Near perfect existence

[Archaeopteryx]

When it comes to the question of the universe, the answer would be ex nihilo.

Why?

 

[anonymous person]

Why?

It seems to me that if the universe came to be, then it would come to be ex nihilo. IOW, there was no eternally existing matter out of which the universe was formed.

Or one may view it as there having been some eternally existing state of affairs wherein there was matter eternally existing. Since I have no evidence of this, I choose not to hold this view.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems to me that if the universe came to be, then it would come to be ex nihilo. IOW, there was no eternally existing matter out of which the universe was formed.

Or one may view it as there having been some eternally existing state of affairs wherein there was matter eternally existing. Since I have no evidence of this, I choose not to hold this view.

What reason do you have for thinking that the universe did originate ex nihilo?

 

[anonymous person]

What reason do you have for thinking that the universe did originate ex nihilo?

Several facts present themselves for interpretation:

1. The universe is expanding, not static.
2. If we trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually the distance between any two points in space becomes zero. We have reached the boundary of space time itself.
3. Space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It’s the beginning of the universe.

From the aforementioned, I deem it more preferable to conclude, on preponderance of the evidence, that the universe came into being literally from no thing material and spatio-temporal, synonymously speaking, ex nihilo.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Several facts present themselves for interpretation:

1. The universe is expanding, not static.
2. If we trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually the distance between any two points in space becomes zero. We have reached the boundary of space time itself.
3. Space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It’s the beginning of the universe.

From the aforementioned, I deem it more preferable to conclude, on preponderance of the evidence, that the universe came into being literally from no thing material and spatio-temporal, synonymously speaking, ex nihilo.

As I noted in conversation with Joshua260, it remains unclear whether the universe originated ex nihilo or not. The existence of a spacetime boundary does not necessarily imply creatio ex nihilo.

 

[anonymous person]

As I noted in conversation with Joshua260, it remains unclear whether the universe originated ex nihilo or not. The existence of a spacetime boundary does not necessarily imply creatio ex nihilo.

It seems clear to me. Other arguments supplement the facts I gave you. They lead me to conclude that it is preferable to posit that the universe indeed came into existence roughly 13 billion years ago.

The evidence must be interpreted. Thus, I do not expect for everyone to agree with me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems clear to me. Other arguments supplement the facts I gave you. They lead me to conclude that it is preferable to posit that the universe indeed came into existence roughly 13 billion years ago.

The evidence must be interpreted. Thus, I do not expect for everyone to agree with me.

At present, it would be more accurate to say that the universe began to expand 13.8 billion years ago and that it has been expanding ever since. We don't know whether it "came into existence" in the manner in which you describe.

 

[Chriliman]

At present, it would be more accurate to say that the universe began to expand 13.8 billion years ago and that it has been expanding ever since. We don't know whether it "came into existence" in the manner in which you describe.

Take a step back for a second and think about this. Imagine we present the argument/reasoning that anonymous person has presented to an intelligent teenager who has no preconceived notions about God or creation. If we were able to get this teenager to fully understand what we're saying, wouldn't it be most likely for him to accept anonymous person's argument as true since it does make sense? The other arguments against it have less explanatory power so why believe them?

The fact that anonymous' argument has more explanatory power does not mean it's actually true, but it does give sound reason to accept it as true and then go forward from there. If this teenager accepts anonymous' argument as true, he then has sound reason to believe God exists. How, then, are you going to convince this intelligent reasonable teenager that God does not exist, when anonymous has given him a sound reason to believe God does exist and that He brought the universe into existence?

The only reason this intelligent reasonable teenager believes what anonymous is saying is because this teenager has no preconceived notions about God and he can clearly see that what anonymous is saying does actually make the most sense when compared to the other arguments. This teenager can be thought of as truly objective, since he has no preconceived notions about God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Take a step back for a second and think about this. Imagine we present the argument/reasoning that anonymous person has presented to an intelligent teenager who has no preconceived notions about God or creation. If we were able to get this teenager to fully understand what we're saying, wouldn't it be most likely for him to accept anonymous person's argument as true since it does make sense? The other arguments against it have less explanatory power so why believe them?

You've simply asserted that it "makes sense," like you always do. Various people have highlighted the ways in which it does not make sense. You are welcome to engage their objections.

The fact that anonymous' argument has more explanatory power does not mean it's actually true, but it does give sound reason to accept it as true and then go forward from there. If this teenager accepts anonymous' argument as true, he then has sound reason to believe God exists. How, then, are you going to convince this intelligent reasonable teenager that God does not exist, when anonymous has given him a sound reason to believe God does exist and that He brought the universe into existence?

I don't think that anonymous person has given him "a sound reason to believe God does exist."

The only reason this intelligent reasonable teenager believes what anonymous is saying is because this teenager has no preconceived notions about God and he can clearly see that what anonymous is saying does actually make the most sense when compared to the other arguments. This teenager can be thought of as truly objective, since he has no preconceived notions about God.

Why are you assuming that the teenager would necessarily accept anonymous person's argument? Perhaps he/she would be just as skeptical as we are that the argument establishes what it purports to establish.

 

[Chriliman]

Why are you assuming that the teenager would necessarily accept anonymous person's argument? Perhaps he/she would be just as skeptical as we are that the argument establishes what it purports to establish.

I'm assuming the teenager would accept it because he would have no preconceived notions about God (neither negative or positive experiences regarding the concept of God). Essentially, he has no reason to think that what anonymous is presenting could actually be true or false. He would only accept it as true because it makes sense, this doesn't mean he can't then question it, but if it continues to make sense even after questioning, why would he ever reject it?

It would be interesting to present this to teenagers and see if they can even understand the concepts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm assuming the teenager would accept it because he would have no preconceived notions about God (neither negative or positive experiences regarding the concept of God).

So what? Why would this mean that the teenager would accept anonymous person's argument?

 

[bhsmte]

So what? Why would this mean that the teenager would accept anonymous person's argument?

Because he really, really needs to believe that??

 

[Chriliman]

So what? Why would this mean that the teenager would accept anonymous person's argument?

Because a negative or positive experience can affect how a person perceives the world. World views are established based on our negative and positive experiences and not necessarily based on what's most reasonable or what makes the most sense.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Well it seems to me that it is not a leap, but simply a step.

I do not think it sound to posit that something made of matter could bring into existence all matter. It seems to me that in order for all matter to be brought into existence, the efficient cause could not have been a material entity. I do not consider that conclusion a "leap" at all.

You may not find that a leap. But that's a leap.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Eventually the distance between any two points in space becomes zero.

We can not go back in time to zero,
only 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang when the universe was incredibly small, dense and hot.
(In other words, take the number 1.0 and move the decimal place to the left 35 times.)
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/eleme...kthrough-lets-us-see-to-the-beginning-of-time
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm

 

[anonymous person]

At present, it would be more accurate to say that the universe began to expand 13.8 billion years ago and that it has been expanding ever since. We don't know whether it "came into existence" in the manner in which you describe.

When it comes to issues like this, I take all the data I have at my disposal and formulate a hypothesis that seems to me the best among its alternatives. So it's more about what the preponderance of evidence seems to point to as opposed to attempting to come to some sort of certainty.

 

[anonymous person]

You may not find that a leap. But that's a leap.

When I look at all the data I have, I think my hypothesis is preferable to its alternative i.e. that matter somehow caused itself to come into being.

Even if mindless matter could somehow choose to create something, it seems to me that it would have to exist first.

 

[anonymous person]

We can not go back in time to zero,
only 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang when the universe was incredibly small, dense and hot.
(In other words, take the number 1.0 and move the decimal place to the left 35 times.)
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/eleme...kthrough-lets-us-see-to-the-beginning-of-time
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm

From the same article you provided:

If the discovery announced this morning holds up, it will allow us to peer back to the very beginning of time.....

This supports my hypothesis.

 

[Davian]

When I look at all the data I have, I think my hypothesis is preferable to its alternative i.e. that matter somehow caused itself to come into being.

Even if mindless matter could somehow choose to create something, it seems to me that it would have to exist first.

The only "minds" that I am aware of are an emergent property of a brain. Until the process of life began, and brains evolved, everything was "mindless".

I do not see any validity to your "mindless [whatever]" objection. Is there some other "data" that you would like to present here? The Bible, for example?

 

[Eudaimonist]

From the same article you provided:

If the discovery announced this morning holds up, it will allow us to peer back to the very beginning of time.....

This supports my hypothesis.

A beginning to time does not imply coming into existence out of nothing.


eudaimonia,

Mark