Atheists: Fully Human?

[Joe12Pack]

I don't mean to say that anyone is saying there has to be a god in terms of, some being that inspires prophets to write books and so on.

The only requisite for something's being is the act of being. If you ask "Why do we exist?" the only surefire answer is "Because we are." I am being, because I am. There's no requirement for something to come into existence for it to exist. That's a different verb.

That's not to say it's impossible to come into existence, just that it's not required to exist.

[KowboyKoop]

I guess I just find it difficult to understand how people assume:
1) Something can't come from nothing
2) Something must have been created by a creator, who in turn created the universe
3) If we call this creator god, then there's no need to question where this creator came from and it's ok for him/her/it to come from nothing
4) Problem/Paradox solved

I understand the first platitude, but you guys start to lose me on the ensuing steps


**Not trying to encite you KK, just wondering why you find it more plausible for a being with creative powers to come from nothing but lesser building blocks wouldn't be capable of doing that

I don't think that scientific forces can come from nothing. Obviously it's just an assumption since I am not an expert on every scientific force in the world, but given the fact that humans have the capability of learning about so many types of scientific forces/happenings and haven't found any that have evolved out of pure nothingness, I think it's possible that they can't.

I don't think a creator created everything about the universe. I think there is some type of creator that set in motion the very first scientific force. From that point on, I have no idea what happens next or why...I just don't think a scientific force could've been created out of pure nothingness.

I think this so called created operates beyond human comprehension. In the history of mankind, we have shown the ability to learn about and control so many scientific forces. We haven't learned one thing definitively about any type of god, in any sense of the word.



It comes down to this. I think humans, in time, have the ability to learn about and understand every type of scientific force possible. I don't think they have the ability to ever understand one thing about any type of god. Based on what we know and can know, I think it's safe to say that a scientific force can't create itself. Given that we haven't learned anything about a god, in any sense of the world, I think it could be possible that a god could create itself.


Of course it's all just my opinion. I'm not saying anyone is wrong or anything...there's no way to know what is wrong or right.

[Jeffy25]

I love how Cardinals like this make us look stupid

[acetoolguy]

Perhaps our ability to understand scientific concepts has hindered our ability to understand theological ones.

[Jeffy25]

Perhaps our ability to understand scientific concepts has hindered our ability to understand theological ones.

well said

[guidi2009]

I'm not really sure if I see the point of this thread. A Cardinal doesn't like atheists. NO WAY. He wants to define human in a spiritual rather than biologic sense. Who cares?

It's so wonderful that you can say who cares. There was a time you would of been killed for that, we can never let religion get the influence it once had. It would be a disaster. So i'll join, I could care less what the cardinal says.

[dickay]

Perhaps our ability to understand scientific concepts has hindered our ability to understand theological ones.

perhaps....love it. perhaps we are all a bit "closed minded" on these issues.

[HoustonGM]

I think, by nature, theological concepts, or rather, gods, are not understandable by humans. Isn't that sort of the point?

[Jeffy25]

I think, by nature, theological concepts, or rather, gods, are not understandable by humans. Isn't that sort of the point?

yup....the thought is supposed to be, that we can not fathom what a god, or gods can comprehend. They are apparently all mighty and all powerful...so how are we supposed to know the answer? we aren't. thus why a debate on religion usually doesn't bode this forum too well.

[Joe12Pack]

I won't go as far as to say things were never "set in force," but it doesn't follow from sound logic that things were ever "set in force." The same notion that says to you "How could something come from nothing?" should suggest to you, "Everything always was and always will be."

It's a function of our mind to assume that things were set in force. We see cause and effect. We, especially as people of the western world, see things rather pragmatically. We assume that there must have been a birth, since there is a person. And there, we are correct. We assume that somebody locked a door if it is locked. There, we are probably correct. We assume that somebody used the last of the toothpaste, since there is no more. There, we are again, probably correct.

These are instances that we know, from experience and learning, have been caused somehow. We see so many causes, that we assume all effects have causes. We therefore assume that, since there is a universe, since there is matter, since there is action and thought and time, that there was something to make it all happen and exist. We ask questions like "If there was a Big Bang, what was around before that event?" and "If there was a creator, or a force that created, what were things like before that creator/force? Who created/forced it?" We don't realize that, given the knowledge provided in the questions and their contexts, and the nature of the questions, there doesn't need to be an answer, and there probably isn't.

The universe isn't the same as the trivialities of your daily life. There is no visible or verifiable cause/effect, and there doesn't have to be one. There is not, inherently, a "starting point" or a "first being" or "first force." It's difficult to fathom, because it's difficult to not want to see ALL things as traveling on a two-dimensional time line. We assume everything is on a two-dimensional time line, and we ask questions about what came before whatever it was that came before what is.

These are the reasons God was "created" in the first place.

Things are, and that's all that matters. This is the best answer, by far, that's ever been provided to these questions. From Plato to quantum mechanics. What is, is, because it is, and only because it is.

[dickay]

I won't go as far as to say things were never "set in force," but it doesn't follow from sound logic that things were ever "set in force." The same notion that says to you "How could something come from nothing?" should suggest to you, "Everything always was and always will be."

It's a function of our mind to assume that things were set in force. We see cause and effect. We, especially as people of the western world, see things rather pragmatically. We assume that there must have been a birth, since there is a person. And there, we are correct. We assume that somebody locked a door if it is locked. There, we are probably correct. We assume that somebody used the last of the toothpaste, since there is no more. There, we are again, probably correct.

These are instances that we know, from experience and learning, have been caused somehow. We see so many causes, that we assume all effects have causes. We therefore assume that, since there is a universe, since there is matter, since there is action and thought and time, that there was something to make it all happen and exist. We ask questions like "If there was a Big Bang, what was around before that event?" and "If there was a creator, or a force that created, what were things like before that creator/force? Who created/forced it?" We don't realize that, given the knowledge provided in the questions and their contexts, and the nature of the questions, there doesn't need to be an answer, and there probably isn't.

The universe isn't the same as the trivialities of your daily life. There is no visible or verifiable cause/effect, and there doesn't have to be one. There is not, inherently, a "starting point" or a "first being" or "first force." It's difficult to fathom, because it's difficult to not want to see ALL things as traveling on a two-dimensional time line. We assume everything is on a two-dimensional time line, and we ask questions about what came before whatever it was that came before what is.

These are the reasons God was "created" in the first place.

Things are, and that's all that matters. This is the best answer, by far, that's ever been provided to these questions. From Plato to quantum mechanics. What is, is, because it is, and only because it is.

uh, doesn't it "depend on what the meaning of the word is, is?"

[Joe12Pack]

uh, doesn't it "depend on what the meaning of the word is, is?"

I couldn't help but thinking of that when i typed it.

[dickay]

I couldn't help but thinking of that when i typed it.

Regardless of viewpoints on Clinton, that statement alone baffles me everytime it crosses my mind. That a sitting president, heck even a former president, would make such a statement remains one of the most shocking things i've ever heard from someone in a position of authority.

[HoustonGM]

What statement is that? "What is, is, because it is, and only because it is"? Googling that comes up with no Clinton quote...or anything else.

Personally, I think this is way more shocking, and dangerous.

[BINGLEBOP]

What statement is that? "What is, is, because it is, and only because it is"? Googling that comes up with no Clinton quote...or anything else.

Personally, I think this is way more shocking, and dangerous.

No, it was "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." that Clinton said during his grand jury testimony on the Lewinsky affair.