Coming out as an Agnostic

[ALAYMAN]

Well, I guess Joseph has elected not to defend his agnostic beliefs on this matter of something coming from nothing.  To tell you the truth, I don't blame him, because the nature of the arguments that folk make (like Dr Krauss, from the video posted earlier) they just really make themselves look foolish.  But in case there are still some onlookers, reading this thread and tempted to come away with the conclusion that science has the answers to the important questions of life, I want to give this link to a layman's explanation of where scientists (and philosopher wannabes) like Krauss go wrong by equivocating.


But if you're still reading Joseph, and would rather talk about how the situation with your wife played out, give us an update on how you handled it and how she reacted.

 

[Route_70]

on this matter of something coming from nothing.

On this matter, it is just as to believe that something has always existed as to believe that God has always existed.  That eliminates the need to explain how something can come from nothing (I did not watch the video).

The only question that remains then is how do you prove one belief over the other?

Let's look at this another way:  you claim to believe that God created something from nothing.  Is the Bible really clear that that is what God did?  Even so, is there any other source of information that makes such a declaration?

Also, you suggest that "something from nothing" is the commonly shared belief among atheistc/agnostic scientists, and those that lean toward the scientists, and reject the Bible.  Why do you take that position?

 

[Mr. Hall]

I've been a fundamentalist my entire life. I even met my wife in a Christian college. But I am now agnostic. I need advice on the best way to talk to my wife about it. How do I tell her that I no longer believe the Bible is "the word of God"?  She is still a believer. Looking for people that have been in this situation before and how they handled it. Or a spouse that was on the receiving end of this kind of revelation.

I'm curious as to how this transition from fundamentalist to agnostic took place.  When I was immersed in fundamentalism as a youth, questioning or doubting its tenets was unthinkable.  So powerful was its hold that I was only able to shake loose from it after leaving home and then only very gradually. 

Your situation is not enviable.  Nearly all in my immediate family are still hardcore fundamentalists.  We handle our theological differences by not talking about them.  Not so easy with a spouse.

$

 

[ALAYMAN]

On this matter, it is just as to believe that something has always existed as to believe that God has always existed.  That eliminates the need to explain how something can come from nothing (I did not watch the video). 
The only question that remains then is how do you prove one belief over the other?

I assume you left out the word "easy" in the first sentence above.  If so, it may be ideologically and philosophically tempting  (based on your own naturalistic worldview and disposition) to believe that something has always existed but there is credible evidence to dispute that.  The overwhelming preponderance of evidence amongst (atheistic) scientists points to the universe having a beginning.  The question that must arise of course, is what caused that "big bang"?

Let's look at this another way:  you claim to believe that God created something from nothing.  Is the Bible really clear that that is what God did?  Even so, is there any other source of information that makes such a declaration?

For the Christian, all matters of faith and practice are settled by the revealed word of God, no other source needed.  You may not like that, but it is a well-attested evangelical fact that our beliefs are informed by an infallible word of God, not the wisdom of the world.

Also, you suggest that "something from nothing" is the commonly shared belief among atheistc/agnostic scientists, and those that lean toward the scientists, and reject the Bible.  Why do you take that position?

Because it is observable in the scientific community, particularly among the academy, and world renowned spokesmen (Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss etc) for atheism/agnosticism. link

 

[Route_70]

it may be ideologically and philosophically tempting  (based on your own naturalistic worldview and disposition) to believe that something has always existed but there is credible evidence to dispute that.

First, I don't base my arguments on what I "believe."  I read the science, and follow the latest developments, and contemplate the current theories, and report that.  So, do not ascribe my position to my "beliefs."  Besides, what I believe, and what you believe is irrelevant to the facts of what is, and has no effect on the truth.

Please show me.  Please direct me to your source of credible evidence.  Never mind.  Don't show me; because there is no such "evidence."  The math behind the physics strongly suggests that there could not have been "nothing;" there had to be something.  In short, "something" cannot come from "nothing," according to the physics/math.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence amongst (atheistic) scientists points to the universe having a beginning.  The question that must arise of course, is what caused that "big bang"?

Okay, here is one of the major misunderstandings among the laity:  just because something had a beginning, does not necessarily mean that something had a beginning from nothing.  Do you not see the difference?  It is just assumed among the lesser educated that before the universe began, there was nothing.  It is just assumed among the believers that scientists believe that "something" came from "nothing."

You are only expressing your assumption.  Credible scientists who study such things do not teach that before the universe began there was nothing, and that all of a sudden there was a "bang," then something existed.  That is not what they believe.  That is what you have been told by those who know nothing about it, other than it goes against their precious, close-to-the-heart beliefs.

And threatens their livelihood.

 

[ALAYMAN]

First, I don't base my arguments on what I "believe."  I read the science, and follow the latest developments, and contemplate the current theories, and report that.  So, do not ascribe my position to my "beliefs."  Besides, what I believe, and what you believe is irrelevant to the facts of what is, and has no effect on the truth.

First, for your first, your understanding of "belief" is flawed, as even science has a certain set of "givens" and presuppositions that is inherent to it.  As such, metaphysics, logic, and other parameters necessary for arriving at "truth" make your declaration about "what you believe" to be fairly nonsensical.  Second, "I read the science" seems to imply some sort of monolithic view of "science".  There are no singular views within the scientific community on ANY subject, particularly cosmology.

Please show me.  Please direct me to your source of credible evidence.  Never mind.  Don't show me; because there is no such "evidence."  The math behind the physics strongly suggests that there could not have been "nothing;" there had to be something.  In short, "something" cannot come from "nothing," according to the physics/math.

Scientists that I gave you sources for say that the universe had a beginning, but you deny that?  The most that scientists generally state is that they cannot know what preceded the big bang (by empirical evidence, which is what science is), but you declare otherwise? 

Okay, here is one of the major misunderstandings among the laity:  just because something had a beginning, does not necessarily mean that something had a beginning from nothing.  Do you not see the difference? 

Nope, what I have said that from the beginning is that if there was EVER a time when there was nothing then there would still be nothing.  You say matter and space is eternal (contrary to what conventional science generally refutes) whereas I say that God is the one who best suits the concept of eternality.

It is just assumed among the lesser educated that before the universe began, there was nothing.

Wrong again.  It is assumed by the scientific naturalist that he doesn't know what was before the big bang, but he certainly is at a metaphysical impasse in trying to explain how something caused this phenomenon, whereas the theologian says that there was never a time when there was no thing, because God always existed.

You are only expressing your assumption.  Credible scientists who study such things do not teach that before the universe began there was nothing,

If you would have watched the video you would have seen one of the current world's most renowned physicist say that very thing, but keep speaking in vague generalities that don't match truth.

and that all of a sudden there was a "bang," then something existed.  That is not what they believe.  That is what you have been told by those who know nothing about it, other than it goes against their precious, close-to-the-heart beliefs.

And threatens their livelihood.

No, again, you misrepresent what has been said.  Some scientists claim something came from nothing (ala Dr Krauss), but even then they equivocate on what the word "nothing" means, but most just declare agnostic views because they know that they won't ever know what happened at the moment of creation because science is limited to observation.  Nobody has told me what you claim that they have told me because you are just pulling stuff out of your posterior, making it up as you go along.  For a fella that knows so much more than anybody else on the forum you sure do make a lot of stuff up.

 

[Route_70]

First, you say that scientists do not all agree on any one thing, much (maybe one or two).  I agree.

Second, regarding the "big bang," most of them -- almost all -- will say that they do not know what came before the so-called "big bang," a phrase they did not coin, anyway, and tend to not like much.

What they will say, and what I said, is that the mathematics behind the physics "suggests (I used this word)" that there had to be something before the big bang: maybe another universe.

The big bang is not the beginning of your "something coming from nothing" -- it is the beginning of our current universe.  That is the currently, most widely agreed-upon theory.

About your statement that I just make things up as I go along, that is just baloney.  A pure cop-out on your part.

Okay, so I took a look at the video ? the one with WLC?  I know about him: the Kalam Cosmological, the Teleological, and all that.

If that is the video of which you speak, it does not contradict what I said:  The fact that the universe had a beginning does not mean that "something came from nothing."  Of course, the current universe had a beginning!  I am not arguing against that.

I don?t get my information from guys like Hitchens and Dawkins, in the way you get your information from guys like Hovind, Ham, and Craig.  I get my information by watching video lectures from Stanford, Cal Tech, and MIT, and others; and from scientific articles on the research being done at CERN, and so on.  To me it is all interesting to see theories being ferreted out based on mathematics ? not some collection of ancient manuscripts on mythology.

 

[ALAYMAN]

hat they will say, and what I said, is that the mathematics behind the physics "suggests (I used this word)" that there had to be something before the big bang: maybe another universe.

Cause and effect demands that we ask what caused that other universe? Infinite regress leads to God.

Okay, so I took a look at the video ? the one with WLC?  I know about him: the Kalam Cosmological, the Teleological, and all that.... If that is the video of which you speak,

If WLC means William Lane Craig then no, that's not the video.  Joseph007 posted this video of a physicist named Krauss who runs with Dawkins et al.

it does not contradict what I said:  The fact that the universe had a beginning does not mean that "something came from nothing."  Of course, the current universe had a beginning!  I am not arguing against that.

Unless you are arguing for eternal matter then all you are doing is moving the goalposts.  Eternality is a trait of deity, not matter.  And entropy speaks to organization and design, not randomness.

I don?t get my information from guys like Hitchens and Dawkins, in the way you get your information from guys like Hovind, Ham, and Craig.  I get my information by watching video lectures from Stanford, Cal Tech, and MIT, and others; and from scientific articles on the research being done at CERN, and so on.  To me it is all interesting to see theories being ferreted out based on mathematics ? not some collection of ancient manuscripts on mythology.

I don't ever read Hovind.  Might have watched Ham twice, and have only read a few snippets of Craig.  Your charges, as often is the case, are baseless.  At the core of your insinuation however, is one of an appeal to authority, and even at that it fails, because a host of intellectuals/scientists like Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne fall on the side of theology.

 

[Route_70]

If WLC means William Lane Craig then no, that's not the video.  Joseph007 posted this video of a physicist named Krauss who runs with Dawkins et al.

In the post below, the link you provide contains a video by William Lane Craig:

Because it is observable in the scientific community, particularly among the academy, and world renowned spokesmen (Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss etc) for atheism/agnosticism. link

You make reference to "entropy," which is part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Unless you are cherry-picking, you cannot reference the 2nd Law, while leaving out the first, which basically states that "in a closed system, all energy remains constant."

Lawrence Krauss does not believe that "something comes from nothing," in the sense that you put it.  If you got that impression somehow, then you need to read up on Krauss a bit more.  Krauss is the one who said: "I don't ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down."

Krauss does not work in a vacuum.  He studies and collaborates with other physicists, as they all do.  They share ideas; agree and disagree; and continually work toward finding answers to questions.  The currently, most agreed upon theory of the universe is that it began at some point ? but not necessarily out of nothing.  There are theories as to what existed before the universe began (at what has been described as a big bang, but is actually referred to by physicists as ?inflation?); but as of now there is not a general consensus on this point.  It is an open question.

 

[Twisted]

It is an open question.

What is NOT an open question is that Krauss and others like him will all stand before their Creator and give an account for their soul.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You make reference to "entropy," which is part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Unless you are cherry-picking, you cannot reference the 2nd Law, while leaving out the first, which basically states that "in a closed system, all energy remains constant."

What's your point?

Lawrence Krauss does not believe that "something comes from nothing," in the sense that you put it.  If you got that impression somehow, then you need to read up on Krauss a bit more.  Krauss is the one who said: "I don't ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down."

Right, he equivocates on what "nothing" is.  That is at best deceptive.  As to the turtles, that is the crux of the matter.  Turtles aren't eternal.  Something had to cause the first turtle.  Turtles don't cause themselves to come into existence.  No existent thing was created from nothing in any conceivable materialistic/naturalistic worldview, hence, the staying power of the argument.

Krauss does not work in a vacuum.  He studies and collaborates with other physicists, as they all do.  They share ideas; agree and disagree; and continually work toward finding answers to questions.  The currently, most agreed upon theory of the universe is that it began at some point ? but not necessarily out of nothing.  There are theories as to what existed before the universe began (at what has been described as a big bang, but is actually referred to by physicists as ?inflation?); but as of now there is not a general consensus on this point.  It is an open question.

It's good that they don't just make stuff up, though in the video I think it is fair to say that some of Krauss' theories do just that, saying that subatomic particles pop into and out of existence without a <known> cause.

 

[Route_70]

It is an open question.

What is NOT an open question is that Krauss and others like him will all stand before their Creator and give an account for their soul.

No, THAT is an absurdity.

Like a man walking on water; changing water into wine; sticks into snakes; iron floating on water; walking across the Red Sea on dry ground; reviving a dead body in rigor mortis; causing a blind man to see; sending devils into pigs; making a woman from a man's rib; so on and so on.

 

[Recovering IFB]

What is absurdity in your worldview? To claim something to be absurd you?d have to have a standard of what is normal. Where do you get normal or absurd outside of God?

 

[Route_70]

What is absurdity in your worldview? To claim something to be absurd you?d have to have a standard of what is normal. Where do you get normal or absurd outside of God?

Well, if God's standard is normal, then killing babies is normal.

 

[ALAYMAN]

What is absurdity in your worldview? To claim something to be absurd you?d have to have a standard of what is normal. Where do you get normal or absurd outside of God?

Well, if God's standard is normal, then killing babies is normal.

His point is rather simple.  In order to use a moral standard to judge the God of the Bible you have to rob ethics and morality from His worldview and existence, otherwise what you (or anybody else) deems as immoral is merely your own subjective preference(s).

 

[Route_70]

His point is rather simple.  In order to use a moral standard to judge the God of the Bible you have to rob ethics and morality from His worldview and existence, otherwise what you (or anybody else) deems as immoral is merely your own subjective preference(s).

Your belief in God is subjective.  You have no objective basis for believing on God.  If your belief in God is based solely on the Bible, and if you believe in and worship and base your morality on the God of the Bible, then you believe it is okay to murder babies.

 

[Recovering IFB]

Your belief in God is subjective.  You have no objective basis for believing on God.  If your belief in God is based solely on the Bible, and if you believe in and worship and base your morality on the God of the Bible, then you believe it is okay to murder babies.

False, in order to believe anything, presupposes God. To believe in anything would require that God exists. So hence, you prove that God exists. And you claim that we have no ?objective basis,? proves God because you have to have an objective standard of some sort to gauge against. What would be your ?objective basis? In which you judge by?

 

[Route_70]

False, in order to believe anything, presupposes God. To believe in anything would require that God exists. So hence, you prove that God exists. And you claim that we have no ?objective basis,? proves God because you have to have an objective standard of some sort to gauge against. What would be your ?objective basis? In which you judge by?

So, you DO believe it is okay to murder babies.

 

[Recovering IFB]

In YOUR worldview it?s not a problem, why are you complaining what stardust does to stardusr?

 

[Route_70]

In YOUR worldview it?s not a problem, why are you complaining what stardust does to stardusr?

You are confused.  In the worldview of the God of the Bible, the murder of babies is okay.  That would be YOUR worldview; not mine.  Obviously, I do not share the worldview of the God of the Bible.  Your logic is confused and absurd.