Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods, but theists possibly can KNOW there is a GOD.

I'll bet that class was years ago, no offense. The real life evidence is piling up.

Our galaxy is moving, not just our solar system, the whole Milky Way galaxy, at pace of 400 miles per second; Cosmology, especially in the past ten years, has been moving just about as fast. Ten years ago, we thought black holes were rare, turns out there's one in just about every single galaxy, that is, billions and billions of them. We learn more every day.

The models for the Universe based on observations ,not just calculations, have changed. Presently, 2011, we know there is expansion, the end result of the rapid initial inflation, but now there is some evidence that the expansion is not uniform. Some parts may be moving at a different, slower, rate. That's meaningful in that the laws of physics might be different depending on where you are in the universe, making it difficult to figure out the evolution of the universe and its origins. If the laws of physics were different in the Southern Hemisphere of the Universe, anything we know about our own little bitty corner, wouldn't mean anything there. That's the fun. The uncertainty coupled with the drive to find out more. It could mean that there might have been more than one Big Bang or that this Big Bang is just the last one of a series. Maybe all this stuff in our universe is just dust to the rest of the Universe, namely the 96 percent which is dark matter and dark energy and very much not like what we think as the Universe.

Why on god's earth (heh) would you want to stick to "a self existing first cause that was uncaused". The whole idea of existence then just gets so messy. Talk about speculation; the entire idea of a self-existing uncaused first cause is speculation.
"Is it still out there?" "What is it?" Who is it? Who's it talk to? You? Forgetaboutit" Why did it make us? Why did it make you? Why does it let me get fat?
Endless "answers", from having a supernatural being apparently intervening moment by moment in everything from cancer cures to tsunamis to whether or not the Valley Springs Eagles will win the Junior Football Championship for the second year in a row all the way to ~only in our consciousnesses~~. And not a single answer satisfactory to all these beings here on this teeny planet.

I'll take my eternal universe in which there is no place or necessity for your self-existing uncaused first cause. The Sciences of Cosmology will continue to measure, weigh, observe and track evidence of what is in that universe, finding out what we can know to be true while you, Val, will still only have your messy and, as you said, unsatisfactory, philosophical choice.

Joe(enjoy)Nation

Come on Joe, that quantum mechanics course was 3 years ago, if I have to clearly tell you. Since then I haven't hear in rumble in the world of physics (from the academic journals I've been skimming so far) that proves otherwise.

Why would your put your trust in cosmology rather than particle physics or quantum mechanics where the real life experiments are conducted to explain the Universe and it's cause or "loop" as you believe it is?
Either way, cosmology looks to the physicists for data and the universe models. So they, let's just say aren't the first to hear any exclusive new discoveries.


And don't be afraid to accept the news that the universe is not eternal because there are still many reasons to acknowledge, which even an eternal universe does not "solve," regarding the the problem of God. You should look at some works of Thomas Aquinas such as argument from contingency, and that is still compatible with the view of atheists. Because even if one chooses to accept the existence of a first Cause, it doesn't have to be God, and there is an argument that says God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required.

Your idea of loops and repeats of big bangs, and recycling of the universe, is worse than the first cause explanation I suggested, because it leads to paradoxes, and the more I read on this circular reasoning, it seems to be outdated (1970-1980 philosophers) than mine.

You know what, if you have taken the fundamental physics course, you can indirectly see by the law of thermodynamics that there is a big fat possibility that nothing lasts forever, or isn't eternal.



The highlighted section is a big IF. Until that is proven, your argument is not something that stands on strong grounds.

The search for direct evidence for the dark matter has, despite substantial efforts, been futile so far. Dark matter is seen as a duck tape to hold everything together in the universe. This law has only really been tested within our Solar System and it simply put, a leap of faith to apply it on scales a hundred million times larger, such as the universe itself.

The one thing you will find about me is that lack of fear; I certainly would have regrets if tomorrow an angel of the Lord appeared to me and asked me, "Where have you been, God's been looking everywhere for you." but mostly because I don't like to put people (or gods) out.

I appreciate your answers but our common ground is that neither of our choices stand on particularly solid foundations. I think I have the better chance because my search for evidence is based in reality.

The last I looked Cosmology is not isolated from particle physics or quantum mechanics and all the proven truths will appear as they will. I am also not a one-basket kind of reader (this week it's cosmology, next week a book about why Madison is overlooked, by the Fourth of July I shall have finished a book on the vagaries of cancer.) That. of course, is my problem, my interest in many things is an inch deep and a mile wide, but I do have flow!!

One thing:
Don't say stuff like this, it sounds like you are crabwalking around your own belief. Have a little backbone, we worked hard in our evolutionary struggle to get one.

The Universe, at present estimates, should proceed to expand for another 180 billion years, plenty of time for some scientists to look at the data regarding dark energy and dark matter and slap their respective foreheads and say "Of course, that's it."

Joe(and it will be)Nation

Only God could have made Pinocchio come alive. That should quell any doubters.

The Universe is full of surprises, and although it has become a repugnant cliche, only truth or a result will only be known in the future after significant events and discoveries have happened.

That is the main reason why I'm agnostic, until there is a solid proof, I can not consciously say God exists or God doesn't exist.

Just for fun, think about this question:
If the Universe was eternal, what would a god do?

~~At some point, you have to decide if you still want to cling to the idea of an afterlife, that would be most people's reason for being an agnostic.
(I'd like to take both Door Number One and Door Number Two, Bob.)
It's not worth the worry.
And it takes times away from the good things you could be doing for your fellow human beings just because you yourself are a good human being.

Give it up.
It feels like the first day of summer vacation for the rest of your life.

Joe(ahhhh)Nation

What are you talking about, Foofie? It was the Wishing Star in the form of the Blue Fairy.


Atheists know there are no Blue Fairies and Theists do too. But not children.

Joe(No, not children)Nation

God is the official greeter in Heaven Joe...

Hi, welcome to Walmart.

halos?

they are on aisle 7...

You pipped me Jo, but your pic didn't come out.

How about this?


Personally I prefer the green fairy.

Thanks, Izzy, I can see both pictures on my screen but then I believe in the little people, don't you know.

Joe(sure'n)Nation

Ha, that's Fbaezer's player image in the A2K fantasy baseball game, his player name being Absinthe Dreams (he always has great player names).

Here is the crux of the problem with your version of guessing. You think that a guess has to be accepted as possible truth, simply because some yokel or huxter asserts such, despite his having nothing to base it on other than a feeling or a thought. Because you cannot prove the negative, you are willing to go on a crusade to force us all to be agnostic about it. Your glass is not just not half full, it is empty.

Try to stay cool, Edgar.

When considering the nature of the REALITY of existence…I am dealing with a very, very mysterious thing. The suggestions for how (what we call) the universe offered by science are plenty “far out” on their own. I simply cannot wrap my mind around the notion that there was once a very special kind of “nothing” that was a singularity that Big Banged into an expanding universe.

But I have no problem whatever with thinking that it may be the way things actually happened. I also have no problem with thinking that it may be wide off the mark. Same thing for multiverses…or repeatingverses. They may be the REALITY…they may not be.

I do not know…and I do not have enough evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

And since I can accept that there may once have been a very special kind of “nothing”…there is no problem with me accepting that there may once have been a very special kind of “starter dough”…unmoved mover/prime mover; first cause…or creator god.

I have no idea why you folk can see the so-called scientific proposals for possible REALITIES as actually POSSIBLE…but dismiss the philosophical proposals as not being possible…

…but in my opinion, you demean yourself and the notion of logic by doing so.

Don’t agree with me if you do not want to.

There are people who “believe” there are no gods; there are people who “believe” at least one GOD exists. I am not one of those people. I do not “believe” there are no gods and I do not “believe” there are gods.

I do not see enough unambiguous or reasonable evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

Sorry you personally think so little of that, Edgar, that you actually have to insult me, but I do not see my position to be unreasonable, illogical, or unintelligent.

And I do not think you have an empty glass simply because I do not agree with you.

I want this statement in a Venn diagram.

You are so quick to feel insulted, Frank.

Drink enough of it and you won't believe what you can see.

Personally I prefer Czech absinth, without the e, it's got a lot more thujone.

I don't think so, Edgar.

Well, I am collapsing the thread and will avoid further interactions on the topic, here and elsewhere. Agnostics will no longer have edgarblythe to kick around.

bingo

or - He just loves to have these bassackwards arguments.