Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[b&wpac4]

Incredibly staggering numbers reduced to huge staggering numbers is not exactly a great support to your position.

Subjective words like "staggering" and "huge" are not great supports for your arguments.

 

[Psudopod]

Once again, my position validated.

Which position was that again?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.

I'm a creationist and support the theory of evolution to a point. Your notion that belief in Allah somehow makes me dumber than you, shows the lack of understanding on your part.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm a creationist and support the theory of evolution to a point. Your notion that belief in Allah somehow makes me dumber than you, shows the lack of understanding on your part.

He never made that point, Eazy E. I'd wager that you're a smart person despite your belief in Creationism.

 

[redwards]

You'ld have to open your eyes first.

Once you do, start with the CDC's website.

I'm asking you. You're making a claim and you're not backing it up. "Google it" is not an argument.

 

[Infernalfist]

very curious how people who strongly defend religion try to make the claim that without the presence of religion, mankind would slip into moral anarchy. how can you make a claim about something you know nothing about? noone has lived in a world where lack of religious influence is the norm. it's like claiming a book that hasn't even been written yet will be a bad idea. as i see it, the steady decline in morality is the effect of religious immorality. Religion had it's chance and blew it. it's very natural and healthy to have a strong opinion about the nature of life. you can't however expect to govern a society based on those views. trying(or even wanting) to force others to follow your beliefs is unethical and has real consiquences.

 

[Belk]

Originally Posted by Psudopod

Really? You can find me a paper that says “There is no god, so relax and have a cup of tea” (or whatever it was that the billboards said)? Because if you can, I need to have some strong words with whoever published it.
​

As atheists roll out London ads, believers unruffled | csmonitor.com

Ariane Sherine created Britain's atheist bus ad campaign.
Andrew Winning/Reuters


Paris - It's the first mass marketing of atheism in Britain – and many in the community of faith say that's just fine.

On Jan. 6 some 800 British red "bendy" buses carried the sign: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
​

Missed that whole paper part did you?

 

[sidhe]

Missed that whole paper part did you?

Those words are printed on paper...so...

...oh, peer-reviewed article from an academic journal? That kind of paper?

My Magic 8-Ball says "Not Likely" when asked if PCF will produce one.

 

[b&wpac4]

Those words are printed on paper...so...

...oh, peer-reviewed article from an academic journal? That kind of paper?

My Magic 8-Ball says "Not Likely" when asked if PCF will produce one.

He will produce a claim that he has studied reality!

 

[Luddite]

I haven't read through this thread, but just wanted to quickly reply to the original post to point out the metaphysical fallacies in it.

Before the universe existed... [fallacy 1]

If such a blank nothingness existed... [fallacy 2]

In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed... [fallacy 3]

Fallacy one: "Before the universe existed..."

By "universe", we could possibly be speaking of the totality of the spatiotemporal world we find ourselves in, the same which is implied by "cosmos". That's what it usually means. In that case, then there is no "before the universe", there is no preceding spatiotemporality which is somehow not the universe, because if there is such a thing, then that is simply the universe. If it is spatially or temporally connected to the world we find ourselves in, then it is undeniably the same universe. If it is not, then there is no reason to think it even exists since there couldn't be any observational mechanism to generate any empirical evidence to that fact, and if some such thing did exist anyway, it would still fall under the definition of our universe (which is the entire spatiotemporal world), and there would still be no "before" or "outside" the very totality; that is simply a contradiction in terms.

But the sentence "before the universe" doesn't acknowledge that fact; it posites a temporal point in time outside of the "totality of the spatiotemporal world" (the universe). In other words, it is asking, "before the totality of the spatiotemporal world existed...", and the problem is, there is no time "before" time itself existed, because before is a temporal designation and is contingent upon the actuality of temporality/time itself.

Fallacy two: "If such a blank nothingness existed..."

Anything which exists is something; calling it nothingness and saying that nothingness exists is simply defining that something negatively (e.g. failing to inform its substance), but is not defining it as non-existent, and hence, not as nothing, since it is something that exists.

It baffles some, for instance, that vacuum and pure space is something, and that vacuum actually is condensed with energy. Hence, in spite of popular misunderstandings, the quantum vacuum from which matter and energy arises, is "something", and that virtual particles arise from it does not violate the principle of causality for that reason.

Fallacy three: "In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed..."

The first problem is that this assumes fallacies one and two, the idea of "time before the temporal universe", and the idea of "nothingness which exists", both blatant contradictions in terms and metaphysical errors.

The second problem is with the specific, both metaphysical and semantic nature of "time". It can be validly argued that time is in fact, itself finity (that is, "time" always refers to an arbitrary and always finite span of existence), and therefore, "infinity of time" is a redundant predication since the notion of infinity contradicts the nature of time itself. One should instead simply say "timelessness" since if it is infinite in any way, it is not finite and therefore the notion of any amount of time becomes irrelevant, since any such amount is less than infinity. Infinity is no amount at all, it is the lack of a boundary, and since time is always defined by a boundary (moment, second, minute, blink of an eye, etc), they are diametrical antonyms.

That infinity is the lack of a boundary also means that infinity cannot be transversed, infinity cannot pass, because there is no boundary at which infinity is over. Therefore, an actually embodied "infinite amount of time" before the universe is a contradiction in terms. Since infinity has no boundary it can never be reached, and hence, there is never an "infinite amount", and therefore, if there is an "infinite amount" of time in the past (before us or before the universe), the present moment, or the universe, would never be reached and would never come into being.

I hope that shows how bad metaphyics, and bad reasoning can only result in bad and fallacious arguments which are invalid at their core.

 

[DeathMagus]

::snip::

...which is why it's darned important to have an inkling of what you're getting yourself into before opening your mouth about something as complicated as...oh I don't know...the beginnings of the universe?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I haven't read through this thread, but just wanted to quickly reply to the original post to point out the metaphysical fallacies in it.

Your 'fallacies' aren't anything of the sort: they're what happens when you take a person's words too literally, superimposing your own definitions on theirs and calling them fallacious.

Fallacy one: "Before the universe existed..."

By "universe", we could possibly be speaking of the totality of the spatiotemporal world we find ourselves in, the same which is implied by "cosmos". That's what it usually means. In that case, then there is no "before the universe", there is no preceding spatiotemporality which is somehow not the universe, because if there is such a thing, then that is simply the universe. If it is spatially or temporally connected to the world we find ourselves in, then it is undeniably the same universe. If it is not, then there is no reason to think it even exists since there couldn't be any observational mechanism to generate any empirical evidence to that fact, and if some such thing did exist anyway, it would still fall under the definition of our universe (which is the entire spatiotemporal world), and there would still be no "before" or "outside" the very totality; that is simply a contradiction in terms.

Which presumes everything must be held within a spacetime continuum (which is demonstrably false; spacetime is a thing, but it isn't suspended in itself). The question is asking what exists before our continuum existed. You also assume that there can only be one temporal dimension, that ours is it, and that it is linear.

You mention that 'universe' could mean 'the totality of the spatiotemporal world we find ourselves in'. Why does that mean there is no 'before'? Is the spacetime we find ourselves in the only one that exists? If not, then there could indeed exist a time before our local universe came into existence.

But the sentence "before the universe" doesn't acknowledge that fact; it posites a temporal point in time outside of the "totality of the spatiotemporal world" (the universe). In other words, it is asking, "before the totality of the spatiotemporal world existed...", and the problem is, there is no time "before" time itself existed, because before is a temporal designation and is contingent upon the actuality of temporality/time itself.

Indeed, which is why the OP asks what happened before time. If we assume classical causality (something I'm loath to do), there was an event preceding the start of time. The OP is asking what caused time to start.

Fallacy two: "If such a blank nothingness existed..."

Anything which exists is something; calling it nothingness and saying that nothingness exists is simply defining that something negatively (e.g. failing to inform its substance), but is not defining it as non-existent, and hence, not as nothing, since it is something that exists.

Not quite. Saying 'nothingness exists' is an easy way of saying 'no thing exists'. The English language is rather limited, so try to work with questioners, not against them.

It baffles some, for instance, that vacuum and pure space is something, and that vacuum actually is condensed with energy.

Condensed energy? I wasn't aware vacuum energy existed as a liquid.

Fallacy three: "In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed..."

The first problem is that this assumes fallacies one and two, the idea of "time before the temporal universe", and the idea of "nothingness which exists", both blatant contradictions in terms and metaphysical errors.

The second problem is with the specific, both metaphysical and semantic nature of "time". It can be validly argued that time is in fact, itself finity (that is, "time" always refers to an arbitrary and always finite span of existence), and therefore, "infinity of time" is a redundant predication since the notion of infinity contradicts the nature of time itself.

But that's an unsubstantiated assumption on your part. The nature of time (continuous? discrete? infinite? finite? closed? open? etc) is up in the air, so to arbitrarily assume time is of this and that nature is as fallacious as what you accuse the OP of.

One should instead simply say "timelessness" since if it is infinite in any way, it is not finite and therefore the notion of any amount of time becomes irrelevant, since any such amount is less than infinity. Infinity is no amount at all, it is the lack of a boundary, and since time is always defined by a boundary (moment, second, minute, blink of an eye, etc), they are diametrical antonyms.

Hardly. Minutes and seconds and other divisions of time are just that: divisions of time. They don't tell us anything about whether time is infinite or not, or even if it's continuous. A minute is a length of time, just as '2' is a 'length' on the real number line. But just as the number line is infinite, so too is time.
Moreover, even if time had a 'beginning', that doesn't preclude time from being infinite.

That infinity is the lack of a boundary also means that infinity cannot be transversed, infinity cannot pass, because there is no boundary at which infinity is over.

Nope. A continuous line of finite length has an infinite number of points on it. Since we can traverse a finite length in a finite time, we can therefore traverse infinity in finite time. Moreover, even if the length is itself infinite, we can still traverse it in infinite time (or infinite steps).

I hope that shows how bad metaphyics, and bad reasoning can only result in bad and fallacious arguments which are invalid at their core.

Indeed it does: a naïve understanding of infinity on your part led you to fallacious counter-arguments. Enjoy.

 

[Blackmarch]

... And to me, it seems, very probable.

BEFORE YOU READ:

I realize that this theory / hypothesis / concept / whatever is not going to be the end-all creationism vs. atheism debate. This is just an idea I found interesting and wanted to see what everybody here thought about it.

ON TO THE SUBJECT:

I just had this sort of thought bouncing around in my head, and I think I had an epiphany. That or my brain exploded. Okay, consider this:

Before the universe existed, there were no laws. Of anything. No physics, no logic, no nothing.

If such a blank nothingness existed without laws, literally anything could happen.

In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed, it is infinitely probable for anything and everything to be created. Since there is an infinite amount of time and no binding guidelines, literally every possibility must be fulfilled.

This includes the spontaneous creation of our universe.

----------------------


Put that in your pipe and smoke it, creationists.

Ex nihilo sans god.... interesting.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Oh hey, my thread got necro'd. Cool.

 

[Luddite]

Which presumes everything must be held within a spacetime continuum (which is demonstrably false; spacetime is a thing, but it isn't suspended in itself). The question is asking what exists before our continuum existed. You also assume that there can only be one temporal dimension, that ours is it, and that it is linear.

I don't assume it.

You mention that 'universe' could mean 'the totality of the spatiotemporal world we find ourselves in'. Why does that mean there is no 'before'? Is the spacetime we find ourselves in the only one that exists? If not, then there could indeed exist a time before our local universe came into existence.

Why it means there is no before? Because that "before" would be part of the totality, and therefore not "before" the totality, but part of it . If it is "before" it is, besides, temporally connected to ours (e.g. temporally anterior in the same temporal extension), and therefore itself part of the universe's own temporal continuity and not properly speaking "before" the universe. We could have something which is "outside" our part of the universe, rather, but that would still be a part of the totality of the spatiotemporal world in the end, even if separated, just like galaxies (and like the multiverse or an inflationary model of the universe).

Indeed, which is why the OP asks what happened before time. If we assume classical causality (something I'm loath to do), there was an event preceding the start of time. The OP is asking what caused time to start.

I disagree. There could be a first event which is itself the start of time, but it is not before time, it's source must ultimately be outside of time, not 'before' since that presumes time before time itself.

Not quite. Saying 'nothingness exists' is an easy way of saying 'no thing exists'. The English language is rather limited, so try to work with questioners, not against them.

If it exists, it is something in some sense. I believe that is the minimal of what must be accepted to make any sense out of "existence". You can of course disagree, but I'm not going to argue over it. Something which seems to be nothing in every sense we can grasp it, and yet exists, is definitely something existing, even if we have no grasp of it's substance or essence.

Condensed energy? I wasn't aware vacuum energy existed as a liquid.

I wasn't speaking literally, but figuratively. Vacuum is not nothing, which was my only point.

Nope. A continuous line of finite length has an infinite number of points on it. Since we can traverse a finite length in a finite time, we can therefore traverse infinity in finite time. Moreover, even if the length is itself infinite, we can still traverse it in infinite time (or infinite steps).

But we can never transverse it in that infinite time because we can never at any point reach infinite time. We can transverse it in infinite time constantly potentially because infinity means there is always an infinite potential, no boundary on potential, but never actually an infinity, because we can never actually reach an infinite potential without there being an infinite potential more than that actuality.

If we do say we can actually transverse infinity definitely, then we are putting a boundary or a closing on infinity, and making it finite, not infinite, because if it is infinite there is always an infinity more than what has been reached. 2 is not closer to infinity than 1.

Indeed it does: a naïve understanding of infinity on your part led you to fallacious counter-arguments. Enjoy.

I would disagree and deflect that accusation to some more reflection on your side on infinity, things like Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

 

[Blackmarch]

...which is why it's darned important to have an inkling of what you're getting yourself into before opening your mouth about something as complicated as...oh I don't know...the beginnings of the universe?

no one really does so it'd be about as valid as any other. AS being as sensible as some other hypothosis that's a different story.

 

[DeathMagus]

no one really does so it'd be about as valid as any other. AS being as sensible as some other hypothosis that's a different story.

So hypotheses that are less sensible are equally valid?

I think not.

 

[Luddite]

Nope. A continuous line of finite length has an infinite number of points on it. Since we can traverse a finite length in a finite time, we can therefore traverse infinity in finite time.

Non-sequitur.

That any amount of time (or rather, any measurement of time) is infinitely divisible into smaller units, once again only means that anything can be potentially infinitely divided by numbers, not that it is actually infinite, or even that it can be actually divided into infinite subdivisions (only that that it potentially can).

 

[SoldierForHim]

It is impossible to create something from nothing, so something must have created everything...

G

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

It is impossible to create something from nothing, so something must have created everything...

G

So I take it you didn't read the OP...