If atheists are right - how come there are so few of them?

[John J. Bannan]

Crunchy Cat. Well said. Questioning the very meaning of "cause and effect" in attempting to explain the universe is an interesting approach. Indeed, why do you need to explain the cause of the universe, if there is no such thing as "cause" outside our own universe. This is, of course, just a guess. No proof, though. Still can't explain the existence of the universe, just suggest that the question has no real meaning. Maybe you're right - maybe you're not. A guess is not enough to shoot God down, however. You have overlooked one aspect of nothingness, however. What if nothingness is itself something - and therefore everything we see is really an aspect of nothingness? In such a case, you don't need any explanation for the existence of the universe - because it is in fact nothingness which requires no explanation. This again, is just a guess, and not enough to shoot God down. Nice try, though.

 

[ashura]

Umm I wouldn't?

Do you believe in Santa?

 

[S.A.M.]

Do you believe in Santa?

Of course, and he leaves me a present every Christmas too.

No of course not, and the reason I don't believe in Santa is because I know the people who dress up and play Santa.

But no one told me about it, I figured it out for myself, as do most children. (Are there parents who tell their children there is no Santa? How utterly cruel!)

 

[ashura]

Of course, and he leaves me a present every Christmas too.

No of course not, and the reason I don't believe in Santa is because I know the people who dress up and play Santa.

How do you know there isn't a real Santa out there somewhere, flying over chimneys with his sled and dropping off gifts? Maybe the only reason you've never gotten one from him is because you've been naughty.

 

[SnakeLord]

Are there parents who tell their children there is no Santa? How utterly cruel!

How is that ultimately 'cruel'? You know, I find it better to get presents for my children and then say: "I got these for you because I love you more than anything in the world". In my estimation that's a damn sight better than saying some dude dropped 'em through the chimney for no good reason.

 

[S.A.M.]

How is that ultimately 'cruel'? You know, I find it better to get presents for my children and then say: "I got these for you because I love you more than anything in the world". In my estimation that's a damn sight better than saying some dude dropped 'em through the chimney for no good reason.

Ack I so dislike pragmatic parents. Did they do the Easter Bunny egg hunt? Hide their tooth under the pillow?

 

[Orleander]

So few in terms of relative proportion to the believers of the world. ...

Maybe because we understand the concept of birth control??

I am an atheist but both my kids attend church. My son thought it was stupid and quit going. My daughter enjoys it and attends every Sunday and sometimes on Wednesday. Belief is a very personal thing and I am not going to dictate what they should believe, especially if it gives them peace. I see no harm in a god-belief.
So, in the evolution of things, I guess I have replaced myself with a believer.

 

[ashura]

So how do you know there isn't a real Santa flying over chimneys on a sled S.A.M.?

 

[S.A.M.]

So how do you know there isn't a real Santa flying over chimneys on a sled S.A.M.?

Maybe there is, but I'm not particularly concerned with him.

 

[ashura]

Maybe there is, but I'm not particularly concerned with him.

Wait wait wait.. there's a chance that he might exist, but you still don't believe in him?

 

[S.A.M.]

Wait wait wait.. there's a chance that he might exist, but you still don't believe in him?

I said I'm not concerned with him. Just like I'm not concerned with invisible pink unicorns in attics or teapots flying around in space.

 

[ashura]

I said I'm not concerned with him. Just like I'm not concerned with invisible pink unicorns in attics or teapots flying around in space.

What you also said was:

No of course not, ...I don't believe in Santa...

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat. Well said. Questioning the very meaning of "cause and effect" in attempting to explain the universe is an interesting approach. Indeed, why do you need to explain the cause of the universe, if there is no such thing as "cause" outside our own universe.

You got it

This is, of course, just a guess. No proof, though.

I would upgrade it to a hypothesis and although it is far from proven it is logically sound and current scientific knowledge supports it.

Still can't explain the existence of the universe, just suggest that the question has no real meaning.

Correct. There may even be an option that nobody has thought of yet but is true nonetheless.

Maybe you're right - maybe you're not. A guess is not enough to shoot God down, however.

Well like I said... a generic 'God' cannot be disproven and at the sametime if one did exist there is no human that would know anything about it. Specific claims of 'God' can all be disproven.

You have overlooked one aspect of nothingness, however. What if nothingness is itself something - and therefore everything we see is really an aspect of nothingness?

If *nothing* is anything but an absence of anything / everything then it becomes *something*. In other words, .0000000000000000000000001 is still not 0.

In such a case, you don't need any explanation for the existence of the universe - because it is in fact nothingness which requires no explanation. This again, is just a guess, and not enough to shoot God down. Nice try, though.

It's an interesting thought and it doesn't stand up to logic. There is at least one inflationary theory that attepts to explore what happens during a 'first-time inflation'. It predicts the existence of some kind of .0000000000000000001 structure that is a whole (has no opposite) and then natural disturbance in this mystery structure divides an area of it into opposing parts which then repel symmetrically and we have an inflation.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Nothing is something - it's "nothing". By itself being something - nothingness creates all of somethingness. Is there any real difference between nothingness - and a bit of nothing here and a bit of nothing there, i.e particles? In other words, does the existence of contrast between things necessarily mean that we are not still observing nothingness? This is a bit esoteric, but I don't believe it is illogical.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Nothing is something - it's "nothing". By itself being something - nothingness creates all of somethingness.

It's *something* in conceptual form, but if it was real it would be complete and utter absence.

Is there any real difference between nothingness - and a bit of nothing here and a bit of nothing there, i.e particles? In other words, does the existence of contrast between things necessarily mean that we are not still observing nothingness? This is a bit esoteric, but I don't believe it is illogical.

Take a point of space where there are no particles... no atoms... not even a stray neutrino. There is still dimension, time, etc. The word 'nothing' seems to have been born of subjective interpretation of relationships. If I say there is 'nothing' in my glass, then what I likely mean is that the glass is not full of liquid.

 

[Dinosaur]

If Nobel prize winners are right, why are there so few of them?

It is difficult to find the truth, the way, and the light. Only the best and the brightest are atheists.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Nothingness is a concept. Certainly you can imagine there never having been anything at all. It is the only state of existence that requires no explanation. However, if matter is really just nothingness, then a given point in space even in the absence of any particles contained therein would still be an aspect of nothingness. The beauty of equating matter and space with nothingness is you don't have to explain its existence. However, you do have to explain how the concept of nothingness can turn into matter and space. The explanation is that nothingness is something, and that something creates everything else. True, the concept of nothingness seems to be defied by the fact that matter and space exists - unless you understand those things to be an aspect of nothingness itself. Then nothingness does exist, just not the way one would expect it to manifest itself.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Gallileo was an atheist? Issac Newton was an atheist? Einstein was an atheist? There is the best and brightest, and they're not atheists. Good luck with that argument.

 

[ashura]

Only the best and the brightest are atheists.

As an atheist, I find this statement to be ridiculous.

 

[S.A.M.]

As an atheist, I find this statement to be ridiculous.

Sokay. Everyone has their delusions.