When one is sceptical about Scepticality

(1/9) > >>

Coenie777 (March 21, 2010, 00:07:40 AM):
I became an atheist due to scepticism. Do I think it should be acceptable to be sceptic from time to time regarding my atheist believes.

I have this one dilemma playing out in my mind the past few days that I either does not have enough time on hand to think through or it may be something worth exploring. Here goes -

If god (not the christian one or any specific one for this argument) if a supreme being was responsible for creation of the universe would he/she/it not have liberty to do it in such a way that all systems work towards his/her/it's ultimate goal of the system created?

If god created this world with the intention that evolution would take over from him at a certain point and continue with the evolution of beings, would that make the creator not omnipotent, or just skillfull in creating a system that would be selfsustaining for as long as he planned.


If god created man with all his body's shortcomings, was it bad "intelligent design" or merely just a clever way to put something into a system that would not be immortal, but will result in a limited life span.


Since there will be a loop in the argument of what created the big bang. A big bang, well then what created that etc. Go back 100 billion big bangs, who created that? You get my point. Something had to set it off. Could this be a supreme being?

Your views please
Rigil Kent (March 21, 2010, 08:13:32 AM):
The thing that does not (or at least should not) sit comfortably with most people that ponder regression to the point of "Who set off the Big Bang?", is that you inevitably end up with a creator of higher complexity than the thing that he sets off. This clearly raises the even bigger problem of how the creator himself got started. This is the old Who-created-the-creator chestnut, but still a very valid question.

I think a possible (if not a tad sneaky) way of replying to this may be to claim that the physical laws governing the singularity prior to the BB is unknown and unknowable. This includes the property of "time" (which I understand only arose somewhere after the BB). So if there was no time, then the existence of the creator can conceivably be divorced from his need to be created. This is of course not testable at all, and pure speculation. Sceptics enjoy indulging in a bit of speculation and philosophy as must as the next person, but have the common sense not to take anything that is in principle untestable too seriously. This is because it is really easy to come up with any amount of clever sounding hypotheses, even contradictory ones. Without being able to test these ideas, one has no way of knowing which are genuine.

So long story short, if there is indeed a creator that is responsible for setting off the universe, we have no evidence for it as yet. Even worse, we have no idea of how to go about looking for this evidence either. This is grounds for placing the creator-idea, at best, in a lower probability-box than the no-creator idea.

What tickles me more, though, is where the creator lived prior to the BB - inside or outside the singularity? I mean, that's one dense piece of real estate...

Mintaka

Coenie777 (March 21, 2010, 10:07:27 AM):
If you depart from the point of saying that the creator (who ever of what ever) was responsible for the big bang, then does it not follow more logically that this creator may have been created by another form of creator? Surely this makes more sense to me or attempts to answer the question in more detail, than to say that the bb was set off by another sequence of bb's. It regress back to who set off the first bb does it not?

For anything to set off a bb that "it" would need to exist outside the singularity.

So far this opened a bigger can of worms for me as your answer appears to shy away from entertaining any alternatives (with respect Mintaka), besides the bb and since time before that did not exist we will never know. The same could be said 100 years ago about the first second after the bb. Yes present day physics still cannot explain anything prior to the bb, but we need to still work towards that. Else we will find ourselves just moving the decimal place further an further along the
first few moments after the bb".

If we therefore have no evidence for a creator, and we cannot tell what happened before the bb, surely we must then all be called agnostic rather than ateiistic? We cannot for certain say then that nothing could have created the universe?
StevoMuso (March 21, 2010, 10:17:58 AM):
Sceptics enjoy indulging in a bit of speculation and philosophy as must as the next person, but have the common sense not to take anything that is in principle untestable too seriously.
What tickles me more, though, is where the creator lived prior to the BB - inside or outside the singularity? I mean, that's one dense piece of real estate...
Mintaka
Wow. Mintaka. This is probably the best and most concise argument for "origins" I have EVER seen. Nice post. Nothing new to add except, "What Mintaka said" :)
Peter Grant (March 21, 2010, 11:21:49 AM):
Not bad! Problem is the God you end up with is brilliant but rather lazy. Whilst I can totally relate to such an entity I think most would have a hard time worshipping it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page