Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[JediMobius]

It can be said of any proposal that does not circumvent causality.

So, are you saying that the universe, and therefor time, has no beginning? Science has observed that there was a defined beginning point. There are theories that posit an initial cause for the big bang, thereby circumventing causality, as you say.

I assume it because if the creator was not created, the universe would not necessarily need to have been created.

That only follows if the universe has the same powers, faculties, and nature (separate from his character) God has. You know, omnipotence, omni-presence and so on. God is able to to be the first cause and to circumvent causality because of who He is. God possesses traits the universe does not.

 

[JediMobius]

Then wouldn't that make God not omnipotent?

Only if his omnipotence is separated from his other traits, namely rationality, wisdom, glory, and will.

For all anyone knows, God made a square circle in some 7nth dimension that might just make our minds implode if we saw it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's self-contradicting. As we've established and agreed, the absence of anything cannot do anything. Therefor, it doesn't matter that there's nothing to prevent anything from happening, nothing will happen.

Non sequitur. We've agreed that the absence itself will not be the cause. That doesn't mean nothing will happen. The whole point is that an event can occur without a cause. In the absence of anything, you can still get events, since not all events require a prior cause, so the absence doesn't bother them.

However, I don't see how you conclude that nothing will ever happen, just because there's no cause. You seem to be assuming that everything must have a cause, which is not necessarily the case (prove me wrong).

Prove that they are un-caused events.

We use quantum mechanics to explain the behaviour of radioactive particles, and it tells us that it is uncaused, probabilistic, quantum tunnelling that results in such decay events.

I argue that their cause is rooted in the uncertainty principle. They may not have any direct cause, but indirect cause is still cause.

Perhaps, but what does the uncertainty principle have to do with anything?

Spontaneous doesn't mean without cause.

Really? Then what does it mean?

Going by internet definitions:

• happening or arising without apparent external cause; "spontaneous laughter"; "spontaneous combustion"; "a spontaneous abortion"
• ad-lib: said or done without having been planned or written in advance; "he made a few ad-lib remarks"
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• Self generated; happening without any apparent external cause; Done by one's own free choice, or without planning; proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint; arising from a momentary impulse; controlled and directed internally : self-active : spontaneous ...
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spontaneous
• spontaneously - ad lib: without advance preparation; "he spoke ad lib"
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• spontaneity - synonyms: motility. analogs: naturalness, peace of mind, sensitivity
  ninthstreetcenter.org/Glossary.htm
• occurring without apparent cause.
  www.nfincmn.org/glossary.htm
• A mutation discovered among the descendants of a mouse whose germ cells were not exposed to a chemical or physical mutagen. ...
  mouse.ornl.gov/mmdb/Search-pulldownglossary.html
• Energetically capable of proceeding without an outside source of energy; referring to a reaction in which the products are thermodynamically favored.
  www.chemeddl.org/collections/ptl/PTL/glossary/s.html
• occurring in the flora without the direct assistance of people, but not firmly established as part of the flora. Spontaneous plants are present from sexual or asexual reproduction, not being intentionally planted or deposited by people or their activities (plants are present via natural causes).
  www.hsu.edu/default.aspx
• Generation the theory that decaying matter turns into germs
  www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/subjects/history/medhist/page45_glossary.html
• A spontaneous process is defined as one which will either occur immediately at room temperature, or which, once initiated by heating, will sustain itself until the start materials are exhausted.
  www.everyscience.com/Chemistry/Glossary/S.php
• An unconstrained form of divination, free from any particular medium, and actually a generalization of all types of divination. ...
  www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ceromancy
• Becoming a typical or normal speaker after once having been a stutterer, without treatment. It is thought that more than 70% of children who once begin to stutter recover naturally.
  connectiondev.lww.com/Products/guitar/documents/Glossary-final.doc
• spontaneity - Once a watchword of advanced art interested in unpremeditated self-expression (see expression theory), spontaneity is now regarded with suspicion. ...

The germane ones almost explicitly state that it is that which occurs without external cause.

What is this finite possibility that it might happen? That's the epitome of redundancy. There is a finite possibility that it's possible. Well, there's a possibility that anything's possible. That's hardly scientific.

No need to get pedantic. You know what I meant.

Perhaps no cause has been discovered (doesn't mean it's not there). Quite plausibly, the cause has to do with the uncertainty principle, where pairs of physical properties cannot be known to arbitrary precision. Or, the universe operates according to some law that because something might happen, it eventually will. Either is an indirect cause, but a cause nonetheless.

True, but that doesn't mean a cause actually exists. It has been proven that such 'hidden variable' theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics.
I'm not sure what the uncertainty principle has to do with anything, though.

Comparing how something works in a physical universe with laws to govern it is nonparallel to non-existence.

But it nonetheless shows that such a scenario is possible. Unless you can logically refute my idea, we must acknowledge that it is a possible scenario. Unless someone logically disproves God, I acknowledge that his existence is possible.

My question is this: Can something be said to exist without a conscious entity to observe it?

Yes, despite what these New Agey people might tell you about the observer effect.

Then the internet does not exist. The hardware in the computers and servers does, but the software doesn't, because software is not a physical entity. We can maybe see the 1's and 0's on the disk, but those aren't even physically 1's and 0's. My thoughts and feelings do not exist. Thoughts aren't neurons firing, thoughts are intangible - not physical entities. The physical neurons and pathways in the brain are just messages or physical representations of thoughts and feelings.

The internet exists in the same way a boat exists: even though it's just planks of wood, which are in turn just atoms of carbon and hydrogen, the sum total is designated a 'boat'. It exists in that what we call a 'boat' is a a quasi-stable pattern of atoms.

Likewise, the Internet exists in that it is the sum total of the machines that make it up. It's an emergent phenomenon.

Mathematics exists in much the same way that the internet does, or the way your operating system exists. Intangible things are still things that exist.

See above. Mathematics is not the same as the internet, since the latter ultimately boils downs to atoms.

 

[JediMobius]

Non sequitur.

If either of our reasoning on this point is a non sequitur, it's yours:

I agree that nothing begets nothing. The absence of anything itself is not a thing, 'it' cannot do anything, because it's not anything.

From this, it doesn't simply follow that something can happen at all, regardless of being unlimited. Either there's a step missing, or it's simply not logical. There must be a step which includes possibility in the scenario of non-existence, because there's nothing inherent in nothingness that says there is possibility.

We've agreed that the absence itself will not be the cause. That doesn't mean nothing will happen. The whole point is that an event can occur without a cause. In the absence of anything, you can still get events, since not all events require a prior cause, so the absence doesn't bother them.

You still haven't shown an example of an event that happens without cause. (More on this further down.)

However, I don't see how you conclude that nothing will ever happen, just because there's no cause. You seem to be assuming that everything must have a cause, which is not necessarily the case (prove me wrong).

The burden of proof is yours. You say it's possible, I've seen no evidence of this possibility.

We use quantum mechanics to explain the behaviour of radioactive particles, and it tells us that it is uncaused, probabilistic, quantum tunnelling that results in such decay events.

Quantum mechanics says it happens because of probability and the uncertainty principles. These are indirect causes. (i.e. not Causality, which is direct.) Perhaps it could be called antecedent cause. The existence of probability permits these events of quantum mechanics. Therefor, probability eventually causes these events, though not actively.

Perhaps, but what does the uncertainty principle have to do with anything?

Sorry, I thought you were at least as familiar with the mechanics of radioactive decay as I made myself for this discussion.

A decay event requires a specific activation energy. For a snow avalanche, this energy comes as a disturbance from outside the system, although such disturbances can be arbitrarily small. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can thus spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system.

A vacuum fluctuation, or virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.​

So, as you can see, the uncertainty principle has everything to do with radioactive decay.

Really? Then what does it mean?

Going by internet definitions:

• happening or arising without apparent external cause; "spontaneous laughter"; "spontaneous combustion"; "a spontaneous abortion"
• Self generated; happening without any apparent external cause; Done by one's own free choice, or without planning; proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint; arising from a momentary impulse; controlled and directed internally : self-active : spontaneous ...
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spontaneous
• occurring without apparent cause.
  www.nfincmn.org/glossary.htm
• A mutation discovered among the descendants of a mouse whose germ cells were not exposed to a chemical or physical mutagen. ...
  mouse.ornl.gov/mmdb/Search-pulldownglossary.html
• Energetically capable of proceeding without an outside source of energy; referring to a reaction in which the products are thermodynamically favored.
  www.chemeddl.org/collections/ptl/PTL/glossary/s.html
• occurring in the flora without the direct assistance of people, but not firmly established as part of the flora. Spontaneous plants are present from sexual or asexual reproduction, not being intentionally planted or deposited by people or their activities (plants are present via natural causes).
  www.hsu.edu/default.aspx
• Generation the theory that decaying matter turns into germs
  www.kented.org.uk/ngfl/subjects/history/medhist/page45_glossary.html
• A spontaneous process is defined as one which will either occur immediately at room temperature, or which, once initiated by heating, will sustain itself until the start materials are exhausted.
  www.everyscience.com/Chemistry/Glossary/S.php
• An unconstrained form of divination, free from any particular medium, and actually a generalization of all types of divination. ...
  www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ceromancy
• Becoming a typical or normal speaker after once having been a stutterer, without treatment. It is thought that more than 70% of children who once begin to stutter recover naturally.
  connectiondev.lww.com/Products/guitar/documents/Glossary-final.doc
• spontaneity - Once a watchword of advanced art interested in unpremeditated self-expression (see expression theory), spontaneity is now regarded with suspicion. ...

The germane ones almost explicitly state that it is that which occurs without external cause.

I'm curious why you included so many denotations that don't fit the connotation of a spontaneous quantum event, such as ad-lib speaking, biological terms, or guitar music theory. Stuttering? Occult divination? What does that have to do with anything? (That's the Ceromancy one.)

I use dictionary.com. I find it concise and accurate.

1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause. ​

2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.​

3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.​

4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.​

5. produced by natural process.​

Your definition of occurring without external cause applies only to external cause, not all cause, as is shown of natural phenomena in definition 3. Spontaneous doesn't mean without cause, only that the timeline of the event(s) can't be predicted.

No need to get pedantic. You know what I meant.

How could I ever be sure that I understand your meaning? I believe it's up to each of us individually to be careful with our own words and phrasing. It's not pedantic to point out obfuscation.

True, but that doesn't mean a cause actually exists. It has been proven that such 'hidden variable' theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics.

That's not accurate. Local hidden variables in quantum mechanics have been ruled out. Non-local hidden variables have been posited, and are still a possible explanation.

I'm not sure what the uncertainty principle has to do with anything, though.

See above.

But it nonetheless shows that such a scenario is possible. Unless you can logically refute my idea, we must acknowledge that it is a possible scenario. Unless someone logically disproves God, I acknowledge that his existence is possible.

The set of possibility and probability of the proposed non-universe are entirely different from those of this universe, therefor what can happen in this universe is not a direct indication of what could happen in any other. Besides, you still haven't produced an event in this universe that has no cause. Radioactive decay has a cause, and so do the mechanics within the decay event. Further, I maintain that probability and possibility are things - being that they are quantifiable and able to be the object of critical thinking. Anything that is or may become an object of thought is defined as a thing (dictionary.com). Therefor it exists on some level, though not physically. Physical existence is not the only type of existence, is it? All this shows that in a non-existence, nothingness, a complete void of anything. . . nothing exists, and there is no such thing as probability to produce events out of sheer chance. So unless there is some other mechanism or function inherent in 'nothing', it will simply remain nothing - there will be no initial event.

Yes, despite what these New Agey people might tell you about the observer effect.

I know not what new agey people you refer. The only thing I've ever learned about existence from anyone is Descartes' cogito ergo sum. By the way, Descartes agrees with me (though he thought of it first) that thought is a thing. "Thought exists."

I was only considering my own thoughts on the matter. I don't see how anything can be said to exist without an observer. The manner in which the object is observed directly relates to the manner of the thing's existence. For example, math exists intellectually because we can use it and think about it. We can't hold it, or see it directly, so of course it doesn't exist physically. But we can "see" it mentally. Barring the existence of God, math was brought into existence by an initial observation of probably either addition or subtraction, and progressed from there. I don't think it can be said that math pre-existed this initial observation.

The internet exists in the same way a boat exists: even though it's just planks of wood, which are in turn just atoms of carbon and hydrogen, the sum total is designated a 'boat'. It exists in that what we call a 'boat' is a a quasi-stable pattern of atoms.

The internet, colloquially, is not a quasi-stable pattern of atoms. It's not physical. Technically speaking, the internet is the collection of hardware all linked together across the globe, but those are not the internet we observe. The internet we see and use is software which accesses the hardware. This is not the same sort of existence as a boat.

Likewise, the Internet exists in that it is the sum total of the machines that make it up. It's an emergent phenomenon.

Yet, thought is not the sum of the mechanisms behind it? What about math, or even beauty? Your idea of a thing seems to be limited to only those objects from which you can see a physical existence. Very limited indeed.

See above. Mathematics is not the same as the internet, since the latter ultimately boils downs to atoms.

What do you think brought about mathematics? The fact that two apples and two oranges have something in common, or that my two apples and someone else's two apples make four. Bam, math boils down to atoms. Just because it's an abstract (which seems to be the difference in your connotation of a thing) you can't rule out that it's a thing. Abstracts exist.

 

[Sanguis]

The big bang isn't the "beginning" of time, it's simply the beginning of time as we know it. The theory of general relativity points out that gravity and time are linked, just as electricity and magnetism. Electromagnetism and spacetime. As gravity increases, time appears to slow. As mass and density increase, so does gravity. Now, try and picture what time would be like with all of the mass in the universe condensed into a tiny little speck.

 

[JediMobius]

The big bang isn't the "beginning" of time, it's simply the beginning of time as we know it. The theory of general relativity points out that gravity and time are linked, just as electricity and magnetism. Electromagnetism and spacetime. As gravity increases, time appears to slow. As mass and density increase, so does gravity. Now, try and picture what time would be like with all of the mass in the universe condensed into a tiny little speck.

Yet, general relativity breaks down at the singularity in the big bang, so how is that link between gravity and time still there?

 

[Sanguis]

Yet, general relativity breaks down at the singularity in the big bang, so how is that link between gravity and time still there?

We don't know. We don't know what was "before" the big bang, we don't know what existence was like. That's like asking what happens to gravity and spacetime at the event horizon of a black hole. The point was, you can't imagine what spacetime would've been like "before" the big bang. All we know is that it existed. The big bang was an expansion of it. As to what caused it, or even if cause and effect was even something that would've held any meaning, we can only speculate, at the moment.

We're not afraid to say "We don't know.", on the contrary, it's better to say that and try and find out, than it is to use a god of the gaps to fill in what we obviously don't understand yet.

 

[JediMobius]

We don't know. We don't know what was "before" the big bang, we don't know what existence was like. That's like asking what happens to gravity and spacetime at the event horizon of a black hole. The point was, you can't imagine what spacetime would've been like "before" the big bang. All we know is that it existed. The big bang was an expansion of it. As to what caused it, or even if cause and effect was even something that would've held any meaning, we can only speculate, at the moment.

I didn't say before the big bang, I was talking about the singularity of the Big Bang, at which general relativity breaks down. This means the link between gravity and time is not the same, if a link even exists. If general relativity held for the singularity of the Big Bang, which existed before the Planck time, that would mean (from what I surmise) that time would be infinite at that point since the density is infinite. However, general relativity breaks down, so having me imagine what time would be like at the singularity (the point at which all the matter was condensed, yes?) isn't very useful.

Now, on what grounds do you say time existed before the big bang? I replied as I did before because your explanation of general relativity and time during the Big Bang was prefaced by the statement that time did not begin at the big bang.

We're not afraid to say "We don't know.", on the contrary, it's better to say that and try and find out, than it is to use a god of the gaps to fill in what we obviously don't understand yet.

Don't patronize me, I've been around the science debate block, as it were. (I say patronize because I've seen those statements almost verbatim on several occasions, usually included in condescending replies.) Also, don't write off my position as god-of-the-gaps. I've familiarized myself with the term, and I haven't espoused such a theory anywhere in this thread.

 

[Sanguis]

I didn't say before the big bang, I was talking about the singularity of the Big Bang, at which general relativity breaks down. This means the link between gravity and time is not the same, if a link even exists. If general relativity held for the singularity of the Big Bang, which existed before the Planck time, that would mean (from what I surmise) that time would be infinite at that point since the density is infinite. However, general relativity breaks down, so having me imagine what time would be like at the singularity (the point at which all the matter was condensed, yes?) isn't very useful.

The point was, you can't imagine what spacetime would've been like "before" the big bang.

Now, on what grounds do you say time existed before the big bang? I replied as I did before because your explanation of general relativity and time during the Big Bang was prefaced by the statement that time did not begin at the big bang.

Without time, nothing can happen. Anything that happens requires time for it to happen, without time, there would've been no big bang. Nothing could've changed in order for the big bang to occur. As I said before "We're not afraid to say 'We don't know'" how time behaved "before" the big bang, but we do know that the big bang wasn't the beginning of time, only the beginning of time as we experience it now. The big bang was nothing but an expansion of spacetime, how can something expand if it didn't exist prior to its expansion?

Draw a shape on a sheet of elastic, and then stretch that elastic. The shape distorts itself. The shape can't distort itself unless the shape was drawn on the elastic in the first place. Drop a heavy object on the stretched out sheet, and that too distorts the shape further, just as expansion and gravity affect spacetime.

Don't patronize me, I've been around the science debate block, as it were. (I say patronize because I've seen those statements almost verbatim on several occasions, usually included in condescending replies.) Also, don't write off my position as god-of-the-gaps. I've familiarized myself with the term, and I haven't espoused such a theory anywhere in this thread.

I was speaking in general. Many people who don't know things are afraid to admit they don't know them, and instead put a human face on the things they don't know so they can pretend they do know, or at least feel more comfortable not knowing, when in reality, all they have is faith. The unknown is a lot more comforting when it's got a human face and loves you, isn't it?

 

[JediMobius]

I was speaking in general. Many people who don't know things are afraid to admit they don't know them, and instead put a human face on the things they don't know so they can pretend they do know, or at least feel more comfortable not knowing, when in reality, all they have is faith. The unknown is a lot more comforting when it's got a human face and loves you, isn't it?

So you're pigeonholing me, and psycho-analyzing a generalization. If I don't know something, and I care to know, I search for the answer and ask questions.The unknown isn't disconcerting, it's intriguing. My faith in God doesn't automatically include all the answers or fill all the gaps. There are plenty of unknowns to grapple with, and more questions to answer than science has, since there are spiritual matters to discover and learn about. The difference is, spiritual knowledge takes priority over worldly knowledge. If I don't know how God created the universe, I still know that he did, and why he did. I know God is real as surely as you know you'll see your face when you look in the mirror, but that doesn't mean I ignore the great questions. If I were pretending to know, I wouldn't be very invested in this discussion.

Everyone has faith in something, you've chosen to let it rest in science/human reason, perhaps society, or yourself...

 

[lordbt]

There are plenty of unknowns to grapple with, and more questions to answer than science has, since there are spiritual matters to discover and learn about. The difference is, spiritual knowledge takes priority over worldly knowledge.

How do you know that? And why is that true--if it even is? Man has no means of acquiring knowledge about a supposed spiritual realm, his mind and senses only gain him access to the worldly or material world. So there is no such thing as spiritual 'knowledge.' There might be such a thing as spiritual feelings or beliefs, but not knowledge, since there is nothing you do know or can know about a spiritual or supernatural world including whether such a thing exists at all. So that makes worldly knowledge the only type of knowledge available to man and eliminates the spiritual from consideration.

 

[sandwiches]

Everyone has faith in something, you've chosen to let it rest in science/human reason, perhaps society, or yourself...

I believe my car will start up today when I have to go shopping. Is that the same kind of belief as you believing in a god?

 

[lordbt]

I believe my car will start up today when I have to go shopping. Is that the same kind of belief as you believing in a god?

I remember a comparison someone made around the time of Katrina. It was something along the lines of: If the waves were crashing at the levy above you what would you rather see arrive? 100 men willing to fall on their knees and pray for it to hold, or a single man with a bulldozer?

 

[JediMobius]

How do you know that? And why is that true--if it even is? Man has no means of acquiring knowledge about a supposed spiritual realm, his mind and senses only gain him access to the worldly or material world. So there is no such thing as spiritual 'knowledge.' There might be such a thing as spiritual feelings or beliefs, but not knowledge, since there is nothing you do know or can know about a spiritual or supernatural world including whether such a thing exists at all. So that makes worldly knowledge the only type of knowledge available to man and eliminates the spiritual from consideration.

For a natural man, what you say is true. For a spiritual man, there is a new reality of an unseen realm. The spiritual world is certainly not physical, so science cannot deal with it, but that only removes the possibility of scientific knowledge. We have theological knowledge, and what could be called philosophical knowledge of spiritual realities. I know what God has revealed to me, and what little I have experienced, including the fire of the Holy Spirit. I know what other believers, whose testimony I trust, know about demons from their own first-hand experience.

For you these things seem only as beliefs, because you have not experienced them or known anyone whose experiences you could trust. I know God is real, not just believe, because I have met with God.

 

[JediMobius]

I believe my car will start up today when I have to go shopping. Is that the same kind of belief as you believing in a god?

God is considerably more reliable. There are many things which could keep your car from starting, but there is nothing to keep God from existing - only denial of his very real existence.

 

[JediMobius]

I remember a comparison someone made around the time of Katrina. It was something along the lines of: If the waves were crashing at the levy above you what would you rather see arrive? 100 men willing to fall on their knees and pray for it to hold, or a single man with a bulldozer?

First of all, what good would a single man with a bulldozer have done? Second, it makes a difference who these hundred men are praying to as well as the motivation in their hearts to do so. Third, what's the comparison? (Just to be pedantic.)

 

[sandwiches]

God is considerably more reliable. There are many things which could keep your car from starting, but there is nothing to keep God from existing - only denial of his very real existence.

That didn't answer my question. Is the belief that my car will start up the same as saying you believe in some deity?

 

[IzzyPop]

That didn't answer my question. Is the belief that my car will start up the same as saying you believe in some deity?

I'll answer it. No. You have a record of observances of a car starting, not so much on the God front.

 

[JediMobius]

That didn't answer my question. Is the belief that my car will start up the same as saying you believe in some deity?

You couldn't see the difference? My belief in God is nothing like your belief that your car will start. A car is seen, God is unseen. The workings of a car, battery, alternator, ignition, fuel. . . can all be more or less fully understood. You don't 'believe' your car will start, you know your car will start as long as you have the right key, and no components have failed or broken down. In the event the car doesn't start, there are ways to repair the problem. Belief comes into play when knowledge is insufficient to resist doubt, and either there is faith to uphold the belief, or lack of faith and unbelief.

 

[sandwiches]

You couldn't see the difference? My belief in God is nothing like your belief that your car will start. A car is seen, God is unseen. The workings of a car, battery, alternator, ignition, fuel. . . can all be more or less fully understood. You don't 'believe' your car will start, you know your car will start as long as you have the right key, and no components have failed or broken down. In the event the car doesn't start, there are ways to repair the problem. Belief comes into play when knowledge is insufficient to resist doubt, and either there is faith to uphold the belief, or lack of faith and unbelief.

I'm glad we agree on this point then. So, now that you stated that when we understand the workings of things, faith isn't necessary. Why would I need faith to believe in science and human reason, as you stated, then?