Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[Chesterton]

If reality has existed forever (or exists out of time etc etc), then we can logically conclude that something must have the property of existing forever, and being capable of producing further events. Those are the only properties of that "something" that we can conclude. There is no reason to think that this "something" is sentient. Or that it has powers beyond starting Big Bangs.

But the Big Bang has a lot of strange follow-through - orderly forces and laws, biological life, consciousness, reason, etc. So I think that part is wrong - there is some reason to think the eternal "something" is sentient.

IF reality has existed forever, then adding "God" to the situation doesn't help. It just unnecessarily complicates the situation by inventing an all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, all-loving entity, where a simple higher dimensional wave function is all that's needed. And the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.

How can you say a non-sentient creative force is simpler than a sentient creative force? I think the opposite.

 

[Andreusz]

But the Big Bang has a lot of strange follow-through - orderly forces and laws, biological life, consciousness, reason, etc. So I think that part is wrong - there is some reason to think the eternal "something" is sentient.

It doesn't seem illogical to me to assume that these things all happened by coincidence.

How can you say a non-sentient creative force is simpler than a sentient creative force? I think the opposite.

I wouldn't talk of a non-sentient creative force, merely of a non-sentient causative force.
Intuitively, a non-sentient causative force would have fewer parts than a sentient creative force.

 

[Mystman]

How can you say a non-sentient creative force is simpler than a sentient creative force? I think the opposite.

What do you call "creative"?

Are air molecules being "creative" when they form a tornado?

Is a star being "creative" when it goes supernova and forms the elements out of which we all exist?

The "creation" of the big bang is just another effect from unthinking forces, even though it probably involved forces outside our space-time-continuum and are therefore difficult (if not impossible) to study and understand.

Claiming that something is sentient is complicating matters. For what claim would you want more evidence: that the tornado forms from the air by testable laws, or that the tornado forms from the air because the molecules want it? In the first case, you can just test the laws.. in the second, you get a whole slew of new questions, first of which is "how exactly does an air molecule want something "

 

[Chesterton]

I wouldn't talk of a non-sentient creative force, merely of a non-sentient causative force.

But this thread is about the causative force which also originally created. If you're talking about a force which acted on already existing stuff, that's different.

(In using the word "creative", I'm not trying to associate it with the capital "C" - Creator/Creation. But if a force caused something to exist which didn't previously exist, then it is a causative force, but also would correctly be called a creative force.)

Intuitively, a non-sentient causative force would have fewer parts than a sentient creative force.

Okay, but what the sentient force lacks in simplicity it more than makes up for in motive and ability.

What do you call "creative"?

Are air molecules being "creative" when they form a tornado?

Is a star being "creative" when it goes supernova and forms the elements out of which we all exist?

No, I don't call those things creative. They don't bring matter into existence, they process or re-arrange what was already created over 13 billion years ago, the same as a man does when he builds a chair, even though we might commonly and erroneously say "he created a chair".

The "creation" of the big bang is just another effect from unthinking forces, even though it probably involved forces outside our space-time-continuum and are therefore difficult (if not impossible) to study and understand.

The supposition of forces existing before the big bang is pure speculation, and only pushes the question back a notch anyway.

Claiming that something is sentient is complicating matters.

You've mentioned that a couple times now, as if our goal was finding the simplest answer, rather than the right answer. I agree God complicates things, but that has no bearing on whether God might exist.

For what claim would you want more evidence: that the tornado forms from the air by testable laws, or that the tornado forms from the air because the molecules want it? In the first case, you can just test the laws.. in the second, you get a whole slew of new questions, first of which is "how exactly does an air molecule want something "

Again, you're speaking of "causation" or "formation", not "creation". We both already agree that previously created laws and processes act on previously created matter.

 

[Jade Margery]

*hugs Chesterton*

This is off topic, but folks like you restore my diminishing faith in humanity. I don't agree with everything you say, but I love the way you're saying it.

I don't think matter can be brought into existence from nothing, either through a creative OR causative force. If we assume that the universe is infinitely large, can it not exist for an infinitely long time? The OP has an interesting idea about nothingness, and on the face it makes a little sense. If you know much about quantum mechanics, you know that anything--ANYTHING--is possible, just very highly improbable.... but that is usually in reference to the movements of particles and atomic structures, ie. the idea that I could (highly improbably) drop a bowling ball through the floor because both are mostly empty space. But if there are no molecules there to begin with, if there truly is nothing, then nothing can logically begin. Even the probability of something happening is based on something else causing it to happen. Without a cause, the probability is 0.

So I suppose I subscribe to the cyclical hypothesis about the nature of the universe, at least until the theorists come up with something better.

Or maybe we're all just shadows from the fourth dimension.

Thinking about this stuff warps my brain a little.

 

[Chesterton]

Thanks, Jade, that's very sweet of you.

Yeah, I guess we can't get past the "turtles all the way down", but I think arguing about this is a lot more fun than arguing politics.

 

[Belk]

Thanks, Jade, that's very sweet of you.

Yeah, I guess we can't get past the "turtles all the way down", but I think arguing about this is a lot more fun than arguing politics.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

lol. I kind of get it, but see that last part? If there is so much nothingness, then probability doesn't exist either. In fact, I don't think we can guess anything at all in such a scenario. Everything we know about the universe is through the laws we have figured out, if those get taken out then there is simply a big question mark and nothing else. It is akin to theorizing what an alternate universe would be like.

Hmm, I see your point.

And for that matter, it doesn't seem like the concept of time would exist either. The problem is that we as humans and creatures of our own universe cannot wrap our minds around something that does not abide by any of the laws of our universe. Gah.

I think the theory still works though, as without logic and physics, spontaneous creation is still possible.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

The long and short of it is:

Just because we may not easily wrap our mind around the processes that would allow a stable universe to come into existence, it is not permissible to just explain it away with a simplistic myth like: "Invisible Uberman did it like a Watchmaker."

I am not cemented to my faith as a Deist, and I do not intend to try to hold it up if the concept of G-d is conclusively ruled out (or is ruled out in my mind) I will drop it and become an atheist or agnostic. The whole reason I posted this concept was to refute the claim that it is impossible for a universe (or would it be 'an universe'?... Huh...) to exist without G-d. I'm providing an alternative theory to my own faith, not supporting it.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Meh nice idea, but not very scientifically sound imho.

The correct argument against the "something from nothing!1!" crowd, that is 100% effective in convincing people who are actually trying to understand what you're saying, goes something like:

you: how can something come from nothing?
me: It can't. 'reality' has either existed forever, or is cyclical; the "something" is a product of some eternal or cyclical process/phenomenon.
you: but how can something exist forever!?!?
me: No idea. It's a concept a human mind can't grasp.
you: HA! So Christianity is true!
me: No, since the Christian God has the exact same problem of "how did it start". You're just postulating that by some intrinsic property, God has existed forever. Well, I can postulate the exact same thing for my unthinking colliding 11-dimensional brames (or whatever the current theory in string theory is..).

If reality has existed forever (or exists out of time etc etc), then we can logically conclude that something must have the property of existing forever, and being capable of producing further events. Those are the only properties of that "something" that we can conclude. There is no reason to think that this "something" is sentient. Or that it has powers beyond starting Big Bangs.

IF reality has existed forever, then adding "God" to the situation doesn't help. It just unnecessarily complicates the situation by inventing an all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless, all-loving entity, where a simple higher dimensional wave function is all that's needed. And the simplest explanation is the most likely to be true.

You can't just say "well God is allowed to be eternal, but your stupid wavefunction isn't!". You can't just say "well, you don't know everything, so you're wrong!1!1, ", even if your own lifeview has the exact same problem that you're attacking in someone else's view. You'll just have to accept that, yes, the concept of something existing for an eternity is a darned hard concept to understand. But no, inventing a "God" doesn't solve this problem; it only complicates it without good reason.

You: Oh. Wow.

(argh.. I've written this one before but in a better way.. but I can't find it in my post history -_-)

I hope by 'you', you don't mean myself. I was providing a way that something can come from nothing without the existence of a G-d.

 

[Mystman]

I hope by 'you', you don't mean myself. I was providing a way that something can come from nothing without the existence of a G-d.

Nah, "you" was more as a contrast to "me". Could've used "other dude".

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Just teasing, bro.

My bad, it was a long day.

You include the idea of probability in there, but probability has to be based on something, doesn't it? If there is nothing, then there is zero probability for anything.

But that is only if you obey the laws of logic. If it was true nothingness, like the NOTHING I was trying to explain earlier, there would be no laws like logic to disallow any possibility.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Nah, "you" was more as a contrast to "me". Could've used "other dude".

Good, just checking.

 

[Jade Margery]

My bad, it was a long day.



But that is only if you obey the laws of logic. If it was true nothingness, like the NOTHING I was trying to explain earlier, there would be no laws like logic to disallow any possibility.

Oh, I get what you're saying. Interesting. Like logic and the laws of reality are as much a function of the universe as time?

 

[tcampen]

I think this whole thread has done a better job breaking down the insufficiency of the Kalam argument than many "professional" philosophers and theologians I've observed.

The arguments that "from nothing, nothing comes" and "every beginning has a cause" are unfounded inductive assertions. They are based on the argument that because we've never seen any exceptions to this in the universe, they must always be true. Not only is this understanding of the assertions incorrect, but the double standard of using this type of induction (as if it were deductive), and then asserting an all powerful, infinitely intellegent being that has no substance, no material, no energy, and no physical brain could actually exist, when no disembodied mind alone has every been shown to exist.

As it applies to the OP, I think it also points out the inherent limitation of metaphysical arguments. At the end of the day, logic, reason, math, and such have no application in metaphysics, because there are no rules in metaphysics. Any metaphysical assertion is as good as the next - including a universe from absolute nothingness. So, if it floats your boat, that's fine with me.

 

[Chesterton]

The arguments that "from nothing, nothing comes" and "every beginning has a cause" are unfounded inductive assertions.

But that's like saying science itself is an unfounded inductive assertion (which could be true), because those two assertions are much more scientific statements than they are metaphysical statements.

They are based on the argument that because we've never seen any exceptions to this in the universe, they must always be true.

No, they are based on the argument that because we've never seen any exceptions to this in the universe, any supposed exception is outside the realm of human observation (aside from mystics and prophets perhaps), therefore outside the realm of science (at least temporarily).

Not only is this understanding of the assertions incorrect, but the double standard of using this type of induction (as if it were deductive), and then asserting an all powerful, infinitely intellegent being that has no substance, no material, no energy, and no physical brain could actually exist, when no disembodied mind alone has every been shown to exist.

So no disembodied mind has every been shown to exist. Neither has "something from nothing" nor a "causeless beginning". So theists and atheists are on equal footing. I thinks this is why some theists refer to atheism as a religion; and I know atheists bristle at that, but strictly speaking I sorta think it's correct. If theism is an unscientific "leap"; a speculation; then so is atheism.

...there are no rules in metaphysics. Any metaphysical assertion is as good as the next...

In that case, I propose an arm-wrestling match.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So no disembodied mind has every been shown to exist. Neither has "something from nothing" nor a "causeless beginning". So theists and atheists are on equal footing. I thinks this is why some theists refer to atheism as a religion; and I know atheists bristle at that, but strictly speaking I sorta think it's correct. If theism is an unscientific "leap"; a speculation; then so is atheism.

Hmmmm... that's a little bit like claiming that both believing in gnomes and NOT believing in gnomes are examples of superstition, as both of these positions need to take an unscientific leap in determining whether these metaphysical beings exist or not.

Can you see why that is not a very valid argument?

I grant you this: any metaphysical claim is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry by default, especially if you invoke powers that supposedly break the established "laws" of nature.
I cannot conclusively prove to you that there is no invisible, extradimensional being living in your garage.
It is debatable, though, whether it is reasonable to assume that it's there to begin with.

Oh, and by the way: the term "religion" usually suggests at least some kind of institutionalization and ritualization. As such, there are indeed some atheist groups that are "religious" in nature without actually embracing any overtly supernatural beliefs. Communism, for example, has been described as a secular religion (or at the very least substitute-religion), including eschatological expectations of a "better world to come". So, I think you are right to describe some specific atheist groups as religious in nature - but they aren't so for the reason you stated.

 

[b&wpac4]

Hmmmm... that's a little bit like claiming that both believing in gnomes and NOT believing in gnomes are examples of superstition, as both of these positions need to take an unscientific leap in determining whether these metaphysical beings exist or not.

Jane, are you stealing my phone gnomes?

 

[Chesterton]

But that is only if you obey the laws of logic. If it was true nothingness, like the NOTHING I was trying to explain earlier, there would be no laws like logic to disallow any possibility.

But laws (including laws of logic) only disallow things because they allow other things. Think about what a "law" is: every law, whether real or imagined, is an "if/then" statement - "If there is an action, then there is an equal and opposite reaction". "If you steal money, then you'll spend time in jail." "If something can go wrong, then it will go wrong." (Murphy's Law). But if there's no "if thing" to effect a "then result", then there can be no result.

 

[tcampen]

But that's like saying science itself is an unfounded inductive assertion (which could be true), because those two assertions are much more scientific statements than they are metaphysical statements.

I should have been more specific with this example, for virtual particles on the quantum level seem to directly contradict both of these assertions. But your point is well taken.

What I meant to say is that these assertions are a variety of straw man arguments that don't really represent the arguments made by cosmologists on the "origins" of the universe. Virtual particles come from nothing. They are caused by nothing. It may be counterintuitive, but so much of scientific observations are.

No, they are based on the argument that because we've never seen any exceptions to this in the universe, any supposed exception is outside the realm of human observation (aside from mystics and prophets perhaps), therefore outside the realm of science (at least temporarily).

Agreed. But the origins of the universe, even whether the universe has an origin at all, are currently unknown. We can only reliably go back to an instant just after the initial expansion of the singularity. Temporally before that, the rules we would normally apply to nature break down. It's mostly all speculation beyond that. Cosmologists recognize this, however.

So no disembodied mind has every been shown to exist. Neither has "something from nothing" nor a "causeless beginning". So theists and atheists are on equal footing. I thinks this is why some theists refer to atheism as a religion; and I know atheists bristle at that, but strictly speaking I sorta think it's correct. If theism is an unscientific "leap"; a speculation; then so is atheism.

Although I am not an atheist, I still disagree with this last point. You are an atheist towards all the thousands of gods any other atheist doesn't believe in, except the athiest just doesn't believe in one more god than you, right? In other words, is it as much a "leap" to not believe in Jupiter, or Zues, or Mithra, or Vishnu, or The Great Bear, or, or or? If we're putting every metaphysical assertion on equal footing, then lets really do it. I'm all for that.

But I tend not to believe in anything that hasn't be sufficiently demonstrated for me to believe in. In other words, It's not l leap to not believe in leprechuans at the end of a rainbow that just happen to disappear right before you get there. I don't believe in garden gnomes, talking snakes, or mermaids - all because I haven't been given sufficient reason to think such do exist. In fact, you might call me an "athiest" with regard to these beings, but none of them entails any "leap" to have this position.

I am content to say "I don't know" if I don't. It would be dishonest of me to assert I knew something that I do not, or cannot, know. I include all metaphysical assertions in this category. We don't know how the universe came into being, or whether it always existed, but we do know it objectively exists, and that is still infinitely more than any supernatural claim. That is not to say there is no god or supernatural reality, just that on the continuum of objective reason to think so, theuy're lightyears apart. Thus the saying, the opposite of faith is certainty.

In that case, I propose an arm-wrestling match.

Yea, I'd probably lose that one!