A question for atheists and agnostics

[MaxP]

I do not think any modern cosmologies are true something-from-nothing paradigms. They all posit some radically different something which gave rise to space and time via vacuum fluctuation or what have you.

But that something would have to be an eternal something, or a cycle.

I don't think so. I believe such events are considered causeless and entirely random.

Do they have a purpose?

 

[TheBear]

But that something would have to be an eternal something, or a cycle.

Or, maybe it's an eternal cycle.

Do they have a purpose?

Does everything have to have a purpose? What is the purpose of a tornado, a gamma burst or a black hole?

 

[MaxP]

That may be an excellent answer - but to which question?
Plus: How do you determine what has this possibility and what hasn´t?

Well, there appeared to be confusion as to what I meant by "caused" and why there must be an uncaused cause.
Everything in this universe has the possibility of being and not being. You can bring up energy, but energy is not, of itself, a concrete force. It is the ability to do things, and even systems with a lot of energy tend toward maximum entropy. If the universe is infinitely old, why is every system not a t maximum entropy yet?

 

[MaxP]

Or, maybe it's an eternal cycle.

An eternal cycle doesn't make sense to me, as I said before.
Then it would simply be a hammer using another hammer, and then that one using another....
It doesn't seem to make sense that instruments would use themselves.
Also, this cycle is indifferent as to its existence (ie everything that came before it is indifferent to whether it existed or not; it can not will itself into existence) so this cycle must, at the very least, have a Being at the beginning of it who was not indifferent to the thing after its existence.

Does everything have to have a purpose? What is the purpose of a tornado, a gamma burst or a black hole?

Atmospheric conditions are a result of existence. So whats existence's purpose?
You could argue it has none, but I have yet to see a convincing argument in that direction.

 

[MaxP]

What makes you think that matter has the possibility of not being?

Because it does. While individual atoms may very well be impossible to destroy, if the universe is infinitely old, these atoms would have started out order and gradually tend toward disorder. They would have reached, by now, maximum disorder, and the universe would be a jumble of atoms in space. Unless you would say we are near the beginning of infinity.

 

[MaxP]

And you're still not making any sense. As far as i can tell, your basic argument is that God created us so God must be perfect.

This would be a non-sequitur, except you define perfection as God.

Since you define perfection as "God", you can keep going, until you hit the point "Intelligence is a perfection" which is an equivocation fallacy, because you already defined perfection as "God" not "Intelligence".

Perfection is a trait of being perfect.

And the logic behind it is God cannot not possess the perfection(traits of being perfect) that we do.

 

[cantata]

Because it does. While individual atoms may very well be impossible to destroy, if the universe is infinitely old, these atoms would have started out order and gradually tend toward disorder. They would have reached, by now, maximum disorder, and the universe would be a jumble of atoms in space. Unless you would say we are near the beginning of infinity.

Ah, now, this is interesting.

I read an article a while back - I'll see if I can find it - which suggested that this is precisely what's happened. The universe has achieved heat death; all of the energy in the universe is evenly dispersed and therefore nothing like the events we're used to seeing around us will ever happen again. After all, this is the most likely possibility, since the universe will go on forever, but the amount of time prior to heat death is finite.

In such a place, there would still be random quantum events. With infinite time, even the enormously improbable can occur, and so these random quantum events would occasionally result in briefly conscious entities. Therefore it is most likely that what I think is my conscious experience - and all my memories of the past - are actually a brief moment of quantum weirdness, floating in the void.

Interesting, no?

 

[Garyzenuf]

Oh sure, now you start limiting what God is capable of.

Nope. I am saying He could not do anything if He didn't exist..

Well sure, maybe to our limited human perspective, but wouldn't a God who could achieve his goals thru just a belief in Him be more full in his "perfectedness" than one that had to go to all the bother of existing.

*

 

[MaxP]

Ah, now, this is interesting.

I read an article a while back - I'll see if I can find it - which suggested that this is precisely what's happened. The universe has achieved heat death; all of the energy in the universe is evenly dispersed and therefore nothing like the events we're used to seeing around us will ever happen again. After all, this is the most likely possibility, since the universe will go on forever, but the amount of time prior to heat death is finite.

But there is also the theory that the universe, being infinitely vast, is also ever-expanding. So according to this theory, not only would the energy be evenly dispersed, it would be getting thinner. Besides, there is still plenty of energy floating around. Enough for me and the rest of the planet to do work.
That still begs the question as to what caused the universe to come into existence.

In such a place, there would still be random quantum events. With infinite time, even the enormously improbable can occur, and so these random quantum events would occasionally result in briefly conscious entities. Therefore it is most likely that what I think is my conscious experience - and all my memories of the past - are actually a brief moment of quantum weirdness, floating in the void.

Interesting, but what you does not explain is how thought and culture can come from quantum weirdness. The nature of the human intellect is to separate things from the matter; I do not see how matter randomly reacting could create such a strange effect.

Interesting, no?

Yes, but I believe the nature of the human to be greater than a random cosmic quirk. Also, given the intellect abstracts thing, how could random chemical reactions in the brain cause this thinking? My random chemical reaction tells me the intellect is separate from the matter.

 

[LittleNipper]

What consequences?

Eternal.

 

[TeddyKGB]

But that something would have to be an eternal something, or a cycle.

I don't see anything prima facie wrong with that. We are, after all, somewhat limited to certain categories of conceivable beginnings of all things.

Do they have a purpose?

Far too loaded a question.

 

[MaxP]

Well sure, maybe to our limited human perspective, but wouldn't a God who could achieve his goals thru just a belief in Him be more full in his "perfectedness" than one that had to go to all the bother of existing.

*

You're trying to put me in some kind of catch- 22, but the simple fact is if God didn't exist, nothing would, so nothing would happen. By virtue of Him doing anything, He has to exist.

 

[MaxP]

I don't see anything prima facie wrong with that. We are, after all, somewhat limited to certain categories of conceivable beginnings of all things.

Well, I would have to contend nothing in this universe last forever, in it nature. Everything is caused.

 

[TheBear]

Atmospheric conditions are a result of existence.

I'll only say that "result of" is quite different than "purpose".

 

[MaxP]

I'll only say that "result of" is quite different than "purpose".

Agreed.
You ignored the rest of my post! *temper tantrum*

 

[LittleNipper]

It's interesting to see Jews used as an apologetic tool by people who are nevertheless unashamedly antisemitic.

I suppose they are liked and supported as long as they are useful.

The Jew has recieved more support from the Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian groups than it has from any other. I am anti-homosexual behavior pattern supporter and not antisemitic. However, in both cases I seek to evangelize and not demoralize.

 

[MaxP]

I don't see anything prima facie wrong with that. We are, after all, somewhat limited to certain categories of conceivable beginnings of all things.

Oh, and also, how would the cycle start, given every part of it is indifferent ot its own, and the thing after it's existence?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why?



Why?



And lastly, ... why?

Please explain why not, why not and lastly, ... why not?

 

[MaxP]

Please explain why not, why not and lastly, ... why not?

Um, even I got to point out, that's shifting the burden of proof.
Generally the one who makes the claim has to prove it is true, or plausible, not the opponent having to explain why it is not plausible first. Just sayin'.

 

[quatona]

Everything in this universe has the possibility of being and not being.

How did you determine this?
And how do you conclude from observations within the universe on properties of the universe itself?

You can bring up energy, but energy is not, of itself, a concrete force. It is the ability to do things, and even systems with a lot of energy tend toward maximum entropy.
If the universe is infinitely old, why is every system not a t maximum entropy yet?

Because not every system is infinitely old?