Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
It doesn't seem illogical to me to assume that these things all happened by coincidence.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.
I wouldn't talk of a non-sentient creative force, merely of a non-sentient causative force.How can you say a non-sentient creative force is simpler than a sentient creative force? I think the opposite.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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."
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.
My bad, it was a long day.Just teasing, bro.
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.
Nah, "you" was more as a contrast to "me". Could've used "other dude".
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.
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.
...there are no rules in metaphysics. Any metaphysical assertion is as good as the next...
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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).
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.
Yea, I'd probably lose that one!In that case, I propose an arm-wrestling match.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?