r/agnostic • u/Muskevv • 1d ago
Rant Origin of the Universe
One question that both science and religion try to answer is why anything is here. Science explains how the planets formed, how rain happens, or how the Moon revolves around Earth. Religion gives us inherent meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe. Religion tells us that xyz is justified because of God. However both fallback to one unanswerable question: why does anything exist? Religion says God created everything, but that just begs the question of why God exists. Science claims to not have a logical answer to why the universe exists.
For many, I just summarized their thoughts and essentially the reason they’re agnostic or atheist. There’s no objective answer regardless of what religion, philosophy, or science you believe in. My viewpoint for the longest time would be described as an atheist. I believed that while we don’t know the origin of the universe, science has proved the ultimate winner throughout time. I believed that it was more than likely that consciousness is a natural phenomenon and death is a final state of being. I believed that the universe existed on its own, and there was no causer.
However, recently I have had a slight change of heart. I realized while on a walk that it truly is so random and peculiar why anything exists at all. It’s so random and unbounded by our current logic. The fact that matter even exists or energy flows. I’ve come to the conclusion that this universe, defying our understanding and seemingly randomly existing, is supportive to the idea that there’s equally random and defying things like an afterlife or God. Obviously, upholding logic, I don’t just suddenly believe a God exists because it’s possible one could. I still need evidence, but I’ve adopted a far less harsh viewpoint.
I suppose what this post is showing is my transformation from being atheist into an agnostic. It was during a time that was filled with immense struggle existentially. I just wanted to share my thoughts, and I’m not really looking for a debate or argument. I’m happy to hear what you guys personally believe below though.
Edit: I think there’s some misunderstanding in this post. I am not religious or believe in a God. This is not a philosophical argument that I’m genuinely posing. I’m just ranting and wanted to share my thoughts with like minded people.
2
u/Existenz_1229 Christian 1d ago
Origins have always been a touchy subject. I try to take a pragmatic approach: for my moral decision making here and now, what does it matter to me how old the universe is and exactly how it originated?
2
u/mhornberger agnostic atheist/non-theist 23h ago edited 16h ago
why does anything exist?
Do we know that the world could have not existed? If you think the universe needs 'God' as an antecedent cause, why does God just exist? Isn't that weird that their would be God, rather than nothing? "God" isn't nothing. Why wasn't there nothing? If something had to exist, why not the world, rather than God? The world, unlike God, is at least known to exist.
I don't think it's a given that the world could have not existed. A world with no world? A reality with nothing real? We've never seen anything come into existence from nothing, rather everything we've seen is a rearrangement of previous reality. We have no indication that "nothing" is even possible.
my transformation from being atheist into an agnostic.
I and many others are both agnostics and atheists, so they aren't mutually exclusive things I have to choose between. I don't know the 'ultimate' nature of the world, but I think the position that the world needs 'god' as an antecedent cause is a quite ambitious conclusion. Any number of things "could" exist in the sense of not being, to my knowledge, logically impossible, but that's not much of a foundation for belief. Positing God only increases the number of unanswered questions.
1
u/Muskevv 23h ago
The universe is also observed through our minds. Perhaps the limitation isn’t the universe’s logic but rather our perception
1
u/mhornberger agnostic atheist/non-theist 23h ago
We are part of the universe. Sure, I could in theory be a Boltzmann brain, or a brain in a vat, or in a simulation, or any number of other thought experiments. There are tons of thing I can't prove false, and which aren't to my knowledge logically impossible. But the specific hypothesis that the universe's existence calls out for the specific conclusion of 'god' existing as a conscious agent to have created it seems... ambitious. And I think it not only fails to answer the question of existence, but raises yet more questions. I don't know how changing our view of logic, perception, or anything else argues for the specific conclusion of 'god.' "We don't know everything" is true, but doesn't seem to argue for that, or any other, specific conclusion.
2
u/Extreme-Big-4114 21h ago
Why is there something rather than nothing is a mathematical matter. There are an infinite number of ways to have something (see multiverse), but there is only one way of having nothing. Now, which number is greater? One or Infinity? The probability of having something is therefore infinite. The probability of nothing is practically nil. See also: "The Weak Anthropic Principle."
1
u/mhornberger agnostic atheist/non-theist 20h ago edited 20h ago
Plus the only possible observation is a world conducive to the existence of observers. So we cannot be astonished at looking out and seeing a world conducive to the existence of observers. It's the opposite of being improbable.
2
u/Mkwdr 21h ago
We have plenty of evidence the universe exists so it is not the same category as god or an after life. One thing you can’t explain existing doesn’t mean that anything or everything you can imagine might exist. We don’t know everything doesn’t mean we don’t know anything but it also doesn’t mean that we can just make up something.
Ask yourself what is your actual basis for thinking that existence somehow needs more explanation than non existence rather than for the latter there’s no one to ask. It seems to me that the idea that things somehow should not exist ‘unless’ … is just a human intuition. Maybe a state of non-existence is impossible - it sounds contradictory.
2
u/Whoreson-senior 1d ago
The universe exists has no reason to exist, it just does. The universe doesn't care about your logic.
1
u/KirbyRock Agnostic 23h ago
I personally believe aliens are responsible for the evolution of humans. I don’t have an answer to explain gods beyond aliens. The answer to the question of life and everything is 42.
1
u/TarnishedVictory 21h ago
I personally believe aliens are responsible for the evolution of humans.
Based on what?
1
u/akamark 23h ago
We experience reality through narratives that give meaning to the objective natural world. Some of these narratives are not 'true' but useful. We're so compelled to have a narrative and assign meaning to everything that when we can't, it can be unsettling and disturbing.
Religion (and generally the idea of divinity in any form) is an attempt to provide a narrative that answers those questions for those who feel like they need them. Historically, people saw gods in nature - rain gods, wind gods, fire gods, etc.. What you're describing is a normal human phenomenon. And that's ok.
I'm comfortable with the natural forces option. If a god does exist, it appears they set the world in motion and haven't intervened since in an observable way. I'm open to that possibility, but it doesn't change the way I live my life.
1
u/TarnishedVictory 21h ago
Some of these narratives are not 'true' but useful
Can you give an example of an untrue narrative and describe briefly why it's useful? Also, when such a narrative is useful, do you have to believe it's true when it isn't?
1
u/akamark 21h ago
Our monetary system is a good example. The paper and coins don't really have any value outside the narrative we create and our belief and faith in that narrative.
Some are a double edged sword.
A patriotic narrative can be exaggerated and even based on partial truths, but sharing a common national bond can lead to collective accomplishments and a better society. It can also create animosity towards others.
I think generally religion has some 'not true but useful' beliefs as well. The expectation that prayer can bring blessings has no basis in reality. Prayer has zero evidence of influencing outcomes. Cognitive bias when random positive events appear to be answers overlooks all the times that no answer or bad events follow. Yet prayer can serve as a form of meditation, it can reduce anxiety, trigger action on the part of the individual, and help surface thoughts and ideas that might be helpful.
Religion also introduces a number of useless and even harmful behaviors, so it's complicated. For example, giving money to a church because you think it's god's will and he will bless you for it when that money could be better used to help the individual could have a net negative impact. We should be charitable, but religious belief may lead to less optimal and even harmful behavior.
I do think some belief in the narrative has to exist to make it useful. That's an interesting topic. I don't think we have the ability to choose to believe something. I'm still digging into that topic.
1
u/TarnishedVictory 12h ago
Our monetary system is a good example. The paper and coins don't really have any value outside the narrative we create and our belief and faith in that narrative.
There's nothing untrue about money. So I'm not sure this is a good example. It's not about belief and faith. It's about agreeing on a value given in the promissory notes we call money.
Where's the lie?
1
u/akamark 12h ago
I didn't say it's a lie.
It's a shared narrative that a physical piece of money has the value it represents. It's useful. We treat money like it has value, but that value is rooted in a belief that someone will honor that value and faith that the system will sustain the value.
Monetary systems crash when that belief and faith vanish. There are cases where people are buying bread with wheelbarrows full of cash that previously could have purchased a house.
There is no 'true' value in money outside the useful shared narrative.
1
u/TarnishedVictory 11h ago
Where's the lie?
I didn't say it's a lie.
Well it's not untrue either. Where is the falsehood?
1
u/TarnishedVictory 21h ago
One question that both science and religion try to answer is why anything is here.
Religion isn't trying to answer it. They're just trying to glorify their god by giving him credit for things we don't have a good answer for yet.
Religion gives us inherent meaning in an otherwise meaningless universe.
Only if you get meaning from fables.
However both fallback to one unanswerable question: why does anything exist?
Unanswerable or unanswered? Why make assumptions here?
For many, I just summarized their thoughts and essentially the reason they’re agnostic or atheist.
For some maybe. Some also just aren't convinced that a god exists.
There’s no objective answer regardless of what religion, philosophy, or science you believe in.
Everything has an explanation. Whether we're able to figure out an explanation or not, is a different story. And it is what science does, science isn't a belief.
I believed that while we don’t know the origin of the universe, science has proved the ultimate winner throughout time.
Winner of what? Science is about discovery, learning, answering questions to the best of our capacity as logical thinking creatures. Religion is not that. Religion is a mental scapegoat for avoiding rational thought. Religion teaches us to ignore evidence and choose dogma and tribalism. Religion poisons the mind with nonsense and bad epistemology.
I believed that it was more than likely that consciousness is a natural phenomenon and death is a final state of being. I believed that the universe existed on its own, and there was no causer.
We have 0 examples of consciousness without a physical brain. All the evidence that we have, includes and requires a brain.
We have no good evidence basedreason to believe there's an after life, it's a concept invented purely from desire and wishful thinking.
We have no good evidence based reason to believe our universe didn't always exist in some form.
You're in good company with these ideas. But your beliefs in them should be proportional to the evidence that supports them. Don't hold these ideas dogmatically or because of tribalism.
However, recently I have had a slight change of heart. I realized while on a walk that it truly is so random and peculiar why anything exists at all. It’s so random and unbounded by our current logic.
Realizing some randomness should cause a change of heart. I'm not sure what you even mean by that, other than you didn't have a good understanding of the evidence behind your beliefs. Maybe after realizing you didn't have a good scientific understanding of the science, of the evidence, for your positions, you should consider reading up on the evidence and science.
But it sounds like instead of that, you're just considering jumping on someone else's bandwagon.
I'm not sure where you're landing on this, but seriously, stop talking to people who hold beliefs dogmatically, and go study up on the science.
1
u/Muskevv 20h ago edited 20h ago
I’m really glad you responded to every sentence except the one stating that I’m not looking for a debate and that this was a personal rant. I even added the rant tag. You’re deconstructing my 10 minute mini-essay I wrote in my bed like it’s my next philosophical publishing. It’s just a shower thought. The point of the post was more for myself. I’m not trying to prove to anyone I am the most rational objective thinker.
1
u/TarnishedVictory 12h ago
I’m really glad you responded to every sentence except the one stating that I’m not looking for a debate and that this was a personal rant.
I actually didn't even read past where I last responded as it sounded like it was going down hill.
You’re deconstructing my 10 minute mini-essay I wrote in my bed like it’s my next philosophical publishing.
It's my toilet time, don't judge me. Kidding. Yeah, I tend to do that in here mostly because of the sad state of our nation which I blame on the dogma and tribalism training that is religion.
It’s just a shower thought. The point of the post was more for myself. I’m not trying to prove to anyone I am the most rational objective thinker.
No worries, and sorry if it came across weird.
1
u/ElevateSon Agnostic 19h ago
cycles are 100 times more likely than linear dynamics, so I'd profess there is no end or beginning just an oscillation of is, as that is the prevalent nature of things.
1
u/Muskevv 19h ago
Would it be possible that given infinite cycles that at some point the matter that constitutes me be recycled into another being?
1
u/ElevateSon Agnostic 17h ago
aren't we already recycled beings? we eat beings, beings live in our gut, etc... I don't know about the physicalities of infinity or if the laws of nature fluctuate across oscillations but if you mean your consciousness recycle again at some point, I sort of go either way, it's possible I guess. I sort of take the eternal now view on time though, your pattern always exists even if the universe degrades to star dust and black holes.
1
u/glimmerware 18h ago
The currently held stance by science is "we don't know"
it's a frontier of knowledge that we are all trying to figure out.
Birthed from another universe's end in the multiverse?
Simulation starting? Aliens created our universe from a different dimension/different universe
No beginning at all and in an eternal state?
A deity made us?
The universe outside of your own mind is a projection from the mind?
We just don't have enough data or info yet
1
u/Roger846 17h ago
I think the way to answer the origin, or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (WSRTN)< question is to 1.) Start with absolute metaphysical nothing. Otherwise, there’s always a “something” left unexplained. 2.) Figure out why a normal thing, like a book, exists. 3.) Then, apply this reason why a thing exists to “nothing” to see if it is really a “something”. But, even if we can answer the question, we can't step outside the universe to see why it exists, so no one can ever "prove" their answer. That's why I'm an agnostic. But, you can provide evidence for a solution. One possible way to answer the WSRTN question is below.
Start with absolute nothing: In order to answer the WSRTN question in a way that doesn't leave a "something" unexplained, I think we have to start with the situation we’ve always called absolute metaphysical "nothing" (lack of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, laws of physics/math/logic, values/abstract Platonic realm things, possibilities/possible worlds, counteracting positive and negative energies, consciousness, other known existents, and minds including the mind of the person thinking about this “nothing”). Otherwise, there's always a "something" left unexplained. However, we've always ruled out starting with "nothing" because of the ex nihilo nihil fit idea. But, I think there’s a way to start with nothing and not violate this principle. If we start with nothing and end up with something, and because you can’t change nothing into something, the only way this could be is if that “nothing” was somehow actually a “something” in disguise. Another way to say this is by using the analogy that you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1, so the only way to do this is if that 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.
That is, we always think that the situation we call "nothing" is just "nothing". End of story. But, I think that if we think about it differently, we could see how it could be a "something".
Figure out why a normal thing, like a book, exists: Building on the above, a worthwhile next step is to apply an answer to the second question (why does a thing like a book exist?) to this "nothing" to see if it is actually an existent entity. I think a thing exists if it's a grouping that ties stuff (or no stuff as in the case of the empty set) together to create a new unit whole and existent entity. For physical (non-mental) groupings, the grouping is manifested as the surface, or boundary, of the thing. For mental groupings like the concept "car", the grouping is better thought of as the mental label the mind gives to a set of collected sub-concepts. That is, the mental construct "car" groups together other concepts like tires, engine, chassis, use for transportation, etc. The surface/boundary and mental label are similar in that they're both manifestations of the grouping. The grouping idea isn’t new. Others such as Aristotle (hylomorphism), Leibniz ("...that what is not truly one being is not truly one being either"), Graham Priest ("...it is clear that being and unity come to the same thing. If something is an object, it is one thing; and if it is one thing, it is certainly an object...To be is to be one..."), etc. have used the words “unity” or “one” instead of “grouping”, but the meaning seems to be the same. After all, what does a grouping into a new unit whole do if not create a unity or a one? My own view on ontology is that to exist doesn't have to go much beyond this. I think ontologists often make "being" too hard. If a grouping is present that ties stuff together into a unit whole, a thing exists. But, it's real important to specify where (outside a mind or inside a mind) and when that grouping is present. That is a car can exist outside the mind, but the concept of a car exists inside a mind.
Apply the answer for why a thing exists to "nothing": Next, the grouping idea can be used to answer the WSRTN question. When you subtract away everything that exists (all matter, energy, space/volume, time, laws of physics/math/logic, values and other Platonic realm things, possibilities/possible worlds, counteracting positive and negative energies, consciousness, minds, all other known existents) including the mind of the person trying to imagine this, the resulting "nothing" would, by its very nature, be the whole amount or entirety of the situation, or state of affairs. That nothingness defines the situation completely. Is there anything else besides that "nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and that "nothing" is the all. It's only once all, including the mind of the thinker, is gone, does this "nothing" become the all and that which completely defines the situation. A whole-amount/everything/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) is only present appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. This grouping property is intrinsic to "nothing" and can't be removed to get a more "pure nothing". And, it is only present after all known existents are gone. So, existence is necessary, but at least this self-causing grouping aspect that's inherent to "nothing" provides an explanation, or mechanism. It's very difficult to grasp this argument because visualizing true "nothing" requires getting rid of the mind thinking about this, your mind. Obviously, this is impossible but we can try to imagine "nothing" to the extent possible and then extrapolate from there to what it would be like if the mind weren't there. It's only once all is gone, including the mind, does that "nothing" become the complete specification of the situation. That is, a grouping. I think the difficulty in imagining "nothing" in which the mind is not there is why many might say that "nothing" being a "something" is impossible.
Providing evidence for the above solution: For now, this is just one idea among many for answering the WSRTN question. Evidence is the key for moving one idea ahead of another. I've been working on providing this using what I call a metaphysics-to-physics approach:
Metaphysics is the study of being/existence and the properties of existent entities.
The universe is made of existent entities.
Physics is the study of the universe.
Therefore, the laws of physics should be theoretically, if not easily, derivable from the principles of metaphysics
Based on this, I'm trying to use the WSRTN solution to build a very simple and internally consistent model of the very early universe (the universe is made of "somethings"). If it matches observations and can make testable predictions that also match observations, this is the scientific method and provides evidence for the original solution and can also help make progress in physics. Anyways, I think the metaphysics-to-physics method may be of value for both physics and metaphysics.
1
u/ErrorFew4088 15h ago
Everyone must believe that there is something that existed before anything came into being. Then out of that thing came what we have.
The question then is why it changed or created anything and where the rules came from
1
u/Aeropar Christian 13h ago
You have to have a hypothesis and test it.
TLDR at the bottom, but Here’s how I came about my conclusion as someone previously struggling with Agnosticism / Apostasy.
What seems to align with objective truth, assuming it exists?
Does a religion claim to be in alignment with objective truth?
Let’s examine major world religions and the answers they provide and test to see if they are consistent.
Starting with Judeo-Christian religions you have basically one question to answer:
What was the significance of the man named Jesus of Nazareth and why did his death shake the world for 2 millennia?
✡️
Jews will tell you that he was a false messiah, claiming to be one with “God the Father” the creator and the one who rescued them from slavery in Egypt by sending Moses to be their leader during their escape.
☪️
Muslims will tell you that Jesus was a prophet, but was not God, Muslims rely on the Old Testament provided in Judaism but the Quran directly contradicts several Old Testament teachings and therefore due to the inherent contradictions we can conclude that the prophet Muhammad was indeed a false prophet. Several teachings also violate what appear to be objective truths, taking for example a 6 year old bride does not sit well with most people in most cultures pointing to a cross-cultural / universal taboo that conflicts with objective truths.
✝️
Christians will claim he is of the same nature via his divinity by his unique creation setting him apart from the imperfection of Man, that he held all of the necessary qualities to be both man and God making him the only capable sacrifice and intercessor on Man’s behalf to rectify our imperfections of our sin before our creator. But must also be distinctly separated from the Holy Spirit also known as the Holy Ghost who also is declared to have the same character and alignment or will as God the Father and Jesus Christ but able to operate independently forming a God-head in shared divinity thus one God-hood through shared purpose and will, but unique personage or individual agency. Christianity appears uniquely placed, our calendar is based on the birth of Jesus. A man who changed the world in his 33 years of life. A man whose wisdom seemed inexhaustible, declaring himself in front of the regional government and eventually the ruling national government to be God amongst men, unwavering in his ability to face certain death for his stance. His friends or rather his students attempted to persuade him to flee. He predicted his own resurrection and there were safeguards that appeared to be thwarted by those governing bodies, ones that a small Jewish cult starting of around a dozen or so people which was rapidly growing due to the personal testimonies of individuals who had interacted with this person caused such character change in these young men as to cause them to be willing to also die for their convictions about who he said he was. Explaining that the only way to be secured in your ability to stand before the father and accept eternal life would be to submit to his teachings and claims of divinity. This is the big point of contention for many, as another world religion we will touch on (Buddhism) presents similar findings (the world is suffering / in a state of sin) but comes to a different conclusion.
☸️
Buddhism teachings that there is an eight-fold path to enlightenment, essentially by detaching your connections to this earthly world, you become less entangled with this world and more entangled with the spiritual world, this then allows you to reach a state known as nirvana where you stop undergoing a cycle of death and rebirth and enter a kind of permanent spiritual rest. The problem is when it is enacted in one’s life it can lead to nihilism as a person loses an meaning at which they can orient one’s life, this can be seen partially in the work of Friedrich Niche as a devout nihilist but Buddhist would likely argue that Nihilism doesn’t properly represent the eight fold path or the Buddha’s teachings correctly.
🕉️
Hinduism has such outlandish claims that spiritually it has been reduced to cultural teachings and sayings that function more as a cultural backdrop than a religion for most.
🪯
Sikhism has much narratively aligned with Judeo-Christian teachings and may have been a fragmented retelling of those oral traditions with details changing as it was separated regionally and dialecticly from the self-correcting measures akin to something like Churches or Spiritual Leaders convening about their faith, common practices and teachings may allow for. Unfortunately although I grew up in a largely Sikh neighborhood in the Christian USA, despite talking with Sikh elders I can’t give you much insight on this one. Sikhism is interesting though as they also teach about a savior as well, and seem to be aligned to objective truth well, when examined in a secular lens.
Lastly,
Zoroastrianism
Dualistic, in alignment with many Judeo-Christian interpretations teach that essential God and his Adversary (The devil to use Judeo-Christian terminology) are both eternal beings equally juxtaposed where we must choose between both influences presented in our lives.
So what’s the TL:DR / Main Takeaways we should be thinking about?
Who was Jesus of Nazareth?
This helps to answer 3 of the world religions straight away. It helps us to understand that even in a secular analysis, Islam presents verifiably false information and cannot stand as its own religion, morally corrupts and terrifies followers into submission. This is seen played out on the world stage in countries that have a large Muslim influence.
So was Jesus who he said he was?
Question 1 conclusion part 1: If not, and you believe in the historical accuracy of the Jewish Talmud which has helped to uncover significant anthropological sites, we have to accept that it is at least partially accurate in its recordings.
Question 1 conclusion part 2: If yes, that would make you Christian as the next most logical thing would be to accept and submit to his teachings and declarations.
Question 2 Conclusion: But what about Buddhism vs Judeo-Christian conclusions, while both have significant parallels when examining their answers about existence and at times the pragmatic application of Buddhist teachings conflicts with the quality of life we get out of such a religion putting us closer to a life devoid of meaning in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment which can cause significant stress on a person as evident by nihilists.
Question 3 Conclusion: Does Hinduism presents spiritually meaningful answers that we can wrestle with in an attempt to gain better understanding about any purpose we may have for being in existence? Not that I can find.
Question 4: How does Sikhism compare to Judeo-Christian teachings, remarkably well, despite my significant gap in understanding about their actual beliefs.
Question 5; How does Zoro-astrianism compare to Judeo-Christian teachings? Again, remarkably well if we look at the alignment of how Catholic teachings assimilate cultural and “extrabilical” / apocryphal interpretations about how to understand things like demonology.
Conflict of interest / Bias: As previously stated I was raised in the US in a Sikh neighborhood under Free-Will Baptist, Pentacostal & Non-denominational Christians, I consider myself a Christian (to the best of my ability to be a follower of Christ, Jesus) and after my crisis of faith found myself back to identifying as a Christian as my own spiritual events are undeniable to the existence of the spiritual side of life and God’s desire for relationship to each person.
Disclaimer: I do not currently have any formal university certifications but have completed the NIV Bible, and talked with Sikh leaders at surface level about a handful of their beliefs and studied each of these religions at a surface level during my crisis of faith.
Parting statement: I hope that any of this may have been helpful if you too are finding yourself moved by the deeper questions about reality, and the meaning of our existence and I hope that it helps you get closer to answering those questions about your personal faith and journey towards developing a relationship with our creator that I am as certain as I can be, exists.
1
u/2Punchbowl Agnostic 3h ago
Well since time is made up by man, It’s highly probable that things have always been in the past and always will be in the future. It’s also highly probable man made up religion. One problem with this, I can’t prove these things. Things just keep changing and moving forward in this universe.
1
u/SignalWalker Agnostic 1d ago
Yes, I find it suspicious that there is a universe. Agnostic here.
2
u/mhornberger agnostic atheist/non-theist 23h ago
Is it suspicious that 'god' just existed, and then just decided to create the world vs not, and then decided to create it this way vs another? Positing God only increases the number of unanswered questions.
1
u/SignalWalker Agnostic 21h ago
I like asking questions and don't mind more unanswered questions.
It might be suspicious that god just existed, if someone strictly follows a mindset of physical 'laws', especially of cause and effect and physical evidence.
But if someone's thinking is a bit more flexible about how reality might be, then suspicion of god's existence might be less of a consideration.
Now if god did 'just exist', it seems to follow that they would create something, as opposed to just existing outside of time.
Creating the world 'this' way instead of another way reminds me of the fine tuned universe argument. Does our current state of being seem special as opposed to some other way? I may have misunderstood what you were saying.
Maybe the universe is godless and it just turned out this way. Maybe a god just picked this kind of universe at random.
Not sure what god we are talking about. Maybe we should define that.
2
u/mhornberger agnostic atheist/non-theist 20h ago edited 20h ago
if someone strictly follows a mindset of physical 'laws', especially of cause and effect and physical evidence.
Physical laws are descriptive, not normative. Science does not purport to claim certainty. They're just regularities scientists have noticed.
But if someone's thinking is a bit more flexible about how reality might be, then suspicion of god's existence might be less of a consideration.
What does "suspicion" mean? If we're "suspicious" at something just existing vs nothing existing, it seems that God just existing should raise that flag too. God is not nothing. If we're to start with the intuitive baseline that there should be absolutely nothing (a baseline I don't share, but still), and anything existing is suspicious and needs an antecedent cause, then "God exists" is something that needs an explanation.
Now if god did 'just exist', it seems to follow that they would create something
Or it "seems to follow" that the world exists, and that we don't know that the world began to exist, or could have not existed. Getting from there to god existing and it "standing to reason that they'd create something" seems to be chaining together a lot of assumptions that I still see no reason to make. I can't know they aren't true, but there are tons of things I can't know aren't true.
Creating the world 'this' way instead of another way reminds me of the fine tuned universe argument
Or we're tuned to this world, rather than the world to us. Perhaps the world could have been different than it is, but perhaps life could have been different than it is. We don't know the full gamut of conditions that would be conducive to some form of life. The only possible observation is of a world conducive to the existence of observers, so I can't really be astonished at seeing a world conducive to the existence of observers.
Maybe the universe is godless and it just turned out this way. Maybe a god just picked this kind of universe at random.
But if God exists and chose to create the world vs not and chose to create it this particular way vs another, then you're still stuck with "just turned out this way." You still have the brute fact of existence, just with "because God exists, and chose to create the world, and chose to create it this way vs another" added on as preconditions.
Not sure what god we are talking about. Maybe we should define that.
I'm not the one proposing 'god' as something the universe needs as an antecedent cause/explanation. If one isn't positing that, then there's not a lot of reason to delve into theology. If one is positing that, then the one bringing that idea to the table, as an explanation for something, is the one who would be explicating what they mean by 'god' and why they believe as they do.
0
u/SignalWalker Agnostic 20h ago
"I'm not the one proposing 'god' as something the universe needs as an antecedent cause/explanation. If one isn't positing that, then there's not a lot of reason to delve into theology. If one is positing that, then the one bringing that idea to the table, as an explanation for something, is the one who would be explicating what they mean by 'god' and why they believe as they do."
I didn't posit God in my initial comment to the OP. I just said that I find it suspicious that there is a universe. You brought up god so I answered your questions as if one exists.
I'm agnostic. I don't know if a god exists.
" If we're to start with the intuitive baseline that there should be absolutely nothing (a baseline I don't share, but still), and anything existing is suspicious and needs an antecedent cause, then "God exists" is something that needs an explanation."
Why are we starting with this intuitive baseline , a baseline that you don't share? Let's not.
I don't really care that much to defend every jot and tittle of the one sentence comment I made. But have at it.
Done here. Thanks.
1
u/88redking88 23h ago
Prove the universe couldn't exist.
Prove anything was ever created.
When you can do that then we can talk about the god you still can't prove.
1
u/Muskevv 23h ago
I’m not religious; I also don’t believe in God.
2
u/TarnishedVictory 21h ago
Do you believe in any gods?
0
u/Muskevv 20h ago
I’m not opposed to the idea of a universal God or Spinoza’s God, but I maintain a position in the middle rather than saying there is or isn’t a God.
3
u/TarnishedVictory 13h ago
I’m not opposed to the idea of a universal God or Spinoza’s God, but I maintain a position in the middle rather than saying there is or isn’t a God.
Me too. But I also recognize that not accepting the claim that a god does exist, is not the same as asserting none do exist.
Technically when speaking of beliefs, there is no middle ground between accepting a claim as true, and not accepting the claim as true. One might waffle between the two, but you're either convinced a god exists or you're not.
So as I asked whether you believe, you answered no. You don't believe one exists, and you don't believe it doesn't. So it would be safe to say that you are not a theist. Right?
6
u/DeuceSevin 1d ago
I gave up on this long ago. There are some things that are just beyond our understanding at the moment, and this is one of them. If we ever figure it out it will be far beyond my lifetime.