universe.
I have belief, but not knowledge, in God-that makes me a Deist
I think the certain knowledge of God is unattainable, that also makes me an agnostic.
The second law of thermodynamics says heat and energy move from areas of higher concentration to areas with lower concentration. That means that things break down. The universe will end in the near-infinite future when all matter is evenly displaced and the temperature everywhere is uniform. The process that drives this is called entropy. When the universe gets to that point, nothing will change, so time will stop. All life will be long dead by then, so we won't mind.
Who "fine-tuned" God?
I can't fathom how Occam's Razor can be used to justify belief in God, deistic or otherwise. If I have the option of a universe evolving from essentially the four forces of nature, matter/energy, and space-time on the one hand, and the other option of all of that PLUS an intelligent and no doubt complex being that created those basic components, how is choosing the one that contains the most assumptions and the greater complexity in accordance with Occam's Razor?