03 Apr 06
Originally posted by ChurlantAnd, again, back to the choice of matter being all or God being all.
Postulating a "creator" indicates a finite reality of the "created".
An infinite universe (or more accurately, multiverse) by definition contradicts the concept of a "creator".
If we assume no creator, one answer is an infinite existance.
-JC
03 Apr 06
Some interesting thoughts in this one.
I'll add a couple of ideas:
1. I agree with some of the thoughts from both the theists and atheists. The existence of a thing does not a priori require an explanation for that thing. However, having said that, as DS has pointed out it's in our nature to want to know why.
2. Will someone please help Scottishinnz please get off his 'no time before the big bang' tirade. It's true, but not really helpful and does get a bit boring after a while. Many scientists are exploring the idea of an explanation for the big bang - which you could take to mean an event before the big bang. (I know I know Scottish - there is no before - but it's an easy term to use to consider the issue.)
3. There are a number of scientific speculations on possible explanations for the universe.
Martin Rees' Mulitverse is one, although not truly satisfying since it shifts the creation back via an infinite regression of earlier universes.
Virtual particle pair creation and annihilation near a black hole's event horizon gives a nice analogy for something from nothing that has been used in considering the universe - but leaves a reason for this unanswered.
My thoughts: let's keep asking, let's keep questioning, let's find out. But I don't see - not personally anyway, any need to postulate a supernatural creator to explain something unexplainable at this time. (In fact, the idea sort of smacks of the 'God of the gaps' theology ...)
03 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut you can't prove that SCAM isn't, right?
I'd say you have a long way to go in making both a relevant and reasonable argument for SCAM, whereas in the case of the God of the Bible, there exists no need for development or imagination.
You can claim that your god is real and everything written in the Bible is true if interpreted in the one correct manner and that this does not allow for SCAM; but if we don't spot you those two assumptions, you can't show that SCAM must be false.
Besides why isn't SCAM relevant? It's quite similar in fashion to "Goddunnit" (by construct obviously), and once we restrict ourselves to reasonable arguments (i.e. arguments that do not depend critically upon vast leaps of faith and superfluous realms and entities), then we might as well just go with the "I don't know" response.
When it comes to the origin of the universe, I don't see why the argument from SCAM is any weaker than the argument from theism.
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs revelation an object of rational thought? I would say not. Certainly,
God cannot be 'discovered' by reason, in terms of anything beyond a general revelation. The character and nature of God is only available via divine revelation. While a creator of sorts is inferred by creation (with the opposing view of matter being all falling in on itself within its first few steps), getting to THE Creator is not possible through either empiricism or rationalism/reason.
I can claim that a little white monkey came down and told me that the
Big Bang is true, right? Would that make it a rational system by
virture of such an experience. Of course it wouldn't.
So I would say that you consent that belief in God requires something
apart from reason in order to reasonably exist, unless you agree that
revelation is a rational form of decision making, in which case you
would have to consent that revelation from the Flying Spaghetti
Monster is, too, a rational experience.
Nemesio
04 Apr 06
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhy is there something rather than nothing?
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking
Atheists, how do you answer Hawking? Why is there something rather than nothing?
I know how theists answer the question. They postulate a creator, and even go so far as to postulate his motives for bringing things into existence. ast partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?
?
Further, in terms of justified belief, I see this topic as a virtual wasteland.
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere is no meaning.
Dr. Scribbles, with the benefit of almost two pages of response, I will nonetheless predict that the resounding answer will be:
There is no meaning.
To respond in any other fashion would contradict any and all models the atheist offers, regardless of the consequences that such an answer engenders or necessitates.
Why would this be the 'resounding answer' when it has absolutely nothing to do with the Doctor's question?
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterAnd where did god come from then?
When you say 'everything was formed at that instance' what was it that did the 'forming' exactly? Don't you see how impossible it is to get by without some form of language that suggests cause and effect. I find the idea of the universe coming out of absolutely 'zilch' far more irrational than the idea of an eternal creation force. All our experience ...[text shortened]... explaining how the universe just came out of 'zilch'? I think not.
My point is that cause and effect didn't operate. Normal rules are suspended. The concept of time is not mine - it's standard physics. Time is a property of the universe, not something outside it. You can't have "before" the universe, because before didn't exist.
Look, I've tried explaining this to you before, it's not easy. We can't imagine what happened, because our brain just doesn't work in a way that allows comprehension of absolute nothing. It's like trying to explain red to a child born without sight; how do you explain it? It has no meaning to them. The problem is not what happened; it's just that we cannot interpret it. It's outside of all our experience, and even our rationale.
The difference between me and you is that I say "it just did", you say "it's proof of god". My viewpoint is inherently more valid than yours, because I am applying the most parsimonious argument. How do you know it DIDN'T 'just happen'? There is no way you can PROVE that god did it; you can't prove it wasn't the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, or my coffee mug. You can't prove that the universe isn't a dung-ball being rolled along by an inter-universal scarab. There's a whole list of things you can't prove it wasn't. My advice is to simply stop jumping to conclusions.
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterEverything we know of is inside the universe. When the answer is there is no answer then that's entirely scientific. In science we're quite fond of these concepts of infinitesimally small amounts (normally in chem) and also of infinity (normally in maths) - are these unscientific either, because we can't (logically) ask "what's bigger than infinity?" without getting the answer "impossible"?
But to say something like this is to be very unscientific! The basis of science is to find causes for things and account for why things are. It seems then quite logical to ask in a religious sense or scientific sense. Why? How? From where? Since everything else we know of has a cause of some sort, can you explain why it is a logical jump too far to tak ...[text shortened]... ce? If you don't feel any need to account for it , where is your sense of curiosity or mystery?
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterWe could however posit that the energy that the universe is comprised of is eternal. You cannot destroy energy, and it would therefore be possible that the energy from which our universe was comprised was in existance prior to the big bang. Since time can only exist within a universe, you could also hypothesize that a prior universe existed. You could, likewise, posit the existance of god, but you could do no more than that, because there is simply insufficient evidence. The existance of the universe only informs us of the existance of the universe, nothing more.
You have misunderstood the nature of the creator that theists are suggesting. The creator did not 'just come into existence' because that would suggest a 'beginning' of sorts. The creator has no beginning (ie there never was a 'time' that God didn't exist) and no end. Probability suggests that the universe has a beginning and an end since the stuff it ...[text shortened]... tific evidence on the physical universe you wouldn't put your money on it being eternal.
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles1. There never was a beginning.
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking
Atheists, how do you answer Hawking? Why is there something rather than nothing?
I know how theists answer the question. They postulate a creator, and even go so far as to postulate his motives for bringing things into existence. ...[text shortened]... ast partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?
Yes, there was a big bang, but big bangs were something before they banged. And big bangs have always been happening and unhappening.
See a big bang like a lung filling with air and then deflating again.
Imagine an infinite space with infinite amounts of big bangs.
2. Everything changes constantly
Everything was something and will be something else again. Unless you have access to an improbability drive though, the chances of something turning into the same something are very small. Very small indeed.
3. There is no end
No end to the constant change that is. Obviously we'll all end and then the basic fibres of our bodies will change into something else (barring the improbability drive...of course).
The connections in our brains which give us feelings and memory etc. are held functional by brain, lungs and heart. Once one of these three stops, the connections stop. End of story.
BUT...your basic fibres have always been in existence and always will be...30 big bangs from now.
And please, don't mix up your basic fibres with yourself. When there's no water in a swimming pool we call it a ditch.
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt is not a question of being rational or irrational. Something comes out of nothing all the time, that is quantum physics. Just because your 'experience' is based on newtonian mechanics does not meant that that is how the universe works. An arguement based on 'experience' and 'common knowledge' etc is a fallacy simply because your experience is different from mine and you are wrong about your experience in the first place. I dont believe that all things that have a beggining have a cause. Cause itself is a time dependant word.
When you say 'everything was formed at that instance' what was it that did the 'forming' exactly? Don't you see how impossible it is to get by without some form of language that suggests cause and effect. I find the idea of the universe coming out of absolutely 'zilch' far more irrational than the idea of an eternal creation force. All our experience ...[text shortened]... at things that have a beginning also have a cause , they do not come out of 'nothing'.
You also assume that in order for something to happen there must be 'time' for it to happen (so how did 'time' get there then?). This is true enough in the known universe but we have no reason to assume that this is an absolute truth outside of what we know. You are projecting a concept of 'time' from within the universe you know and assuming that this applies to everything. To ask 'what went before that' is infact valid.
Time is most definately solely a concept of this universe and for you to posit a creator outside the universe is invalid as creation looses all meaning outside time.
Just because we are forced to use inadequate language to ask these questions doesn't invalidate them at all. The concept of God (eternity) is by implication outside of time anyway so the absence of time does not automatically mean 'nothing' . You have grasped the fact that to postulate on these things is to go beyond the rational anyway where all language starts to breakdown but then use this as some kind of rationale for your position. You are playing with words rather than really thinking about what you are saying. You say it's an 'invalid question' because the language sounds paradoxical and absurd without realising that this is exactly what we should expect anyway. God IS beyond rational imagining , that's why we have mysticism.
The exciting thing about this is that whatever way you go you are left with a paradox that defies rationality and language. So maybe we are left with the question 'why is blue?' . It doesn't invalid God it just invalidates our limited language and perception. Have you got any even faintly rational way of explaining how the universe just came out of 'zilch'? I think not.
Nobody said that the universe 'came out of zilch' because 'came out of' is a time dependant phrase. I also dont think anyone said that 'why is blue?' invalidates God but rather that God does not answer the question.
04 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's what an efficient cause is - the being(s) that bring a particular being into existence. So, for instance, the potter is the efficient cause of the pot.
Contingency does not require a creator, it requires a cause. Why should it be a being?
The question here is that if declaring the universe as a necessary existent is sufficient or not.
The question is - is it coherent to speak of the Universe as a necessary existent when everything that comprises it is contingent?
04 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzFirst of all let's get this one straight. I don't remember saying I could prove God in any of this. I am trying to demonstrate that the idea of an 'eternal creation force' is just as rational , if not more so, than any other hypothesis. You are right to say that we don't know and can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster created life. It is also impossible to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. All we can do is extrapolate that it is highly likely from what we already know.
And where did god come from then?
My point is that cause and effect didn't operate. Normal rules are suspended. The concept of time is not mine - it's standard physics. Time is a property of the universe, not something outside it. You can't have "before" the universe, because before didn't exist.
Look, I've tried explaining this to yo ...[text shortened]... rove it wasn't. My advice is to simply stop jumping to conclusions.
The only knowledge we have at all is from our own universe so the only rational thing we can do is extrapolate from this on what might be likely to be the ultimate reality of all life itself. If we do this then it seems rational to assume some kind of cause to life since it's this process that has lead us up to the point of discovering what we know so far. The buck either stops with something coming out of nothing or something that doesn't come out of nothing because it's always been there and never didn't exist (eternal). This could be what we call God or the universe itself could be God (which doesn't seem likely because it has many of the characteristics of something finite).
You seem to think that I believe God came out of nothing without realising that infact I believe that God 'just is' and didn't come out of anything because he is without beginning or end. This is nearly as unimaginable as your idea but is at least partly more rational because I don't have to explain how something can occur from 'nothing' because I don't believe there ever was a 'time' when there was nothing. God has 'always' been. There was no occurring or coming out of.
This isn't a proof for God and doesn't even get close to showing God to have a 'being' or to even be sentient but it does hold up as a decent rational stab at some kind of answer which is more than could be said for the flying spaghetti monster.
04 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloOriginally posted by DS
[b]Why is there something rather than nothing?
?
Further, in terms of justified belief, I see this topic as a virtual wasteland.[/b]
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Originally posted by LemonJello
?
This is just about the best answer the atheist has to offer to that question.