How is it possible?

[evil roda]

Atheists believe that there is no God. They believe in the big bang theory, and obviously must believe in matter. The only problems: Where did the matter come from? If the universe really is expanding, what is it expanding into? What is outside of the universe? If you say that matter has an infinite existence in past, present, and future, then why is it that you can grasp the concept of eternal stuff, but not an eternal being?
Please answer my questions. I must know!

[Rapscallion]

Apologies for not having seen this thread for approval earlier.

Atheism means not believing in a deity or supernatural. It does not mean believing in a particular theory or hypothesis. Scientific evidence currently points to the likeliest hypothesis being a 'big bang'. However, the evidence is still being viewed and tested, and the hypotheses are still being investigated and considered. There are no firm answers - there may never be. However, it's being tested on a regular basis.

What it isn't is a belief. A belief can and will fly in the face of evidence. There are people who believe that the rapture is going to arrive any minute now, but we do not and can not know when that will be, but it's any minute now. The recorded fact that there have been many such claims through the centuries and nothing has happened yet has been rather indicative that those who believe this are relying on faith and not evidence.

Scientists examine the evidence and are still trying to work out what came first - most of what they come up with are best guesses. I'm not a scientist. I am an atheist, but I'm not scientifically minded enough to tell you where everything came from. There are scientists who believe in various deities. The three groups - scientists, atheists, believers - are not mutually exclusive.

As to the final answers, I have none. Those who proclaim their holy texts to be the only truth have easy answers - books written back in the bronze age proclaiming miracles that have not happened since. That's an easy answer - believing what you are told to believe. None of these people with apparent holy insight have ever been able to replicate these miracles, but scientists are able to replicate scientific occurrences.

What do you accept? Those who believe in the words of holy texts offer no proof other than those texts - they cannot replicate what they claim. Nobody without illusionary aid, for example, has walked on water. Scientists admit that they don't have all the answers, but they will admit to testing the thoughts that they have, and they can replicate their claims.

I know who I trust with the facts.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

A lot of people say they are atheist (they do not believe in God and do not even accept the possibility) when in fact they mean they are agnostic (they believe that its impossible to know either way.)

Frankly, the sort of rabid atheism put forward by people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins is impossible to prove, and you'll find that most genuine scientists are, in fact, agnostic.

I am tolerant of atheism as a belief system the way I am tolerant of Christianity or Islam or Judaism, but atheism is still a leap. Both theism and atheism are completely indefensible positions using the scientific method. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Unfortunately, human nature is such that we can't stand not knowing. We want things to be black and white. And atheism delivers an answer to the great question of life. The only difference between religion and atheism is how they answer that question - one says "There is meaning to life" and the other, "There is no meaning to life".

But from the perspective of current scientific and empirical knowledge, there is only one answer to the great question - we just don't know.

There is a position in theology know as Fideism. Fideists accept that it is impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists, and so they choose to believe or not believe based on what makes them happy. Fideists often choose to believe and so take a leap of faith, but with their eyes and minds wide open.

[AFPheonix]

I place myself in the agnostic camp, mostly because that which many thought was divinely inspired in nature has turned out to have pretty mundane, logical explanations instead.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, and any scientist in any discipline worth their salt will say the same thing.
However, they will still try to find the answer, and probably eventually will as our instruments become more sensitive and our ability to interpret the data we gather improves.

[rahmota]

Sorry for this kinda being meandering but its the way I can think this out.

Speakign as a person who defines his personal believs as Aetheos or against theism. I have no problem with the possibility that there might be a divine or higher being. If there is one humans have about as much chance of understanding it as an ant does of understanding a 747. Its the human based religions that try and interpret that and shove their said interpretations down everyone elses throat that I have the biggest problem believing in. So technically I am both Aetheos and Agnostic in a way. To be honest in the most part I would have to answer I am Apathetic as the thought of if there is or is not a deity plays no role in my active daily life. If there is one then i haven't met them. If there isn't then that explains why i havent met them. have I enountered odd or potentially supernatural events. yes. Are they supernatural and not just something I don't or didn't have the scientific equipment and knowledge or take the time to test. Maybe, maybe not. I am a farmer, a mechanic and general fix it guy who has had enough education and knowledge of things and is smart enough to know that I don't know everything.

So far though science has shown the best possible way of understanding how the universe works. A true scientist is not afraid of the words "I don't know" But they usually follow them with "But we'll find out." However you ask some religious persons a question and they will never say the words I dont know but somethign along the lines of "its God's Will" absolving them of all need for knowledge of the subject matter. I'd rather someone honestly tell me they dont know but be willing to find out than to just wash their hands of it and push responsibility off on some other being.

As for your direct questions. From what I have read and tried to wrap my head around, quantum mechanics being a bit above the usual math I am accustomed to. the universe is expanding into the void of mathmatical infinity. Where the universe came from is subatomic quantum infinity. Matter itself does not have an infinite existence in the same form However energy of which mass is a convenient form of storing is essentially finite as well. Its just finite on such a large scale that to us mere mortal candles in the wind it might as well be infinite.
At least thats what I've read.

What does this mean in my daily life. Not much. As long as the sun comes up, the ground still takes the plow and I got air to breathe thats all that matters to me and the science or faith of how it all works is not my concern as long as it continues working and other learned folks have it figured out. In that regards I'm probably a lot closer to the folks who originally developed the systems we call religions. But like I said so far the science that makes the tractor run, that tells me I add this chemical or that chemical and it will do this to the crops, the science that shows me if I don't build a wall strong enough it wont stand up or hold a roof up aint failed me yet.

[Seshat]

Atheists believe that there is no God.

True by definition.

They believe in the big bang theory,

Incorrect and overgeneralised.

Some atheists, agnostics (a separate group), and even theists (people who believe in God) accept the Big Bang theory as a not-yet-disproven hypothesis which is tentatively accepted as a valid working model for the creation of the universe in its current form.

You'll note that that sentence contains a lot of synonyms for 'possibly' and 'maybe'. People who accept scientific theories and actually understand science live with 'We don't know' as their fundamental 'belief'.

Science is not Truth, science is Our Current Best Guess.

And many scientists and science-'believing' non-scientists think the Big Bang theory is probably incorrect.

and obviously must believe in matter.

Do I trust that if I slap my hand on this table, it will resist my slap? Yes. Do I 'believe in' matter the way that theists believe in their deity? No.

I accept that I perceive the existence of matter. I also accept that it's entirely possible that I'm hallucinating everything I perceive, including this laptop I'm typing on.

The only problems: Where did the matter come from? If the universe really is expanding, what is it expanding into? What is outside of the universe?

I don't know, I don't know, and I don't know.

But perhaps, one day, we'll have instruments sensitive enough to perform experiments which disprove hypotheses about the answers to those questions.

Science works this way:
1. Come up with a hypothesis that can be disproven (eg: all tree frogs have green skin).
2. Develop one or more experiments that can disprove the hypothesis (eg: look for tree frogs, and check their skin colour).
3. Perform the experiment or experiments.
4. Discard any hypotheses which are disproven.
5. Come up with new hypotheses, or refine old ones, based on the new information received from the experiments.
6. Repeat.

There are rules for the validity of experiments, as well. An experiment must be repeatable by anyone with the skills: a chemistry experiment, for instance, must be able to be repeated by anyone who can operate a pipette.
A physics experiment might require a supercollider and a supercollider operator, but the specifications for the supercollider in California are available, and any university with a few million spare can repeat the experiments done in that.

Most experiments must have an objective result:
Acceptable: 'the temperature of the patient's skin surface was 35oC as measured by the digital thermometer which was held to the patient's forearm three cm from the crease of the elbow joint'
Not acceptable: 'the patient felt cold'.
Subjective results are acceptable in fields where subjective experience is what's being measured: some psychological, sociological and psychiatric experiments are subjective, for instance.

Any hypothesis which is disprovable and survives the process is considered 'potentially true', recategorised from hypothesis to theory, and taught as 'this is what scientists think' in schools and popular media.

At present, we don't have instruments sensitive enough to answer 'where did the matter come from', 'what is the universe expanding into', or 'what is outside the universe'.

Any hypotheses that proposes to answer those questions, but which can't be tested with current instruments, is written down and stored in libraries as tentative hypotheses. Later physicists, with better equipment, may be able to test those hypotheses or use them as starting points to come up with their own.

If you say that matter has an infinite existence in past, present, and future, then why is it that you can grasp the concept of eternal stuff, but not an eternal being?

The existence or non-existence of any sort of deity is not something which can be tested. Therefore, the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity is not an appropriate question for current science. This issue, as with 'what is outside the universe', is kept for future scientists to test.

And if you're going to say 'but I've felt God in my life', that's not a repeatable experiment, and it's subjective. You've felt God, but you can't prove that you have in an objectively measureable way.

People who 'believe in' science don't have faith in it the way a religious person has faith in God. People who 'believe in' science simply accept that there is a whole lot that humanity doesn't know anything about, and accept that lack of knowledge in their lives.

Many people who 'believe in' science also have a religion, and don't see any conflict of interest: God may have created the world, but science shows us how he may have done it.
They look at religion for answers to questions like 'how can I be a good person', and 'what is the meaning of life'. They look to science for answers to questions like 'what is the precise process for the healing of a broken bone' or 'how can I make my azaleas grow better'.

Some agnostic scientists and 'science-believers' treat the existence or non-existence of God as simply another unanswered question that we have no way - yet - of answering. God - or gods, or anything else - may or may not exist. They may or may not find out in their lifetimes. And they're fine with that.

Atheists actively disbelieve in the existence of God. Some atheists accept science's probable-truths, some do not. It's very individual. The reasons they're atheists also vary: some of them were raised with strict religious beliefs and are rebelling against the strictness of their childhoods. Some simply don't believe in some 'white bearded guy in the sky watching what we do all the time'.
Some think that if there is a God, He's got to be bored stiff watching humanity and is probably off making some more interesting Creation: thus we have no God. Actually, that last lot wouldn't strictly be called atheist. But I kind of feel like that sometimes myself.

Please answer my questions. I must know!

I hope that my answer, and the answers of the others, have helped you.

As for me: I'm agnostic. Some days I think there is a God, some days I think there isn't, but mostly I'm just 'how the hell would I know?'

[AFPheonix]

The existence or non-existence of any sort of deity is not something which can be tested. Therefore, the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity is not an appropriate question for current science. This issue, as with 'what is outside the universe', is kept for future scientists to test.

Bingo. And this is where I have a very Steven Jay Gouldian opinion of science and religion. Science can only measure that which is in the natural world. It can only explain the nuts and bolts of things.
Religion explains that which is SUPERnatural. It explains the ultimate purpose for why we exist.
When people attempt to use science to disprove the truly supernatural, we find that it cannot be done. There is just nothing testable or consistently observable.
By the same token, religion simply is not equipped to measure that which is in the natural world. Attempts to do so, like spontaneous generation, are always debunked when proper experiments can be devised.

[Seshat]

Exactly. Thank you for the simple and much clearer statement of the essence of my point.

Science is not religion. Religion is not science. They explain totally different aspects of the universe.