Print

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

[Sowelu]

Speaking of multiverses, astronomers have recently discovered signs in the cosmic background radiation (rings of cooler areas actually) shich indicates that somehow a previous universe made an imprint on ours when it was born. Although from the article it shows three rings, the cycle could very well be infinite with universes budding off of each other.

Source?  :/  By "Indicates" I'm guessing it actually means "Some scientist vaguely imagined and thought it would get his name in the papers"...  Though it would be pretty cool.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity:  Why are we here at all?  The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.

And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing.  I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.

The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.

[smjjames]

Speaking of multiverses, astronomers have recently discovered signs in the cosmic background radiation (rings of cooler areas actually) shich indicates that somehow a previous universe made an imprint on ours when it was born. Although from the article it shows three rings, the cycle could very well be infinite with universes budding off of each other.

Source?  :/  By "Indicates" I'm guessing it actually means "Some scientist vaguely imagined and thought it would get his name in the papers"...  Though it would be pretty cool.

Um right, source.

I saw it here on the Discovery News site.

Even so, scientists aren't completely sure what it is yet.

[Siquo]

And I believe that science can teach us lots of things, but will never be able to tell us what the universe really is.

Just randomly putting out crackpot hypotheses and not bothering to check any of them will?

Yeah, it probably has a greater chance since "check them" as you now mean it is probably part of the scientific method, which is a very narrow way of "checking" stuff. I think looking at the same stuff from different angles instead of accepting the popular view has a larger chance of gaining insights. It does in practice, why not in philosophy or religion?

Ok, yeah... like hypothetical evidence that blond people don't exist.

It just isn't gonna happen.

That has been said so many times in history (and they were wrong), and is such an unscientific stance that you're probably on my side anyway

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, it probably has a greater chance since "check them" as you now mean it is probably part of the scientific method, which is a very narrow way of "checking" stuff. I think looking at the same stuff from different angles instead of accepting the popular view has a larger chance of gaining insights. It does in practice, why not in philosophy or religion?

Performing a basic observation or experiment to see if something is true or not is not a "narrow way of checking stuff".  Yes, you look at it from different angles... and then you test those different angles to see which ones actually have evidence for them.

That has been said so many times in history (and they were wrong), and is such an unscientific stance that you're probably on my side anyway

Hey, I'm not saying it's impossible.  Just staggeringly unlikely and rather an odd thing to suggest.

[Sowelu]

That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity:  Why are we here at all?  The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.

And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing.  I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.

The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.

I disagree.  Yes, it breaks the chain of cause and effect, but we don't have any specific information about a Prime Mover that forces it to have a starting point.  The universe, on the other hand, has a very well established starting point.  In other words, I can accept a God who always was, but a universe that always was defies all the evidence as we know it.

[wurli]

That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity:  Why are we here at all?  The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.

And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing.  I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.

The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.

I disagree.  Yes, it breaks the chain of cause and effect, but we don't have any specific information about a Prime Mover that forces it to have a starting point.  The universe, on the other hand, has a very well established starting point.  In other words, I can accept a God who always was, but a universe that always was defies all the evidence as we know it.

Isn't that exactly the same argument that has come up countless of times when science encountered a new frontier?
We can't explain it than some Undefinable Deity has to be involved.
We just don't know enough.

[Siquo]

Performing a basic observation or experiment to see if something is true or not is not a "narrow way of checking stuff".  Yes, you look at it from different angles... and then you test those different angles to see which ones actually have evidence for them.

In that case, could you do a basic observation or experiment to determine whether there was a Primal Mover or something else or even nothing before the universe?
And that's just one example, there's numerous others that are even less esoteric yet completely fall outside of the scope of science, that's what I mean by "narrow". It's like one is only weighing stuff and completely disregards the colour.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That's one of the big questions religion tries to address, whether it's deism or Christianity:  Why are we here at all?  The deist position is generally that if there wasn't a Creator, there would be no Creation, because the default state is Nothing.

And...I'm not sure what the atheist response to that is, aside from asserting that the default state is Something instead of Nothing.  I don't see how either of those ideas is inherently more sensible than the other.

The correct response to that is to inquire what created their Creator. The most common answer is "Nothing" or "It always existed", breaking the chain of cause and effect just as easily as a spontanious generation of the universe without a creator would. This renders the point null.

I disagree.  Yes, it breaks the chain of cause and effect, but we don't have any specific information about a Prime Mover that forces it to have a starting point.  The universe, on the other hand, has a very well established starting point.  In other words, I can accept a God who always was, but a universe that always was defies all the evidence as we know it.

Indeed, we don't have any specific information about a Prime Mover. In fact, we don't have information about a Prime Mover, and I suspect that's because it's just made up. If God doesn't require a starting point, the Universe doesn't either. It doesn't get any special pleading in the name of being "magic", or whatever variable you prefer. I'm sorry if I sound harsh here, but I'm simply tired of hearing this same argument over and over again whenever we don't know somthing. The universe, our universe at least, does have an established starting point in time, but that doesn't prevent it from having generated out of nothingness. I don't personally think that's the case, however. Things get really strange when you start speculating about the begining of our universe. Time as we know it may not have existed. We know so very little on the subject, but jumping off of that to decide that a Prime Mover exists or that the universe always existed is simply not good science. We just don't know the truth yet. Deciding that it must be some supernatural force instead of searching for that truth will get us nowhere.

[Leafsnail]

In that case, could you do a basic observation or experiment to determine whether there was a Primal Mover or something else or even nothing before the universe?

Nope, throw it on the pile of unprovable guesses.

[smjjames]

Exactly. Although if you want to believe in some ancient precursor aliens (generally known as The First ones, Progenitors, Ancients, etc) as being your god or gods, fine.

[Siquo]

Nope, throw it on the pile of unprovable guesses.

What a small world

[Sowelu]

We know so very little on the subject, but jumping off of that to decide that a Prime Mover exists or that the universe always existed is simply not good science. We just don't know the truth yet. Deciding that it must be some supernatural force instead of searching for that truth will get us nowhere.

Ah, now there's the real root of hostility.  You don't think that theists also care about searching for scientific truth.  No, I'm quite interested in proving it one way or another, and you better believe I'm ALL for science.  My belief in a God only strengthens my resolve to find scientific proof of its existence.  And seriously, with the way science is going right now, yeah I do think we'll find more-definitive proof one way or another within the next couple centuries.

Sure not all theists are scientists.  But are all atheists?  It's a matter of belief, not a matter of policy.  I've got my ideas of what I think we'll find, you've got yours, but we both agree that there's stuff that's worth looking for.

[Bauglir]

Eh. It's still not good science to seek out evidence for a conclusion you already believe. You might be right, but it has a tendency to blind you to evidence that counters your belief. Most theists (or atheists, for that matter) who were to do an experiment to ascertain the existence of a god (assuming said experiment were possible) would only be doing it in the first place in order to prove their existing belief, and would be likely to interpret the results in a way that presupposes the outcome they're interested in.

[Leafsnail]

I'd like to say that being an atheist does not require you to believe that there is no God (although some do - see Strong Atheism).

Personally, I have no belief in any kind of deity, but no belief that any of them cannot exist.  I also attach no special significance to the existance or non existance of any of them, and as such, throw them on the pile of "unprovable stuff that isn't really relevant".