Deconstructing god, and why I don't believe

[the_std]

So if it's okay to ask "Why is the sky blue?" Why is it wrong to ask, "Why was the universe created?"

I'm not saying it's wrong to ask why the universe was created. You go ahead and ask until you're hoarse. I'm just saying that there is no real answer in the original context we were talking about. You were talking about an answer to a question about the world, about the universe. I will say it again, there is no answer to "why was the universe created" because the question itself doesn't actually apply to the universe. Not the real, science-based universe that has no conscience and is run by nothing but physics, biology and chemistry. That universe does not care about the why. The question you're actually asking is about the universe that only exists in your head, your own personal reality. There might be an answer out there that suits your particular question, but that question is different for every person because every person's reality in their head is different. That's why it's inapplicable. I never said right or wrong.

[Fryk]

I'm a fan of the "Big Crunch" theory. The idea is that, after a "Big Bang," the universe expands for a while, then gravity starts pulling everything back together. Eventually, everything crunches back into a singularity, from which another "Big Bang" erupts.

Sadly, Ghel, I think the "big crunch" theory is losing out. The rate of the expansion of space is accelerating wildly, we likely won't end up with enough mass to reverse it.

[Gravekeeper]

Sadly, Ghel, I think the "big crunch" theory is losing out. The rate of the expansion of space is accelerating wildly, we likely won't end up with enough mass to reverse it.

Score one for Heat Death.

[HYHYBT]

So how is it that answers along the lines of "there is no answer to why the universe exists at all" or saying that sort of question is nonsense (as I've heard Richard Dawkins do on the radio) not count as assertions that need evidence to support them?

[the_std]

So how is it that answers along the lines of "there is no answer to why the universe exists at all"

"There is no answer" tends to be more of an 'I do not know' statement, so it doesn't need evidence to support it as it's not going either way. How could you support 'I do not know'?

or saying that sort of question is nonsense (as I've heard Richard Dawkins do on the radio) not count as assertions that need evidence to support them?

I haven't seen anyone here say that that sort of argument is valid without evidence. No one has called anything nonsense. If they did, I would say they'd need evidence too, just as someone asserting the existence of God would.

[Ghel]

Now who's avoiding the question?

I was not avoiding the questions. I was reframing them so that they would make sense.

What makes you think that your life has any meaning or purpose beyond the one you give it?

Sadly, Ghel, I think the "big crunch" theory is losing out. The rate of the expansion of space is accelerating wildly, we likely won't end up with enough mass to reverse it.

I love debating science, but that's not the point here. It's still science. None of this is suggesting that there's some sort of intelligence behind the existence of the universe, which is what Hobbs seems to be suggesting.

[Fryk]

It just means Robert Frost should not have held with those who favor fire. :: )

[Hobbs]

I was not avoiding the questions. I was reframing them so that they would make sense.

What makes you think that your life has any meaning or purpose beyond the one you give it?


I love debating science, but that's not the point here. It's still science. None of this is suggesting that there's some sort of intelligence behind the existence of the universe, which is what Hobbs seems to be suggesting.

What makes you think my life doesn't have meaning beyond what I give it? Personally, I don't think my life is all that significant.

[HYHYBT]

"There is no answer" is not at all the same as "I don't know the answer," or even "nobody knows the answer."

As for the other, I don't remember exactly; it was in an episode of "To The Best Of Our Knowledge" a while back, so I'll probably come across it again eventually; in the meantime, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it.

[Ghel]

What makes you think my life doesn't have meaning beyond what I give it?

I don't believe in gods or anything else supernatural that would give any person's life meaning. I suppose you could say that your life might have a meaning to somebody else, but that would be based on the effect your words and actions have on them.

[Hobbs]

I don't believe in gods or anything else supernatural that would give any person's life meaning. I suppose you could say that your life might have a meaning to somebody else, but that would be based on the effect your words and actions have on them.

I don't see God as giving my life meaning, merely being there. I suppose that sounds a bit blasphemous...

[Ghel]

I don't see God as giving my life meaning, merely being there.

I'm confused again. When you say "why are we here?" you suggest that you believe that there is an intrinsic meaning to life - some purpose outside oneself - and that it's the same for all people.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Nothing gives my life meaning, personally, just my own self. Why would you even need something to give meaning to your life? As for something just "being there"; then what's the point?

[Hobbs]

I'm confused again. When you say "why are we here?" you suggest that you believe that there is an intrinsic meaning to life - some purpose outside oneself - and that it's the same for all people.

...and? Is there a point your making here?

Nothing gives my life meaning, personally, just my own self. Why would you even need something to give meaning to your life? As for something just "being there"; then what's the point?

He is the Lord our God; it is Right to give Him praise.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Your god, not mine.

Just that you said "being there". A table is being there; do you worship tables?