Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

I assert that discussing time-based concepts like "always", it is meaningless to discuss time outside the universe. I don't mean that I'm defining it that way because I think time is meaningless with no matter in the universe or anything, I mean that I assert that time itself did not exist prior to the universe, because time is an aspect of the space-time which comprises the universe and the universe obviously could not have existed prior to itself.

Obviously, it's meaningless to discuss time outside of the universe because there is no such thing as outside of everything.   

[Sowelu]

For a strict definition of the universe as being everything and all of time, yeah, a Prime Mover is clearly out of scope.  Still makes you wonder what kicked it off though.  And hey, science fiction--and therefore science itself--keeps nudging at hypotheticals like, can universes bud off from other universes?  (Remember, black holes were hypotheticals too.)  If (big if) that were the case, then we certainly couldn't consider our universe to be the whole of existence anymore.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

The universe has a starting point.  God is generally considered not to require a starting point.  It's special pleading, but EVERYTHING is special pleading when you're talking about the start of causality.

I assert that the universe could not have been "always here" and I think you might agree.  So what made it pop into existence?

I think my argument is that "God's existence violates causality" is more acceptable than "The universe's existence violates causality", because I like to think as the universe as a thing whose origin would obey its own laws.

yes, but you're not addressing another point i tried to make, why would god make any more sense than pink unicorns with wings and external ribs that undulate rithmicaly?.. well, why take the less imaginative monotheistic religions when you can embrace the more colorful pantheons and mythologies? is "ok, i don't know why that happens so i'm making stuff up to explain it" really the best approach, though?

and assuming something sprang existence into existence, why assume that it was a sentient entity? what's so special about sentience that makes it older than space and time itself?

[Urist Imiknorris]

The fact that we as a species need to feel special.

[Realmfighter]

But we are special.

_{Aren't we?}

[Urist Imiknorris]

So far.

[Sowelu]

The universe has a starting point.  God is generally considered not to require a starting point.  It's special pleading, but EVERYTHING is special pleading when you're talking about the start of causality.

I assert that the universe could not have been "always here" and I think you might agree.  So what made it pop into existence?

I think my argument is that "God's existence violates causality" is more acceptable than "The universe's existence violates causality", because I like to think as the universe as a thing whose origin would obey its own laws.

yes, but you're not addressing another point i tried to make, why would god make any more sense than pink unicorns with wings and external ribs that undulate rithmicaly?.. well, why take the less imaginative monotheistic religions when you can embrace the more colorful pantheons and mythologies? is "ok, i don't know why that happens so i'm making stuff up to explain it" really the best approach, though?

and assuming something sprang existence into existence, why assume that it was a sentient entity? what's so special about sentience that makes it older than space and time itself?

Well, "I don't know why that happens so I'm making stuff up to explain it" is kind of the main way you get anywhere.  You just throw out things that are stupid the first chance you get, and hold onto things that might be worth a (long) shot.

As for "why something sentient"--  This universe supports life.  If any of a very very large number of universal constants were slightly different, it probably wouldn't.  And I don't mean "life as we know it", I mean "hey where did all the atoms go".  It's the watchmaker argument.  Now, the watchmaker argument for intelligent design of life fails because we have a reliable history of the world.  It made sense; it just didn't...you know...have much solid evidence on its side.

If this universe is the only universe, then it's incredibly, fantastically unlikely that all those variables would have even allowed the existence of matter by chance.  And if this universe is the only universe that ever was, then it's not like we had a lot of chances of getting it right, like the origin of life did (a billion years, all the oceans in the world).  Of course, it's a pretty big assumption to say that this is the first and only universe...

So I figure it's one of two choices.  Either A) sentient creator (where did it come from, I don't know), or B) one hell of a lot of randomly generated universes that exist in some system that is beyond our own.

In any case I don't see how atheism is the default selection over theism.  Agnosticism sure, but not atheism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Implicit Atheism would be the default choice because that's the conclusion one never told of religion would most likely come to. Which is to say, never thinking about it at all. This is opposed to Explicit Atheism, that being the assertion that there are no gods in response to someone claiming that there are.

[Sowelu]

The Watchmaker argument is implicit theism.  "I see a castle, and I know its creator; I see a mountain, who was its creator?"  It might be wrong, but it's still a way that someone who was never told of religion could come to a personal belief in a greater-than-human creator.

...You're right though, if someone NEVER thinks about it at all, implicit atheism is correct.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Which is why I called it the most likely postion someone never learned of religion would take. And then those who came to implicit theism would grow from there, attempting to explain the world through early guesswork, leaving us with the religions and the branches thereof that we have today.

[Andir]

For a strict definition of the universe as being everything and all of time, yeah, a Prime Mover is clearly out of scope.  Still makes you wonder what kicked it off though.

Not really... makes more sense for it to have always been there.

[Earthquake Damage]

Of course, it's a pretty big assumption to say that this is the first and only universe...

It's useless to speculate about other universes since, by definition, no two universes can interact.  So we can't discover, explore, or otherwise learn about them.  Consequently, it is indeed brazen to claim there is only one universe, being unfalsifiable and all.

[Sowelu]

Of course, it's a pretty big assumption to say that this is the first and only universe...

It's useless to speculate about other universes since, by definition, no two universes can interact.  So we can't discover, explore, or otherwise learn about them.  Consequently, it is indeed brazen to claim there is only one universe, being unfalsifiable and all.

Fair enough.

For a strict definition of the universe as being everything and all of time, yeah, a Prime Mover is clearly out of scope.  Still makes you wonder what kicked it off though.

Not really... makes more sense for it to have always been there.

Big Bang :/

[Andir]

For a strict definition of the universe as being everything and all of time, yeah, a Prime Mover is clearly out of scope.  Still makes you wonder what kicked it off though.

Not really... makes more sense for it to have always been there.

Big Bang :/

Still disputed...thus the postfix "Theory"

[ECrownofFire]

Did someone mention the Watchmaker Argument? It's interesting how well it fits the current discussion, with this quote:

...then we can equally assert that the universe itself existed eternally and then one day began expanding, or been in an endless loop of expansion and contraction, or thousands of other examples.

Look at that, Big Bang and Big Crunch. And the origins of the universe. All right there.

Of course, it's a pretty big assumption to say that this is the first and only universe...

It's useless to speculate about other universes since, by definition, no two universes can interact.  So we can't discover, explore, or otherwise learn about them.  Consequently, it is indeed brazen to claim there is only one universe, being unfalsifiable and all.

I think I've seen some quantum theories about universe interaction. You're assuming the current definition is correct. The Earth used to be defined as flat, now it isn't. Definitions are not well, definite.