Thoughts on the Existence of the Universe

Started by Randy Carson, February 19, 2016, 07:51:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 24, 2016, 01:04:27 PM
What does 'mainstream scientists' mean?
They swim in the middle of the river--they don't go near the banks.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:36:34 AM
In my own limited experience, however, I have not seen other things simply pop into existence (no rabbit has ever appeared on my desk randomly, for example), so was this "something from nothing" event a one-time thing?
This entire statement is an exemplar of what really annoys me about theists. You admit that your experience is limited, yet you think that your limited experience somehow qualifies you to make grand pronouncements of the biggest non-question in cosmology. This is arrogance in the extreme.

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:36:34 AM
As for "why", theists already know "Why" God created the universe, because God has revealed this to us.
I also already know the answer to "why" â€" ç,,¡ "Nothing." Which is to say, that all questions of "why" the universe came into existence (if it came into existence at all) is fundamentally mistaken in its premises and cannot properly be asked or have a correct answer. To ask "why" presupposes that there is a purpose to the universe, which you have not demonstrated. It's a loaded question, therefore, answering that question will always produce a wrong answer. It must be met with silence.

Again, arrogance, and the silly notion that a band of near-ignorant goat herders thousands of years ago had any better idea about how the universe works and came into existence than modern day scientists.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

Mike - I don't read Tom Sawyer, because I think it is an inaccurate history of pre-Civil War USA.  And any history we produce, is propaganda anyway.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on February 24, 2016, 06:16:33 PM
Mike - I don't read Tom Sawyer, because I think it is an inaccurate history of pre-Civil War USA.  And any history we produce, is propaganda anyway.
Yes, it is propaganda--that is what history is.  But to get an accurate sense of what happened one has to read history from all sides of the same issue or occurrence.  Each historian has a bias--but once that bias is known it can be taken into account.  And I don't read Tom Sawyer for history or any kind--just for a good story.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

aitm

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 24, 2016, 07:35:25 PM
just for a good story.

DAMMIT MAN….a cigar is a cigar does not cut it anymore...
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Mike Cl

Quote from: aitm on February 24, 2016, 07:42:20 PM
DAMMIT MAN….a cigar is a cigar does not cut it anymore...
Well, it does if it is from Cuba.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Draconic Aiur

Quote from: Mike Cl on February 24, 2016, 07:49:44 PM
Well, it does if it is from Cuba.

Son, sit down have a cigar your gonna go far~

doorknob

#67
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:50:34 AM
I have observed this to be true of people who reject the historicity of Jesus or the historical reliability of the gospels, also.



why not check what the opposition has to offer instead of cherry picking evidence that suits your needs? Why not start by reading this

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/

That's just one example of the vast amounts of information out there. Not just about atheism what it's about and what it's not but also some accurate historical information.

Anything with christian attached to it will be bias. Atheists are not bias we are skeptical. There is plenty of none christian and none atheist evidence out there. Try reading both not just one side.

oh and if you're too lazy to read there's always this. But I suspect you wont watch it to the end. You'll reject it right away because it is a lecture made to atheists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

LittleNipper

The Universe was created. And unless someone can make a biological living thing from dirt and water, I will have to say that God is the only logical explanation for life.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:31:51 PM
The Universe was created. And unless someone can make a biological living thing from dirt and water, I will have to say that God is the only logical explanation for life.

It's called abiogenesis. It's not as advanced as evolutionary biology, but progress has been made notably the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars, which was a mystery but is quite well understood today.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html


http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/cover



aitm

Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:31:51 PM
I will have to say that God is the only logical explanation for life.

If a god exists, it must have been created by other gods, that is the only logical conclusion. To suggests something can exist forever without a beginning, is illogical
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Mike Cl

Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:31:51 PM
The Universe was created. And unless someone can make a biological living thing from dirt and water, I will have to say that God is the only logical explanation for life.
My such a reasoned and logical statement.  I wish I had thought of that.  Yeah--now I just gotta believe in gawd!  Glory be!  I be saved!!
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

LittleNipper

Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 01, 2016, 04:54:50 PM
It's called abiogenesis. It's not as advanced as evolutionary biology, but progress has been made notably the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars, which was a mystery but is quite well understood today.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html


http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/cover

The components of life are not the same as life. If it takes a billion years to formulate the mere building blocks of life, how much time is left "mathematically speaking" to create a divergence of life forms ------------ at the same time throwing in a catastrophic meteor, asteroid, and comet now and again.......

widdershins

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
Did the universe begin to exist at some point? Or has it always existed?

Science seems to be leaning in the direction of a single point of beginning for space, time and all matter. The moment when all this came into existence is known as the "Big Bang".

But why did this happen?
Oh yay.  This argument again.  Okay.  I'll bite.  And you'll learn something in the process.  This time for sure!

Okay, this single point, a "singularity", was, according to big bang theory, the beginning of the universe and from it came the universe.  Why did this happen?  We don't know.  Science is not about making up explanations for things, it's about finding explanations for things.  Since this singularity was "before" the universe there is no way of knowing what it was or what caused it to do whatever it did to cause the universe as we know it to exist.

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
It's reasonable to say that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. And since the universe began to exist, the universe had a cause.

If this is true, then what more can we say about this cause?
Nothing.  Unless you want us to just make shit up, that is.  "I don't know" is a legitimate answer, far more legitimate, in fact, than simply saying "Well, there must be some god, that god must be my God and my creation story must be correct!"  It is more legitimate because it's an honest answer.

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
If something exists, there must also exist that which is necessary for that thing to exist. As we have already agreed, the universe - the collection of beings in space and time - exists. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. Moreover, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe itself or be bounded by space and time. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
This is where things get dicey and your logic starts to fall apart, and the part that tends to really, really confuse the person giving this argument.  For one thing, the singularity became the universe, so no, it probably doesn't currently "exist" any more than a particular tree exists today because you have a wooden table made from it.  What's more, it is at this point in the argument where you are applying logic which is true ONLY "within" our universe to a time before our universe existed.  All space, time, energy and matter came from this singularity (according to the theory, which NOBODY is claiming is an absolute truth, mind you).  But it is because this space, time, matter and energy spewed forth that the laws of physics as we know them exist, including the "cause and effect" laws you are quoting here.  Cause and effect apply within our universe.  We know that for certain.  But we cannot say cause and effect apply in the same way, or even at all, outside of our universe.  Because the universe was born of this singularity then the singularity cannot be "within" our universe, so these simple laws of physics you take for granted simply cannot be applied.  Is it possible they were the same?  Sure.  It's possible.  But to say "they were" the same, you simply don't know that.

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
So, given that the universe exists, we know that it had a cause which transcends both space and time.
As I showed above, no, we do not.

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:51:57 PM
And this transcendent cause is what we call "God".
If we were to grant you the above statement, this transcendent cause is what we would call the "singularity".

Now, here is where your argument vs scientific theory differ greatly.  Look at each of these difference and answer honestly, which one is really better/more reliable?

In your argument you simply try to use pure, if somewhat bastardized, logic.  You say, "If this, then that" repeatedly until you get to the answer you already had before you began.  In science they use mathematics, observation and experimentation, taking nothing for granted and testing every step to make sure it pans out.

You know about your conclusion, not because it was the logical conclusion you came to, but because your parents told you about it.  Scientists know about their conclusion because it was the logical conclusion science brought them to.

You make a leap of faith at the end of your conclusion to state that this "cause" was not only "a" god, but YOUR God, specifically.  When science reached its conclusion it called this "thing" which began it all a "singularity", making no claim to know precisely what it was.

In your argument, science is wrong and cannot be right.  There is no room in your beliefs for scientific evidence.  There are religious scientists who believe in your God, specifically, AND accept big bang theory.  The believe in your God, but that doesn't trump what the data tells them.

If you suddenly find that your beliefs were wrong your entire belief system falls apart.  You have a deep-seated need to not be wrong.  You dare not contemplate even the possibility that you are wrong.  If science found the big bang theory to be wrong tomorrow they would be excited.  They WANT to find that they were wrong because it will mean new understanding.  No scientist ever got famous saying, "Yep.  That guy was right!"

When you come across something which challenges your beliefs, you dismiss it.  Your beliefs CAN NOT CHANGE!  When scientists come across something which challenges their beliefs, they embrace it.  New understanding is exciting!

When science comes across something they can't explain, scientists say, "We don't know".  When religious people come across something they can't explain, they explain it anyway.

One of these things is clearly superior in every single way without the most minute exception, a bountiful source of knowledge and understanding, fueling the imaginations of the intelligent and the advent of technology.  The other is vastly inferior in every way, leading to no knowledge, no understanding, no technology, but a crapload of "imagination", so it has that going for it.

Look, if you think you have an argument we haven't heard, you don't.  If you think you have some knowledge we don't have, you don't.  If you think you have ironclad proof that your beliefs are better than science, you don't.  I'm sorry it sucks to be you, but you just don't.  Your beliefs are not based in the remotest sense of reality.  They cannot be proved by logic because they are illogical.  They cannot be proved by facts because facts say the opposite.  They can be "proved" only through trickery, which is what you're trying to do, likely without knowing it, because you, yourself, have been tricked.  The bottom line is that you have an "argument", science has "data to back them up".  Data is better than a clever argument, even if your argument were "clever", which it very much is not.  In fact, I can guarantee you that Plato was not thinking about your God when he first made this argument, long before Jesus may or may not have been born.  Like everything else in Christianity, even the very argument you just gave is borrowed from non-Christians.
This sentence is a lie...

widdershins

Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:31:51 PM
The Universe was created. And unless someone can make a biological living thing from dirt and water, I will have to say that God is the only logical explanation for life.
That's a really good argument.  Unless someone can make a planet from shit and shoeshine I will have to say that Fairies are the only logical explanation for solar systems.  But saying it won't make it true.
This sentence is a lie...