Atheism: What Happened Before the Big Bang?

[PIT2]

The point I want to make clear is that the framework of materialism is about the only plausible framework we have. In fact, our everyday experience conforms to that. We never doubt that our experiences are formed on the basis of our sensory perceptions are formed and caused by an independend external material world. Our consciousness does not 'create' the external material world, but rather the other way around.

Materialism would be perfectly plausible in a world without any observers. In a world with them, it becomes quite problematic.

If u hold that our consciousness doesn't create the external world, then u will have a hard time explaining how the human species has transformed the world around us in the past few hundred years, but that our brains haven't changed much.

What I was trying to argue is that for scientific tests and observations, and that they tell us something about external reality, the assumptions (sometimes unknowingly) is made that there is an independend material world, external to our consciousness.
If not, how could we do any experiment at all and establish some basic and objective facts about reality?

But what does this have to do with the topic? Noone is denying there is an external world. Its not an "either u are an atheist, or u deny there exists a material world" situation.

Unless you can give some sound proof of that, I am not ready to doubt materialism.

U seem to think that materialism is the default position, that we have to accept it until its proven wrong.

Suppose we see matter as 'blue' and consciousness as 'red'. Someone sits in a completely blue room. He thinks "hey, this is easy, everything is simply blue!". But as he inspects the room, he discovers a tiny red dot on a wall. This red dot conflicts with his notion that the entire room is blue. He cannot deny that the red dot is there, yet he cannot explain it with his theory "everything is simply blue".

This is the position we find ourselves in. Materialism should not be accepted as true until it is capable of explaining the clear contradictions of its tenets. The red dot on the wall may look small compared to the giant blue room, but its implications can be huge.

You want me to conclude that some shift of consciousness, in which one looses sight on the basic facts of reality (time, space, etc), under very special conditions (namely long time meditation)

U made some statements about which experiences would not be possible. Here we have a group of people who have such experiences. As far as metaphysical views can be supported by experience, this is it. And it doesn't point towards materialism.

 

[heusdens]

U will be glad to hear that the person speaking in the video is the very one that discovered these brain areas which are involved in mystical/god experiences.

U gave the wrong link btw, its the same one as mine.

Here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486

 

[heusdens]

Materialism would be perfectly plausible in a world without any observers. In a world with them, it becomes quite problematic.

If u hold that our consciousness doesn't create the external world, then u will have a hard time explaining how the human species has transformed the world around us in the past few hundred years, but that our brains haven't changed much.

What is 'creating'? We merely see an interchange between the natural world, and us human beings, and since human beings are part of the natural world, this is like saying that the natural worlds interacts with itself, which it always does.

The idea of matter in a world without consciouss beings would be absent.
Matter is an abstract categorie of thought. There is no distinction between matter and consciousness in a world without consciouss beings.

But what does this have to do with the topic? Noone is denying there is an external world. Its not an "either u are an atheist, or u deny there exists a material world" situation.

No, and I'm not talking about atheism but about materialism. Materialism does not state "there is no God", but states that the external world and also human consciousness can be explained on the basis of matter in motion which is infnite/eternal.
The issue is wether matter is primary or not, and not mind. I hold on to the idea that that is the case.

U seem to think that materialism is the default position, that we have to accept it until its proven wrong.

Suppose we see matter as 'blue' and consciousness as 'red'. Someone sits in a completely blue room. He thinks "hey, this is easy, everything is simply blue!". But as he inspects the room, he discovers a tiny red dot on a wall. This red dot conflicts with his notion that the entire room is blue. He cannot deny that the red dot is there, yet he cannot explain it with his theory "everything is simply blue".

This is the position we find ourselves in. Materialism should not be accepted as true until it is capable of explaining the clear contradictions of its tenets. The red dot on the wall may look small compared to the giant blue room, but its implications can be huge.

U made some statements about which experiences would not be possible. Here we have a group of people who have such experiences. As far as metaphysical views can be supported by experience, this is it. And it doesn't point towards materialism.

It sure does.

There is nothing in this experience that contradicts materialism. It would be like saying that the consciouss experience would provide evidence against materialism. I does not, it only proofs the existence of subjective feelings, experiences and knowledge.

I can show you why in this post, which explores such an experience (I show how one can 'create' such an experience in little over 10 minutes, without having to meditate for days).

 

[PIT2]

What is 'creating'? We merely see an interchange between the natural world, and us human beings, and since human beings are part of the natural world, this is like saying that the natural worlds interacts with itself, which it always does.

Creating, shaping, etc. it doesn't matter, the point is that subjectivity influences matter. Whether this subjectivity actually initiates completely new quantum events, or completely novel ideas, dreamworlds, etc. doesn't matter for now. U say its natural, and i agree, and this also demonstrates that the idea of a god is not in principle supernatural. If its natural when our own minds do it, why would it be supernatural when it happens at some other point in time, for instance at the moment of the big bang.

The idea of matter in a world without consciouss beings would be absent.
Matter is an abstract categorie of thought. There is no distinction between matter and consciousness in a world without consciouss beings.

I agree, matter as we know it is just the properties we have observed it to have. However, those properties which u hold to be fundamental, do not in any way describe the act of observing. Thats why materialism only tells half the story of what's going on.

The issue is wether matter is primary or not, and not mind. I hold on to the idea that that is the case.

But u think materialism justifies claiming that atheism does not require faith?

There is nothing in this experience that contradicts materialism. It would be like saying that the consciouss experience would provide evidence against materialism. I does not, it only proofs the existence of subjective feelings, experiences and knowledge.

Of course conscious experience is evidence against materialism. The red dot in the room is evidence that the room isn't all blue. U are using the basic assumption of materialism(brain produces consciousness), as an argument for materialism!

 

[PIT2]

Here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3133438412578691486

Always interesting these interviews. Its important to realize that Dennetts ideas are highly speculative. Not that other ideas arent, but this means it requires faith to believe in them, and thus atheism dependent on his ideas does too.

With my link i wanted to show u that the relation between brain and experience can be interpreted in other ways than the materialist one. The guy speaking in it describes (partly in the interview but also in his papers) how we ultimately decide whether something is 'real' or not.

 

[heusdens]

Creating, shaping, etc. it doesn't matter, the point is that subjectivity influences matter. Whether this subjectivity actually initiates completely new quantum events, or completely novel ideas, dreamworlds, etc. doesn't matter for now. U say its natural, and i agree, and this also demonstrates that the idea of a god is not in principle supernatural. If its natural when our own minds do it, why would it be supernatural when it happens at some other point in time, for instance at the moment of the big bang.

Neither our mindly experience nor the moment of the big bang are in any way mysterious or "special" events.

I agree, matter as we know it is just the properties we have observed it to have. However, those properties which u hold to be fundamental, do not in any way describe the act of observing. Thats why materialism only tells half the story of what's going on.

Partly there you are right here, since we need to think of matter in a dialectical way. The activity of life and conscioussness is what in fact causes this separation of consciousness and subjective minds and the outside, external material world (that what is reflected in our consciousness). They form in fact a dialectical unity of opposites, in which neither exists without the other, they have no separate meaning.

But u think materialism justifies claiming that atheism does not require faith?

Of course conscious experience is evidence against materialism. The red dot in the room is evidence that the room isn't all blue. U are using the basic assumption of materialism(brain produces consciousness), as an argument for materialism!

It is more drastic and radical then that. The red dot only exists because the rest of the room is blue and vice versa. You need to think of them (consciousness, versus matter) in a dialectical way as a unity of opposites.
The same is to say there is no objectivity without subjectivity, no light without dark, no positive without negative, etc. Both determine each other and can not exist without each other.

So in this way conscioussness does not disproof materialism (nor does materialism disproof consciousness), and both can be united as dialectical materialism.

 

[Marghk]

Well, I'm not going to make the obvious "What came before God" statement, cause I'm more than sure you have pondered this yourself.

Myself, as an atheist. I believe in it due to a larger quater of realism in the big bang theory. Personally, its just because I find it hard that a god existed/exist's. I'm more a man of science than religon.

I'm not asking something from 'God' like some atheists do. But I do find it a bit sceptical to put such enormous faith into a book, the main recognition of Jesus, God and beleived creation of man kind.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly wish I still beleived in a religon. Knowing that there is a God(s) looking over me and allowing me into an eternity of happiness is somewhat a good feeling, I wish I could go back to when I beleived in Christianity.

But for now, evidence will pile up... I don't think I'll ever be in another religous group than atheism.

 

[Raza]

Religion does not negate the big-bang theory, learning how the universe is made is not blasphemy. It's just like learning about mountains are made. I believe that the big-bang did happen BUT the power to make the universe was given by God. I was watching Brian Greene 2 days ago and he said that the big-bang happened thousand times faster than the speed of light, now that just doesn't happen randomly.

 

[ray b]

if there is a god why all the very different religions
and every religion split into many sub cults

if man made god it is normal for every man to make a different god
as every man has different ideas and ideals

no god cults are the same without contact between the cults
ie the one god cult moved from egypt to the so call holy land and then to
the saudi lands all close to each other both in time and distance
NO WHERE ELSE had a one god cult except imported versions of these
this clearly shows one man invented or revised the cults at a single time and place
king tuts dad to moses to paul/saul to mohamed and no hand of god
behind the cults beliefs just the teaching of a single man in each stage
and many splits into subcults following the teachings of other men over time

now if every or even a large number of tribes over the world
had independant home grown cults with beliefs that were near the same
I could see a god behind them who taught man a belief
BUT THAT NEVER HAPPEND
man taught man the beliefs only after contact
and never met a near same cult anywhere
that was a independant creation

SO MAN MADE GODS all types and never two the same

 

[Raza]

if there is a god why all the very different religions
and every religion split into many sub cults

if man made god it is normal for every man to make a different god
as every man has different ideas and ideals

no god cults are the same without contact between the cults
ie the one god cult moved from egypt to the so call holy land and then to
the saudi lands all close to each other both in time and distance
NO WHERE ELSE had a one god cult except imported versions of these
this clearly shows one man invented or revised the cults at a single time and place
king tuts dad to moses to paul/saul to mohamed and no hand of god
behind the cults beliefs just the teaching of a single man in each stage
and many splits into subcults following the teachings of other men over time

now if every or even a large number of tribes over the world
had independant home grown cults with beliefs that were near the same
I could see a god behind them who taught man a belief
BUT THAT NEVER HAPPEND
man taught man the beliefs only after contact
and never met a near same cult anywhere
that was a independant creation

SO MAN MADE GODS all types and never two the same

I believe your opinion is very valid but let me tell you something.

We as Muslims believe that Judaism WAS the right religion, until it was corrupted,(so all the True Jews between Judaism and Christianity went to the heaven) and Christianity WAS the right religion until it too was corrupted (so all the true Christian between Christianity and Islam went to the heaven).

And also, I sometimes take out my religion (so forgetting about Jesus, Moses etc..) and only think about life and ask myself, How can a universe be created without no one building it? I simply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

I somply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.

This boundary that you have constructed emerges out of your fundamental presuppositions and assumptions about reality. Until you transcend the notion that nature itself, requires a creator, our models of logic will remain incommeasurable.

This has no logical implications, merely speculation and intuivie rambles so don't treat this rigorously.

Let's consider the writing of Jean-Paul Sartre for a moment, which will be from memory so please correct any errors. If one is to forgo the concept of god for a moment, an interesting perspective about reality develops. Assuming the nonexistance of god, we shall proceed to an analogy.

If one chooses to construct a chair, one must first, initiate the concept of the chair so that one can physically design the chair. This is referred to as, 'essence.' After the concept of the chair has been considered, one must create the chair. This is referred to as, 'existence.'

In this particular analogy, 'essence precedes existence,' or the concept of the chair had to be created before the construction of the chair could begin. However, Sartre said that 'subjectivity is the starting point' and that in relation to man, 'existence precedes essence.'

What this means is that constructivist realities (things we create), are contigent upon our subjective conception of a particular property of a constructivist reality, in order for it to come into fruition. However, man is different. Man appears on the scene and then defines himself and everything around him.

We define ourselves as humans, we define a tree to be a tree, we axiomatically construct formal logic systems such as mathematics, etc. We project our own subjective perceptions of the universe, onto itself.

We decide that things require a beginning and we decide that it's impossible for the universe to exist independent of a creator. The notion that this universe existed prior to our inception into the universe, shouldn't be hard to grasp and the notion that we define the universe shouldn't be difficult either.

If that logic follows, then it doesn't seem like a leap to conclude that 'existence precedes essence,' as everything that hasn't naturally existed independent of human mind, is a subset of our existence. There is nothing to define us that we are cognizant of, other than ourselves.

Once you deconstruct your subjective projection of the requirement for a creator, new and alternate perspectives emerge. I personally can't imagine some dude chillen somewhere made the universe as depicted in many religions. I also have a hard time believing that the entire universe was created specifically for this island of a rock we call Earth.

I see no reason for a creator, other than our own projection of that requirement. I am a deterministic byproduct of nature, with absolutely no man made influence.

Now, if we wish to treat this discussion with rigorous logic, I am down for a discussion. Otherwise, we can keep it casual.

 

[out of whack]

How can a universe be created without no one building it? I simply cannot surpass the barrier which is in my mind that says that the universe is made by itself.

You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?

How did I forget to throw that one in! :)

OCCAMS RAZOR!

 

[moe darklight]

You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?

that's what always gets to me

if the universe is "too complex" to create itself (which is kind of an over-simplified statement, but anyway..), then how could a god so much more infinitely complex than the universe (a conscious, feeling, thinking, all knowing, infinitely wise god) have created itself?

or if god can have always existed, why can't reality have always existed... or if god exists outside of time... etc...

the only logical explanation (following the religious logic that is: that everything must have a creator or a designer greater than itself), would be for God to have been designed by an even greater, wiser, all-knowinger, SuperGod! and that super god would have to have been created by an even more infinitely wiserer, all knowingerer super-supergod, and so on.

 

[Chaos' lil bro Order]

We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.

 

[Raza]

You cannot process the idea of something made by itself and you resolve this by postulating a god that is made by itself?

Who says I believe that God is made by himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.

 

[out of whack]

Who says I believe that God is made my himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.

Well, "made by something else" would pretty much disqualify god as creator...

 

[moe darklight]

Who says I believe that God is made my himself? If I don't know the answer to this question, it doesn't mean that I believe that God was made by himself.

either way, it doesn't work out logically:
- if god created itself, then that negates your reason to need a god to create the universe in the first place (that is: things, including the universe, CAN create themselves or spontaneously occur).

- if God needed a creator, then God's creator also needed a creator, and so on... ad infinitum, and no god is the true god (in this way too, the universe could be created without the need of a god: multi-verse theories, etc.)

either way, God is redundant. ... and either way both god and no god are a possibility. what is left after that is look at all the available evidence and come to a conclusion.

it's no coincidence the vast majority of scientists are agnostic or atheists: all the evidence points towards God being highly improbable, not needed, and a man-made concept.

no one can say for sure that there is no god, but most scientists will agree that god is simply very unlikely (and even more unlikely is for god to not only exist, but for anyone to pick or be born into the religion that happened to have chosen the true identity of god! -- remember: just as much as you KNOW that islam is true and christianity is not, christians KNOW that christianity is true and islam is not, jews KNOW that judaism is true and christianity is not, scientologists KNOW that scientology is true... )

We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.

if only that were true... most religious people will admit that they obviously can't be 100% sure of god, and that it's simply what they chose as most probable/help them cope with life/model their values after and so on -- just as most atheists will admit that they can't be 100% sure that god does not exist.
but there are those who do believe beyond shadow of a doubt the word of their god. their mind has been taken over so badly by this belief system that they will shut down (and even punish themselves for) any thought that questions its existence: fanatics, martyrs, etc.

they are a minority, yes... but there's more than enough of them, in more than enough countries, of enough contradicting religions, near enough "red buttons" for it to be very dangerous.

 

[turbo]

We are all truly agnostic. We simply do not know if there is a God or not. That is the only truth.

Thank you. Theism and atheism are equally indefensible, for the same reasons. They both elevate the concept of god to the same level - the former in affirmation and the latter in negation. It is pure hubris to claim any certainty in this matter. The televangelist fiercely squinting his eyes as he "prays" on TV and the "rational" atheist who proclaims that there is no god are but two sides of the same coin.

Agnosticism is not an expression of doubt and uncertainty - it is the acknowledgment that some things cannot be known, and that questions in such matters are philosophical at heart, speculative in nature, and not answerable in practice. So many religions, so much certainty...if only MY belief is right, WHY is MY belief right, and all the others wrong? A question that might have saved millions of lives if answered honestly...