[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[/quote]
Sounds reasonable.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
What was before the Big-Bang?
Our universe might be inside a black hole from another universe, which creation created the [a] Big-Bang.
Or maybe the universe just expands and contracts-endlessly.
Big-Bang doesn’t necessarily mean there was no other universe beforehand, probably with different physical rules.[/quote]
[/quote]
I think the video ended a little bit to strong
At the end it says:
spaceless
timeless
immaterial
uncaused
powerful
It just kinda throws that in at the end. The video shows the first two pretty well, but those last 3 are just claimed at the end with no real explanation. Also “immaterial” is pretty meaningless in the face of “spaceless”. They just want to make it sound like a description of God
Also “spaceless and timeless” was meant relative to space and time in this universe
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Big-Bang doesn’t necessarily mean there was no other universe beforehand, probably with different physical rules.[/quote]The video doesn’t address this
It can’t, because science deals with the physical rules of this universe, not the physical rules of other universes
Just sayin
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Oh, and Karado? Just for you:
If you must eat cooked broccoli, be sure to slather it with mustard. [/quote]
Fat, salt and cheese, make any vegetable palatable.
With the obvious exception of broussel sprouts.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The universe is eternal.
Sometimes, life emerges.
^ what is religious about this?
[/quote]
COL (chuckling out loud)
Think about what you just wrote, Schwarzy.[/quote]
Its the shit happens theory of abiogenesesis.
Which has a nice ring insofar as, shit tends to happen.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schwarzy, saying the universe is eternal and can create life is saying the universe is a god. Or the God.
So if you believe the universe is as you say, then you believe in god/God. You are no atheist, my friend.
[/quote]
No, because what is the great divide between atheists and deists is the question whether God transcends the universe, i.e. is He more than the sum of its parts.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, accepting on faith that the universe exists, we’re already implanting false memories into mice. In some years, humans?
[/quote]
I think public education has been around for some time.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schwarzy, saying the universe is eternal and can create life is saying the universe is a god. Or the God.
So if you believe the universe is as you say, then you believe in god/God. You are no atheist, my friend.
[/quote]
No, because what is the great divide between atheists and deists is the question whether God transcends the universe, i.e. is He more than the sum of its parts.
[/quote]
Your both wrong :), but the fact remains is Push still has his head up his ass
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schwarzy, saying the universe is eternal and can create life is saying the universe is a god. Or the God.
So if you believe the universe is as you say, then you believe in god/God. You are no atheist, my friend.
[/quote]
No, because what is the great divide between atheists and deists is the question whether God transcends the universe, i.e. is He more than the sum of its parts.
[/quote]
Your both wrong :), but the fact remains is Push still has his head up his ass
[/quote]
Well, you are just jelly of his enormous flexibility.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, accepting on faith that the universe exists, we’re already implanting false memories into mice. In some years, humans?
[/quote]
I think public education has been around for some time. [/quote]
Zing!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schwarzy, saying the universe is eternal and can create life is saying the universe is a god. Or the God.
So if you believe the universe is as you say, then you believe in god/God. You are no atheist, my friend.
[/quote]
No, because what is the great divide between atheists and deists is the question whether God transcends the universe, i.e. is He more than the sum of its parts.
[/quote]
Your both wrong :), but the fact remains is Push still has his head up his ass
[/quote]
Well, you are just jelly of his enormous flexibility.
[/quote]
your right , I am . Look how easy it is for he to give him self pleasure 
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s a solid theory? A theory that have virtually hit the scrap heap in most scientific circles? There is a problem with the ‘theory’, there’s not a single solitary shred of evidence that it’s even remotely true. So this is what you put your faith in? Something that has no basis in fact, is purely theory and STILL does not answer the fundamental question of God’s existence?
Even in the remote chance that this is true, it still doesn’t take God out of the equation. It still doesn’t invalidate the cosmological argument. And you HAVE to prove it WRONG to be right, period.
[/quote]
I have to prove shit. The status quo [existance] is the only thing you don’t have to prove.
Making up gods is an bold claim which you cannot support with evidence.
[/quote]
The only evidence I need is existence itself. It doesn’t matter what kind or how infinite or finite it is. And you do have to prove shit. You have to prove me, or my arguments wrong. You cannot say “Provide proof” and when it’s done, simply disregard it.
What atheists cannot wrap their heads around is that the this scientific horseshit they seek, would actually weaken the argument. Science can’t prove it, because science is a ‘caused event’ an identifiable particular with dependencies. This is the stuff of pure reason.
LOL! No it’s not, it’s one of several mathematical possibilities, a theory of a theory, this one has been put aside largely. A little problem called entropy tends to fuck that theory up. This universe is not an isolated system.
lol! No it doesn’t. It means one thing, by definition.
[/quote]
Infinite could mean a truly borderless three dimensional space.
But so would a sphere’s surface
Other, weirdly warped objects of spacetime would also suffice.
[/quote]
It doesn’t mean shit. All it means is you have another caused event to deal with not a solution, just an addition to the problem. Kicking the can down the road is what this is called. Worst of all, it’s pure theory with no evidence. It’s a mere mathematical possibility, one which may or may not exist. One there is no evidence for.
The tremendous irony is that you demand concrete evidence for the existence of God, yet you will accept pure speculation without demanding a single shred of evidence for it.
Yet there 4 very good, deductive (and therefore absolute), irrefutable arguments for God’s existence, PLUS thousands of years worth of eyewitness testimony through what is called ‘revelation’ and you merely dismiss it. You dismiss it however, without refutation.
Sure every single eyewitness was a fruitjob, nutcase, or a liar. Right. That makes sense.
This isn’t an argument, at all. But it still manages to be circular. This is a cop out. Like I said there’s 4 good arguments for the existence of God. I use the cosmological one because it’s the easiest for the layperson to understand. Pick your best refutation, I will tell you why you are wrong. And make sure you have the right version of it. Not some ridiculous reworking of it, like Dawkins who create some stupid strawman cosmology to mock religion.
Do you worst, you cannot beat me. It’s not that I am that good, I just understand it. I don’t have to be good, the argument does all the work.
An infinite universe doesn’t prove anything. It’s just another problem. It still has to have a reason for it’s existence. It cannot do anything on it’s own. It’s incapable of existing just cause and again, there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for it. How the fuck can you demand evidence for one thing, yet accept something else without a shred of it? That seems highly illogical to me.
God could not be created, by definition. It He were, He wouldn’t be God, now would He?
God is not a theory, but a necessary fact. There is no way around it. He must logically exist, because by logic alone, it’s impossible that he does not. You’re only other option is ‘something from nothing’. Since nothing doesn’t exist and cannot do anything, that’s not really an option, it’s a dead end.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your claim is the most extraordinary of all. It is flat-out unfathomably illogical. You must have far more faith than Pat or me.
[/quote]
Lol, as usual, 0 arguments
what is more logical:
eternal universe
or
eternal demiurge who creates a universe
both result in the same
/case
[/quote]
Simple question, how did an eternal universe come to be? Since time is not a factor, your going to have a problem explaining that.
A universe just exists, eternally, for no reason, came from nothing, dependent on nothing? Good luck proving that.
Athiest failure #59873294869234 - Time. They seem to think if you make something eternal, in a temporal sense, it just is. Which again, this is circular reasoning.
So without using time, and without circular reasoning (i.e. refering itself, to itself for it’s own existence), explain how this eternal universe came to be?
You do know that the universe is finite? Right? It has a beginning and it will end and it won’t bounce, that requires energy. That was Hawking ala the 1980’s shit. He himself even admits he was wrong. It cost him a book of Baseball facts to his rival.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe.
[/quote]
I don’t think I agree with this statement. People and animals just start interacting with the world–they don’t “take it on faith” that that is what they are doing. Its only later–around the time they go to college and smoke some dope for many–that they start thinking about the possibility that everything is fake and that we somehow need to either “prove” there is a real universe or “take it on faith” that there is a real universe.
[/quote]
Actually, if dope helps you realize that, then smoke up. As hokey as it sounds there are some legitimate problems brought up by such dope clouded revelations. The problem we have is that we are locked in perception, because we cannot escape it, there is very little we can prove. We can only prove that which is not limited by perception. Facts that are absolute despite your perception of them. That excludes the physical world from ever being proven beyond a high, high probability.
Therefore, to transcend physical existence, by logic. Deductive logic, specifically. Things that are true by definition, not because of a correlation of agreed upon perception. Like math for example. 2+2=4 by definition. No possible worlds, no laws of physics or nature can ever change that fact, it’s true by definition. These are the only things we can prove, the rest may be likely, but not absolute.
Knowing what you can and cannot prove, makes a huge difference in understanding reality.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe.
[/quote]
I don’t think I agree with this statement. People and animals just start interacting with the world–they don’t “take it on faith” that that is what they are doing. Its only later–around the time they go to college and smoke some dope for many–that they start thinking about the possibility that everything is fake and that we somehow need to either “prove” there is a real universe or “take it on faith” that there is a real universe.
[/quote]
Actually, if dope helps you realize that, then smoke up. As hokey as it sounds there are some legitimate problems brought up by such dope clouded revelations. The problem we have is that we are locked in perception, because we cannot escape it, there is very little we can prove. We can only prove that which is not limited by perception. Facts that are absolute despite your perception of them. That excludes the physical world from ever being proven beyond a high, high probability.
Therefore, to transcend physical existence, by logic. Deductive logic, specifically. Things that are true by definition, not because of a correlation of agreed upon perception. Like math for example. 2+2=4 by definition. No possible worlds, no laws of physics or nature can ever change that fact, it’s true by definition. These are the only things we can prove, the rest may be likely, but not absolute.
Knowing what you can and cannot prove, makes a huge difference in understanding reality. [/quote]
I agree with a lot–maybe most–of this post and the problem with being locked into perception through physical senses. I think where I disagree is the ultimate usefulness of proof by definitions as a be-all, end-all. The same “uncaused-cause” problem you attribute to atheists and bash as “circular” reasoning also applies to theists and “God.” You then just claim “by definition” God is an “uncaused caused” and that this somehow solves the problem. Math and definitions can only get you so far, at some point physics/reality has to come into it and just defining things in a way that gets you where you want to go isn’t enough.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe.
[/quote]
I don’t think I agree with this statement. People and animals just start interacting with the world–they don’t “take it on faith” that that is what they are doing. Its only later–around the time they go to college and smoke some dope for many–that they start thinking about the possibility that everything is fake and that we somehow need to either “prove” there is a real universe or “take it on faith” that there is a real universe.
[/quote]
Actually, if dope helps you realize that, then smoke up. As hokey as it sounds there are some legitimate problems brought up by such dope clouded revelations. The problem we have is that we are locked in perception, because we cannot escape it, there is very little we can prove. We can only prove that which is not limited by perception. Facts that are absolute despite your perception of them. That excludes the physical world from ever being proven beyond a high, high probability.
Therefore, to transcend physical existence, by logic. Deductive logic, specifically. Things that are true by definition, not because of a correlation of agreed upon perception. Like math for example. 2+2=4 by definition. No possible worlds, no laws of physics or nature can ever change that fact, it’s true by definition. These are the only things we can prove, the rest may be likely, but not absolute.
Knowing what you can and cannot prove, makes a huge difference in understanding reality. [/quote]
I agree with a lot–maybe most–of this post and the problem with being locked into perception through physical senses. I think where I disagree is the ultimate usefulness of proof by definitions as a be-all, end-all. The same “uncaused-cause” problem you attribute to atheists and bash as “circular” reasoning also applies to theists and “God.” You then just claim “by definition” God is an “uncaused caused” and that this somehow solves the problem. Math and definitions can only get you so far, at some point physics/reality has to come into it and just defining things in a way that gets you where you want to go isn’t enough. [/quote]
I didn’t say it’s the end all be all. Since you can prove actually very little deductively, if you only move on absolutes, you won’t do much. A posteriori logic is very useful and it’s the realm we live in, so we have to accept highest probabilities to function day to day.
And the conclusion derived by Cosmology is not circular, if it were that would have been mentioned centuries ago. It’s not circular at all.
What you are not understanding is that the Uncaused-cause conclusion is the solution for the specific problem of causal regression without circular reasoning. The whole point is to avoid the problem in the first place.
What you are making the assumption, is that the premise is the Uncaused-cause, and the argument is that it exists, because it does. That’s not what’s happening. It’s a totally different question. And you have to deal with it by definition first.
You cannot ask what caused the Uncaused-cause because the question is nonsensical to begin with. It’s like asking what color is the blue sky? It’s uncaused, hence it cannot be caused, even by itself.
So it’s true by definition, that an Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. So throw the question out.
There is a second part, just like in math, logic has functions, and just like math that which is the conclusion, or the answer to the math problem, functions in the reverse.
You want 2 sets of 2 things you have to start with 4. You want caused particulars you must start with something that causes and was not caused. It’s simple as pi.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
One of the first things we do in our lives, before we even set out to observe and measure the universe, and everything in it, is to take it on faith that we are interacting with a real universe.
[/quote]
I don’t think I agree with this statement. People and animals just start interacting with the world–they don’t “take it on faith” that that is what they are doing. Its only later–around the time they go to college and smoke some dope for many–that they start thinking about the possibility that everything is fake and that we somehow need to either “prove” there is a real universe or “take it on faith” that there is a real universe.
[/quote]
Actually, if dope helps you realize that, then smoke up. As hokey as it sounds there are some legitimate problems brought up by such dope clouded revelations. The problem we have is that we are locked in perception, because we cannot escape it, there is very little we can prove. We can only prove that which is not limited by perception. Facts that are absolute despite your perception of them. That excludes the physical world from ever being proven beyond a high, high probability.
Therefore, to transcend physical existence, by logic. Deductive logic, specifically. Things that are true by definition, not because of a correlation of agreed upon perception. Like math for example. 2+2=4 by definition. No possible worlds, no laws of physics or nature can ever change that fact, it’s true by definition. These are the only things we can prove, the rest may be likely, but not absolute.
Knowing what you can and cannot prove, makes a huge difference in understanding reality. [/quote]
I agree with a lot–maybe most–of this post and the problem with being locked into perception through physical senses. I think where I disagree is the ultimate usefulness of proof by definitions as a be-all, end-all. The same “uncaused-cause” problem you attribute to atheists and bash as “circular” reasoning also applies to theists and “God.” You then just claim “by definition” God is an “uncaused caused” and that this somehow solves the problem. Math and definitions can only get you so far, at some point physics/reality has to come into it and just defining things in a way that gets you where you want to go isn’t enough. [/quote]
I didn’t say it’s the end all be all. Since you can prove actually very little deductively, if you only move on absolutes, you won’t do much. A posteriori logic is very useful and it’s the realm we live in, so we have to accept highest probabilities to function day to day.
And the conclusion derived by Cosmology is not circular, if it were that would have been mentioned centuries ago. It’s not circular at all.
What you are not understanding is that the Uncaused-cause conclusion is the solution for the specific problem of causal regression without circular reasoning. The whole point is to avoid the problem in the first place.
What you are making the assumption, is that the premise is the Uncaused-cause, and the argument is that it exists, because it does. That’s not what’s happening. It’s a totally different question. And you have to deal with it by definition first.
You cannot ask what caused the Uncaused-cause because the question is nonsensical to begin with. It’s like asking what color is the blue sky? It’s uncaused, hence it cannot be caused, even by itself.
So it’s true by definition, that an Uncaused-cause cannot be caused. So throw the question out.
There is a second part, just like in math, logic has functions, and just like math that which is the conclusion, or the answer to the math problem, functions in the reverse.
You want 2 sets of 2 things you have to start with 4. You want caused particulars you must start with something that causes and was not caused. It’s simple as pi.[/quote]
I think its quite possible I don’t completely understand your argument. For now, though, I tend to think I just disagree with it, as least as to the circular reasoning part. Unless maybe I’m hung up on your definition of “god.” If god just means “matter” or “energy” or that “thing or combination of things” that have always existed–or exists outside of our universe or limited understanding of time–then maybe were are on close to the same page. But if “god” means something akin to a Christian god that is all knowing and all powerful and created man in his image as a moral agent, then I am pretty sure I disagree with this line of reasoning as proof of god.
[quote]pat wrote:
It’s simple as pi.[/quote]
Maybe not the best metaphor to use when demonstrating the logic of your argument.
Pi may indeed be simple, but it is still irrational.
[quote]jjackrash wrote:
I think its quite possible I don’t completely understand your argument. For now, though, I tend to think I just disagree with it[/quote]
This is the position of most posters on PWI most of the time. “I don’t understand your position, but I’m against it!”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]jjackrash wrote:
I think its quite possible I don’t completely understand your argument. For now, though, I tend to think I just disagree with it[/quote]
This is the position of most posters on PWI most of the time. “I don’t understand your position, but I’m against it!”[/quote]
Hehe, I am not sure that’s exactly what I was saying.
In truth, I think I am getting the argument–and I’ve been doing a little side reading/googling when I can grab a spare minute–but, in fairness, I am certainly leaving open the possibility that I am just missing something.
Very cool discussion in here, quite confusing though. Has anyone ever seen the episode of Everyone Loves Raymond when Robert goes off and says what was before God, nothing, how could there be nothing, what is nothing and so on. I imagine you guys have thought about this stuff before, my question is did it scare you? I feel as if even if you guys agree on how the universe came to be there are just too many questions that cannot be answered.
That is just me though.