Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

Hurkyl

If you really believe that, then you should believe its immediate consequence -- you have no business making claims that something doesn't exist.

Burden of proof always lies upon the person making a claim. If you want to assert that something doesn't exist, then it's your job to support your claim.

octelcogopod

Hurkyl ok but I'm not sure what's your point is.
Are you trying to prove that I believe in my assertion?
If so you have succeeded. I believe that we shouldn't believe in god, it's that simple.

And also, how can the burden of proof be on the one who makes the claim?
People have been saying for thousands of years god exists, and now when I doubt it, it's up to me to prove god doesn't exist?

Pupil

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Think of how strange it would be to hear "Fairies exist! It's up to you to prove they don't!" Obviously this isn't the way it works.

If you claim there definitely are no gods, you better be able to provide some proof.

baywax

I do believe that the belief and the veneration of something larger/wiser/bigger beard/whiter robe/ than ours is a survival trait that has begun to be outgrown. It remains as though its a vestigial appendage that once actually did serve a noble purpose.

octelcogopod

My point was that christians have been making the claim by default for centuries, and yet when I say there is no god, the burden of proof is still on my shoulder. Why is that?
If they hadn't made up a god to begin with it wouldn't have been a topic.


Yep but not anymore.. Not when we are able to think so clearly and critically by ourselves.

By the way, is this kind of offtopic hijacking actually allowed? The topic has driven quite far from the original post right?

Pupil

If you make any claim at all about whether gods exist or do not exist, you have the burden of proof. The only position that has no burden of proof is "I don't know." Any other position requires reasoned arguments and or empirical evidence. Making a claim, be it positive or negative, requires those two things.

DaveC426913

There are documented eyewitness accounts from many well-respected people in their communities. To be prefectly by-the-book, they have met their burden of proof. It is now upon you to demonstrate that it is not compelling.

They didn't make a god. It is safe to say that god was a creation deeply rooted in the origins of mankind's dawn of awareness.

robertm

Everything that has been observed in the universe so far has been seen to exist without the need of any intervention on high. At the very least, one can say (and really, must admit) that it is extremely highly unlikely (in the technical sense) that any meddling god type being is active in our universe.

Religion is, and has been, effectively relegated to a position of deism. Which is perfectly fine with me. Anyone can make any claim they like about a Big-Man who doesn't exist 'in' or have any current effect on the universe.

Pupil

Not all claims are created equal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You really should define what you consider meeting the burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim before saying it is reasonable for them to say they have met it.

Pupil

I'm a bit weary of this claim. Really, you have to define this deity and what kind of meddling it has/can do before claiming a probability. Even after you do so, I'm not sure how you would get to a statistical probability of whether or not a deity exists or not. Of course it feels absolutely absurd that a deity exists (in much the same way as the tooth fairy feels absurd), but I doubt I would be able to give the probability of a deity existing any more than a tooth fairy.

DaveC426913

Except the creation of the universe itself. While outside the scope of your statement, it is a valid event to apply your test to.

Has the creation of the universe been seen to exist without the need of any intervention on high?

Science does not venture here, but religion has a very neat explanation for it.

JoeDawg

Saying that god created the universe only begs the question what created god. If god needs not creator, then there is no reason for one to assume the universe needs one.

p764rds

Well, data can be made from quantum states that require no space and has no mass. Any amount. Its so simple......

baywax

Well, lets just say that today there's probably a slightly larger percentage of humans that don't need the fictional hierarchy of son's, ghosts and so on.

Yes we're off topic. I still say that the child asking "why the sky is blue(?)" is as valid as asking "why does the universe exists(?)". The unknown always begs a "why?". And in this sense, "why" doesn't necessarily ask for a motive. "Why" explains a person's ignorance about a subject and displays their eagerness to learn more about its origins and mechanisms.

baywax

References for this sort of allusion are required on this forum. Don't I know it!

robertm

I don't think that it has been established that a "creation" event has even been observed. A big bang event has... but it is going beyond the evidence to say weather or not the observed phenomenon can be considered a creation event (whatever that means).

As I stated in an earlier post (#169), this question is not ready to be evaluated satisfactorily.

???

How does science not attempt to understand every aspect of the history of the universe? Is this not a question that a great number of people and dollars is investigating (directly and indirectly) everyday?

And how is claiming something that no one could possibly know a "very neat explanation"? No religious creation myth is logically consistent, though, I guess you could consider that feat in and of itself neat...


Pupil:
Well, I don't nor would I make any claims as to the power of any unknown entity, but a very great number of people seem as if they mean to.

My earlier statement was based on my knowledge of the orthodox claims of all the common religions that I have studied.

Given a list of the supposed attributes and effects of the deity/fairy (pink tutu, wings, takes your teeth, etc...) one could easily determine the presence or traces of said deity/fairy (missing tooth in a locked room, video, appearance of money, etc...).

If one wishes to claim that something that you want to worship and make you feel better exists outside of space in time and cannot be observed or measured, fine; it is just as good as admitting that it does not exist.

p764rds

Yes, the 'why why why' ladder -leads to the Pythagorean Monad - a simple proposition upon which everything else is built. That could be something like yes/no or addition.
A computer starts off with yes/no and look what they can do.