Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence?

aphie, it doesn't make sense to talk about the Universe as being 'created' or 'caused'.

here's why:

all our experiences with creation and causation require there to have been some kind of material existence prior to the creation/causation.

'before' the universe, there was nothing -- absolutely nothing. to then say that something created or caused the universe doesn't make any sense.

if you wanted to posit a god, you'd have to say that god "brought the universe into existence", which is not the same as 'created' or 'caused'.

so, it should be obvious that "everything that exists was caused" is not true. rather than "from nothing you get nothing", it has to be "from nothing, you get something".

and, logically, we'd be forced to accept that some things that exist weren't caused. a theist would say that uncaused thing is 'god', an atheist would say it was the universe.

now, you could take the path of William Craig, and say that

1 whatever began to exist had a cause
2 the universe began to exist
3 the universe was caused
4 God is eternal
5 God created the universe.

i would simply attack his first premise and question how he could possibly know that 1 is true.

i'd also attack 4, and question how he knows that god is eternal.
and attack 5, why is it necessarily true that god, eternal though he may be, created the universe?
 
Quote from daniel_m:

'before' the universe, there was nothing -- absolutely nothing. to then say that something created or caused the universe doesn't make any sense.
More...

Daniel, how about the concept that universe always had existed? Sure, it's hard to imagine. But creation "from nothing to something" is also hard to imagine.

The meaning of words 'something' and 'nothing' itself, is interested. The only thing I feel is that these two cannot be separated. If we would like to analyze this deeper and deeper we'll come to the conclusion that we know nothing... Hmm it's just a word game. We're limited to our own language and logic, although they can be flexible.
 
Quote from aphexcoil:
So it is illogical to me for something to be in two states at once -- but then again isn't that what quantum particles are doing all the time?
More...
Good points you make aphie.

Therefore God is a quantum particle.... OR a quantum particle is a quantum particle ?

Because quantum particles 'exist' therefore God must exist.?? nah..

Quantum particles were there before we knew of them so God could be there before we know of him?

But it will be science which locates defines "observes" quantum particles (God?) to a standard removed from hallucination, not some "Spirit" or other.
Perhaps a better religion would be science after all..
Quote from daniel_m:
"from nothing, you get something".
More...
Exactly, well said that man. The most simple and straightforward is usually best. Perhaps expressible in a simple equation e - e = n. Can there be a simple concept of Nothing.? Everything which we know or don't know of - Everything we know of or don't know of = Nothing. Sounds more than feasible.

AS such a state of Nothing would be before anything , you could even say "Nothing comes before God".

This state will be unstable and vulnerable to quantum singularity effect. Bang.... or should I say Big Bang. The state of Nothing might be expressed as a black hole phenomenon, which are now thought to be present in the center of all galaxies, including our own. Black holes feed off galaxies. The laws of physics become suspended within. They are the ' state of Nothing ' then Bang.....
From there everything that is made , matter /life / consciousness is the rearrangement or reformation or coalescence of chemicals neutrons atoms. They's sperm efficient .....('scuse me.... just felt a little nauseous for a moment) ...must be mixed with the egg material otherwise it isn't life. All the constituent chemicals which made up his sperm efficient (no good ....I am going to puke this time.....back now).....is made from existing material. Material = Life.There need be no higher plane other than that which a limited human condition may seek because of incomplete knowledge. God filling the gaps, as has been said.

The science is astounding the images derived from new telescopics are awesome. Beats the hell out of this "am I really conscious" crap.
Quote from OPTIONAL777
:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

To the founding fathers, it was self-evident, that there was a Creator.
More...
Those guys really knew what they were doing. Whether the self-evident "creator" turned out to be a lightning bolt or the very idea of Nothing , they wisely made sure they left that door wide open.
Quote from OPTIONAL777
How do you know it is going on inside our computers/machines when you are asleep?
More...
marketsurfer,
when you are asleep some say that you can't prove the science that is used to explain why your computer clock was created or is working. The fact that it works and that it has updated overnight is attributable to the little bunnies which live in the math that we are supposed to believe we can't prove exists.
 
Quote from stu:

AS such a state of Nothing would be before anything , you could even say "Nothing comes before God".

This state will be unstable and vulnerable to quantum singularity effect.
More...

Here: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html "singularity" is explained as a "point of infinite mass or density or energy".

Hmmm the term "point" in math means an object that has no dimensions ( that's very interesting, paradox again: object without dimensions! ). Looks like we define the starting point as 'nothing' but also as something that has 'infinite energy'.

Question to you guys: Do you think universe (or universes) is infinite (in terms of space & time) or not? Or maybe there's no answer to that question or it's relative?
 
We'll not discover or understand anything in this subject. It's just a word game.
Singularity = point with infinite energy > point = object with no dimensions > define 'object' define 'dimension' and so on...

This type of discussion can only lead to tautology or paradox.
 
Quote from DT-waw:

We'll not discover or understand anything in this subject. It's just a word game.
Singularity = point with infinite energy > point = object with no dimensions > define 'object' define 'dimension' and so on...

This type of discussion can only lead to tautology or paradox.
More...
Thats a bit defeatist isn't it ?
I assume most of my stuff appears crap to most folks anyway, but why should that stop me !! It makes ya think and that's what I enjoy (in small doses ! ) Constant examination and curiosity by many and various infinitely more intelligent people than myself, got us to t =10 - 34. Are you sure talking about it can ONLY lead to tautology or paradox. I dare say a lot of situations prior to t = 10 - 34 appeared only to offer paradox to some physicists, didn't stop them, won't in the future I guess.
I like The FPC Paradox though....
Quote from FasterPussycat:
"wacky".
and you're normal??:D
i am whacked in the head.
so am i.
More...
....so I'll leave it at that.
Have a Good Day
 
Quote from daniel_m:



ahh, william james, so that's where you're lifiting all this stuff from.

well, i suppose willy was a lot better than then your run of the mill christian apologist...

still, it reads more like a crutch for christians to lean on than any objectively compelling reasoning (which is, i believe, what he intended...)

i don't know why you still bother responding optional. you've agreed that there is no particular reason an atheist would be required to subscribe to any religious point of view, so why keep pushing the issue?
More...

Seriously, how did you arrive at such a "knowing" attitude about the experiences of those who practice faith?

The mention of James' work was to suggest to Aphie that people throughout history claimed experience that doesn't fit neatly into a mathematical box, or the average reality. To say that religious experience falls outside of the bell curve for typical experiences, is not to say which side of the curve it is on, only that it does happen.

Scientists may claim the experiences to be hallucination, while the faithful claim the experience to be real unlike anything in this world. How can we come up with an objective standard to quantify the validity of the experience to the person?

Anyone has the freedom to dismiss the personal experience of another, and I suppose they can take a position that "their own" experience is superior to another, but on what basis can they make that claim?

Only on the basis of their own experience, so it becomes a circular argument to have one's own experience constitute both a theory and a proof of superiority over another's experience.

I have yet to understand how seemingly logical and rational people can stand on some higher "scientific" background to condemn personal experience as invalid scientifically.

At best they could suspend judgment, however it appears to me that the "scientific atheistic" community does everything but suspend judgment on this topic.
 
"Those guys really knew what they were doing. Whether the self-evident "creator" turned out to be a lightning bolt or the very idea of Nothing , they wisely made sure they left that door wide open."

"Those guys" were fighting a war of independence from the thinking of the British Monarchy who didn't allow freedom of worship at the time the Puritans came to America. America was initially settled by those who sought freedom to practice their religion the way they saw fit.

Whether or not someone's idea of a creator is "nothing", a bolt of lightning, or a supreme deity, the authors of the Declaration of Independence felt it was important to use the word creator, and allow Americans to define their own personal concept about the nature of that creator.


"when you are asleep some say that you can't prove the science that is used to explain why your computer clock was created or is working. The fact that it works and that it has updated overnight is attributable to the little bunnies which live in the math that we are supposed to believe we can't prove exists."

There is a conclusion drawn about reality, or perhaps a definition of reality that has to do with the concept of "continuity."

That we go unconscious for some period, to return to a conscious state in which our external world remains as it was prior to unconsciousness, gives rise to the conclusion of external reality being supported fact and not illusion.

But, is that a proof of external reality as a continuum that exists when someone is asleep? No. Just an accepted theory. I accept that theory personally, but do I know with certainty that the world exists while I am asleep? How could I possible "know" that as a fact, not as an intellectual conclusion?

If I can provide an alternate idea, an alternate theory, that cannot be proved or disproved, what does that say about the "reality" theory?

I could just as easily be dreaming the entire thing, right? There is no objective evidence of reality, only an "acceptance" of what we believe to be "real" based on our own definition, mostly the concept of continuity.

A suspension of any belief leads to nothing but facts without conclusion. No conclusions, just facts.

The fact is that the state of waking consciousness, and all that exists within the perception of the person, ceases to exist upon sleep for the sleeper. There is a "gap" which we call sleep from the perspective of waking consciousness. Something ends, something begins. As it seems to begin again as before, we conclude continuity of the physical world.

So, after some period in which there is nothing, upon waking, the perceptions return. Is that proof of reality? Or is it proof of consciousness? If it is proof of consciousness, not reality, than who is to say which state of consciousness is the most valid state?
 
Quote from DT-waw:

More to read and discuss:

1) "Quantum Mechanics, a Modern Goliath" http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/quantummech.shtml?main

2) "Design Evidences in the Cosmos" http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/designevidenceupdate1998.shtml?main

3) "Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible"
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/astroevid.shtml?main

4) "Design and the Anthropic Principle"
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design.shtml?main

[/QUOTE

thanks for the links, DT. interesting reading.

surfer:cool:
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top