On the origin of the universe

I have been following a discussion in the Filipino Freethinkers Forum regarding the origin of the universe. Well the thread (about why do people decide to become atheists) was not really about the origin of the cosmos but it suddenly turned into this topic. A deist, named innerminds, posed a question to atheists regarding the origin of the cosmos. He asked,

Can I pose a slight variant to the question why people decide to become atheists? I'd like to ask: Why do atheists believe that either the universe had always existed in one form or another for all eternity or was an accident in nature?

And please don't answer with "Because the idea of a creator is absurd". Remember, the 'real' atheists do not simply not believe in God but altogether rejects the idea of God, so please don't include God in your answers.

This question is basically geared towards atheists. I think that atheists (around the world) could have different views regarding the origin of cosmos. I mean one must not really expect that all atheists around the world would only either believe in an ever existing universe or an accidental universe. Other atheists also have other ideas and/or theories regarding the origin of the universe. Anyways I answered the question by saying that it is more simpler to suppose that the universe do not have a cause than it was caused by some entity, called God/Deity (which I will further discuss in another post). And yes, I mentioned the word "God". LOL. I am not supposed to mention it based on his 2nd paragraph but, my bad, I was too attached by the question in bold. And also I thought that his intention to that question is to trap atheists into believing or making atheists realize that the universe (logically speaking) must have a cause.

Upon thinking and pondering on the question (in bold) and also considering his 2nd paragraph (to answer it w/o mentioning God), I thought that it was kind of difficult to answer. It is because, as an atheist (agnostic atheist to be exact), I always tend depend on the flaws of the arguments (and stupidity of "some") of the believers. I base my answers/arguments/even my non-belief to the flaws of the believers. And that's the one of the very reason of my non-belief.

But what if there's no religion, no churches, no "divine" messengers? (Of course there would also be no believers and atheists:) What would be my theory of the origin of the universe? Assuming ceteris paribus, I would still believe in the Big Bang theory. Simply because its the only theory about the origin of the universe that I am familiar with and because it is the only(?) theory that is being widely accepted by scientists today. Believers argue that the Big Bang singularity begs for a cause/creator which is un-atheistic. Thus a contradiction (me being an atheist believing in a singularity). But we (including believers) simply do not know what caused the Big Bang. We simply do not know because science do not have enough evidence to point or explain what really happened before the Big Bang. 

Now, believers (theists/fundies/deists) use this singularity to argue the existence of a creator or cause. This is also logical. But is it really sound? I will answer this question in my next (or next, next) post. :) 

Unknowable

Its been a while since I made a post here. I have been busy with my work lately and I have been traveling for the past few weeks. Although I thought some good topics to write about, I really forgot some of them and maybe I just got lazy to write them here (aside from the time constraints). So anyways, here's something that is a little philosophical and religious-ly that's been crawling in my mind for the past five minutes (LOL), the unknowable.

Of course when I say unknowable, I mean God as unknowable. Now according to the dictionary, unknowable is something that is not knowable; (especially : lying beyond the limits of human experience or understanding). I want to write something about it because there seems to be a problem with it when one relates it to God. Some believers, including some deists, believes that God is unknowable. They say that God is beyond our human understanding and experience. That's why they can't explain (or have the difficulty explaining) the Problem of Evil or some other questions regarding God or prove God's existence or why the deist's God do not intervene in their lives. So they hide in the safe armor of the unknowable God.

There seems to be a contradiction in this unknowable God because to say that something is unknowable, one must first have knowledge about it. Now some Christians (and Muslims) say that God is unknowable. Their basis to the existence of their God is their respective holy books. But their holy books tells us something, in fact almost everything, about their God and these holy books shows the personality of their God (example, Jesus Christ as told by the Gospels). Thus making their God known or knowable. We can clearly see and know their God which really contradicts their claim that their God is unknowable.

To finish this post I would like to quote something from a website where I got some of the ideas I wrote above..

Those who reject the knowable God are standing before a closed door, wondering what, if anything, lies on the other side. There is no handle. They shake the door but it does not open. They knock on it and hear sometimes silence and sometimes echoes and wonder these responses mean.

Believers interpret those silences and echoes as proof that God awaits them. Others are more sceptical. The closed door says nothing; proof must be found elsewhere. At the end of the day, the question is remains: if God is unknowable, how do we know if he exists?

Heck, this post is short. At least I wrote something :S

Rants

So here's what the pastor (reverend) in my family's church said last Sunday that really caught my attention. (Yes, I go to church. It is because I am a DISCREET infidel.) She said something like this, "My investment with my husband went bad because we did not seek the approval of God". I was really laughing hard deep inside and I noticed the people around me were really taking it seriously. Then the reverend said that we should always seek God first before making difficult decisions so that God can guide us to the right path and that he will surely help us. And guess what is the basis of the pastor in saying that God will surely help us if we'll just seek God? Of course the Holy Bible. She mentioned a few verses to back this up! What a good basis!

I can't really understand as to why she still believes in that book. She's good at it and she is reading it almost everyday and still dint notice its flaws? How come pastors like her who reads the Bible (and study them) dint notice that it is full of errors, absurdities, and contradictions to the verses and to reality? Heck, they even teach these verses to people and tell the people that everything that is written in this ancient book is true.

Well to you Mrs. Pastor and to all pastors out there, why should we believe in the Bible despite its glaring errors, contradictions, absurdities? Why should we believe in the Bible and not the Quran or any other holy book? Why not use your mind and think and stop fooling people and teaching them lies!

Death of INC Leader

I read a post at Facebook that a mom don't want to celebrate her daughter's birthday today because of the death of their (cult) leader. Yeah, you read that right. A mom do not want to celebrate her daughter's birthday because of the death of their beloved leader. Poor child. 

Well this reason number 1047 as to why religion poisons everything.