|
91
Forgot the Candlesticks
Joined: Oct 31, 2010
Posts: 2502
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: Before God... |
 |
|
| Vigilans wrote: | Many of the Theists present on this forum and elsewhere like to make the claim that "The Big Bang etc" provides no answers really as it does not explain what came before. Some choose to believe that their God was responsible for it. Others do not. In any case, I find it deeply ironic that they can make this claim, because the concept of a Creator does not actually provide a solution to what happened "before" either. Where did the Creator originate from? Their answer will almost always be "God is infinite"
Okay, that's fine. But how can one make such a statement while simultaneously deriding the Big Bang Theory of the universe for its position that the universe "just exists"? Is this not literally the same argument made by Theists?
"God has always existed"
"The universe/multiverse has always existed"
How can anyone reasonably claim that the scientific explanation for the origins of our universe provide no answers to the beginnings and are inferior when the Theistic explanation also provides no answer? |
The Cosmological Argument from Contingency contends that:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
Lets just take this first premise in isolation. The first premise gives us two options, contingency or necessity. I would not argue that God does not need an answer because he is 'infinite' rather I would argue that it is impossible to have a God, as Christian theists define one, that exists as the result of a contingent event. God under Christianity is the creator of all things, he brings everything into existence that is not himself. So he cannot be contingently existing, therefor one is apt to conclude that God exists necessarily, if he exists at all.
Secondly you also seem to be arguing that Cosmological argument treats the two explanations are comparable. No Cosmological argument I know of treats both answers as equal and claims that God is more parsimonious, I agree that this would not be a particularly strong argument. Rather, the family of Cosmological arguments all distinguish features of naturalistic account; in the argument from contingency it is done from modal properties and the Kalam uses the standard model. This family of arguments treats both the naturalistic account and the theistic account and creates an argument in favor of the later and makes points against the former.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Telekon
Velociraptor
Joined: Feb 17, 2011
Posts: 411
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Before God... |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: | | Where did the Creator originate from? Their answer will almost always be "God is infinite" |
I'd say that God is a metaphysically necessary being.
| Quote: | Okay, that's fine. But how can one make such a statement while simultaneously deriding the Big Bang Theory of the universe for its position that the universe "just exists"? Is this not literally the same argument made by Theists?
"God has always existed"
"The universe/multiverse has always existed" |
The non-existence of the universe is possible. Even if the universe had always existed, there is nothing in the physical laws that necessitates its existence. The universe could have been different; the laws of physics could have been different. You can conceive of the laws of physics having been different, and therefore of totally different universes. What you can't conceive of is nothing existing. Nothing (or nothingness) is the absence of all states of affairs, all entities, everything. It's not a logically possible world, because a possible world is something. It is metaphysically impossible for nothing (in the sense of the complete absence of all entities, concrete and abstract) to exist. Therefore, something must necessarily exist. If it's not the universe, then it's something else. If the universe always existed, it would not be necessary - its temporal state would not necessitate its ontological status. It would still be contingent, and so not answer the question why it exists rather than nothing.
| Quote: | | How can anyone reasonably claim that the scientific explanation for the origins of our universe provide no answers to the beginnings and are inferior when the Theistic explanation also provides no answer? |
It depends on whether the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of space and time. If so, then we are delving into metaphysics - physics does not posit timeless, atemporal objects. Whatever initiated the Big Bang, it was not an object of scientific study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Robdemanc
Phoenix
Joined: May 31, 2010
Posts: 2284
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: |
| Robdemanc wrote: | Me and my siblings used to discuss this as children. It stretches the brain to its limits, which is good for all developing minds.
I like to think that infinity is the answer to this question because I think it removes the "God" cause, and the "first" cause.
The only problem we have with infinity is that our brains are uncomfortable with it, which I think is a bearable problem. |
Infinity does not make me uncomfortable. |
I mean in general people like to be able to measure things. So the idea of a creator or first cause or source is going to be around for a long long time...maybe an infinity  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tadzio
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Age: 60
Posts: 877
Location: Banned-4-Epilepsy, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:11 am Post subject: Confusing Oberon's Flatulence With A First Singular Big Bang |
|
|
A Circle has no begining.
A Sphere has no begining.
A Hyper-Sphere has no begining.
Manifolds have no begining, just large indentions where Oberon passed and/or let loose with a large one, aptly named a "Big Bang" by Fred Hoyle.
The "Steady-State Model" of the Infinite Total Universe is correct, but mere mortals keep forgeting about the quantum nature of distant light still blinking on and off.
Feynman remarked in QED that if human vision was just a bit more sensitive, distant sightings would already be regarded as a large matrix of blinks.
Tadzio |
|
| Back to top |
|
01001011
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 04, 2010
Posts: 825
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:45 am Post subject: Re: Before God... |
|
|
| Telekon wrote: | | The non-existence of the universe is possible. Even if the universe had always existed, there is nothing in the physical laws that necessitates its existence. The universe could have been different; the laws of physics could have been different. You can conceive of the laws of physics having been different, and therefore of totally different universes. |
The non-existence of the magic man is possible. Even if the magic man had always existed, there is nothing that necessitates its existence. The magic man could have been different...
| Quote: |
What you can't conceive of is nothing existing. Nothing (or nothingness) is the absence of all states of affairs, all entities, everything. It's not a logically possible world, because a possible world is something. It is metaphysically impossible for nothing (in the sense of the complete absence of all entities, concrete and abstract) to exist. |
Define 'possible world', 'metaphysically impossible'.
| Quote: |
Therefore, something must necessarily exist. If it's not the universe, then it's something else.
|
Baseless assertion.
| Quote: |
If the universe always existed, it would not be necessary - its temporal state would not necessitate its ontological status. It would still be contingent, and so not answer the question why it exists rather than nothing.
...
It depends on whether the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of space and time. If so, then we are delving into metaphysics - physics does not posit timeless, atemporal objects. |
More nonsense. What do you mean by 'temporal state', 'timeless, atemporal objects.'
| Quote: |
Whatever initiated the Big Bang, it was not an object of scientific study.
|
'Initiated the big bang' is nonsense. It already presupposes time external to the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29296
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Before God... |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: |
How can anyone reasonably claim that the scientific explanation for the origins of our universe provide no answers to the beginnings and are inferior when the Theistic explanation also provides no answer? |
The Theists are idiots. There is no ultimate answer.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
cw10
Phoenix
Joined: May 24, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 973
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Before God... |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: |
How can anyone reasonably claim that the scientific explanation for the origins of our universe provide no answers to the beginnings and are inferior when the Theistic explanation also provides no answer? |
The Theists are idiots. There is no ultimate answer.
ruveyn |
Just an endless string of theory and equations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks everybody for the replies. 91 and Telekon, I really enjoyed reading your posts, very interesting and insightful. I'll reply fully on the weekend but I am really too tired to write anything back in any detail right now, busy busy busy time at work (not a day off in 2 weeks and 11 hour shifts everyday) so I'm heading to bed right now. I look forward to continuing this discussion soon! Didn't mean to give a "hit & run" impression with this thread.
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29296
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: Before God... |
|
|
| cw10 wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: |
How can anyone reasonably claim that the scientific explanation for the origins of our universe provide no answers to the beginnings and are inferior when the Theistic explanation also provides no answer? |
The Theists are idiots. There is no ultimate answer.
ruveyn |
Just an endless string of theory and equations? |
It is Turtles all the way down, and Improvement all the way up.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
jackmt
Raven
Joined: Dec 14, 2011
Posts: 111
Location: Missoula, MT
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:00 am Post subject: Re: Before God... |
|
|
| Vigilans wrote: | Many of the Theists present on this forum and elsewhere like to make the claim that "The Big Bang etc" provides no answers really as it does not explain what came before. Some choose to believe that their God was responsible for it. Others do not. In any case, I find it deeply ironic that they can make this claim, because the concept of a Creator does not actually provide a solution to what happened "before" either. Where did the Creator originate from? Their answer will almost always be "God is infinite"
Okay, that's fine. But how can one make such a statement while simultaneously deriding the Big Bang Theory of the universe for its position that the universe "just exists"? Is this not literally the same argument made by Theists?
"God has always existed"
"The universe/multiverse has always existed"
How can anyone reasonably claim that the scientific explanation for the origins of our universe provide no answers to the beginnings and are inferior when the Theistic explanation also provides no answer? |
There is no 'before.' It is erroneous to say that God always existed, for the expression implies infinitude of time. But 'eternal' is outside of time. "In the beginning God..." I could speculate about the nature of God, but that would prove nothing, as does speculation about a multiverse.
Time, though, doesn't exist. It is the name of a relation that subsists; an epiphenomenon of the regularity of change. Belief in multiverse is certainly more fantastic and unwarranted than a belief in a creation with purpose.
But you are right. Neither 'scientific' speculation nor creationism is science. Both involve faith, and the atheist's faith is far greater than mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stgiordanobruno
Raven
Joined: Nov 19, 2010
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am of the view that universe just simply came into being because there were really no one around to prevent everything from happening. Universes just exploded into existence with every possible configuration and each and every one of them with their in inherent characteristics. That would make our existence an inevitable outcome under such acts of random creation without God. It would be rather like the old infinite monkeys theorem where it is believed given sufficient time a monkey stamping randomly on a typewriter could type the complete works of Shakespeare. There is in fact a finite number of combinations, and in doing so there would also be the accidental manuscripts of War and Peace, the Bible and every edition of the New York Phone book. All that without any need for a God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12091
Location: La belle province
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: Re: Before God... |
|
|
| 91 wrote: | The Cosmological Argument from Contingency contends that:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
Lets just take this first premise in isolation. The first premise gives us two options, contingency or necessity. I would not argue that God does not need an answer because he is 'infinite' rather I would argue that it is impossible to have a God, as Christian theists define one, that exists as the result of a contingent event. God under Christianity is the creator of all things, he brings everything into existence that is not himself. So he cannot be contingently existing, therefor one is apt to conclude that God exists necessarily, if he exists at all.
Secondly you also seem to be arguing that Cosmological argument treats the two explanations are comparable. No Cosmological argument I know of treats both answers as equal and claims that God is more parsimonious, I agree that this would not be a particularly strong argument. Rather, the family of Cosmological arguments all distinguish features of naturalistic account; in the argument from contingency it is done from modal properties and the Kalam uses the standard model. This family of arguments treats both the naturalistic account and the theistic account and creates an argument in favor of the later and makes points against the former. |
That's interesting. This is part of my problem with the Theistic explanation, or at least the Christian one. God cannot exist as a result of a contingent event, therefore creation starts with him. That still does not answer "why" however, which is the root of my intentions with this thread. A lot of theists describe the scientific explanation as not satisfactory because it does not answer "why", but I do not see how "God is necessary for existence" is a "more interesting answer" as many tend to put it
| Telekon wrote: | | I'd say that God is a metaphysically necessary being. |
That is not an unreasonable viewpoint, but it still does not answer "why does this all exist?" Is God and his (or her) space time an inevitability? Is there not a greater context beyond this?
| Telekon wrote: | | The non-existence of the universe is possible. Even if the universe had always existed, there is nothing in the physical laws that necessitates its existence. The universe could have been different; the laws of physics could have been different. You can conceive of the laws of physics having been different, and therefore of totally different universes. What you can't conceive of is nothing existing. Nothing (or nothingness) is the absence of all states of affairs, all entities, everything. It's not a logically possible world, because a possible world is something. It is metaphysically impossible for nothing (in the sense of the complete absence of all entities, concrete and abstract) to exist. Therefore, something must necessarily exist. If it's not the universe, then it's something else. If the universe always existed, it would not be necessary - its temporal state would not necessitate its ontological status. It would still be contingent, and so not answer the question why it exists rather than nothing. |
That is very interesting. Indeed I can conceive of other universes; however, as I do not know either way, the concept of absolute nothingness is something I also do take into account, though it is a rather mind bending concept. If there had to have been something else beforehand, what is it? Obviously neither of us can answer this question; at least, I know I cannot. There are theories, of course, such as the multiverse, or assertions, such as the Theistic explanation, but ultimately one is informed speculation and the other has to be taken on faith
| Telekon wrote: | | It depends on whether the Big Bang was the absolute beginning of space and time. If so, then we are delving into metaphysics - physics does not posit timeless, atemporal objects. Whatever initiated the Big Bang, it was not an object of scientific study. |
Not yet, at least. Though [the incomplete, not totally accepted] String theory does involve the possibility of multiple universes. I hope I live to know the solution, though I do not expect that it will be answered in my life time.
| jackmt wrote: | There is no 'before.' It is erroneous to say that God always existed, for the expression implies infinitude of time. But 'eternal' is outside of time. "In the beginning God..." I could speculate about the nature of God, but that would prove nothing, as does speculation about a multiverse.
Time, though, doesn't exist. It is the name of a relation that subsists; an epiphenomenon of the regularity of change. Belief in multiverse is certainly more fantastic and unwarranted than a belief in a creation with purpose.
But you are right. Neither 'scientific' speculation nor creationism is science. Both involve faith, and the atheist's faith is far greater than mine. |
I love when you guys try to assert that the big bang theory or "atheist faith" is greater than yours (or that there is any faith involved in atheism at all). I accept the big bang theory as the best explanation at this time, I do not argue that it is the absolute truth. That is not faith, that is a reasonable scientific position. You, on the other hand, make the bald faced, arrogant assertion that "There is no before". That, is a statement that requires faith. I do not know if there was no before or not. How can you possibly say I need more faith than you? Your statement just makes it clear that you have little understanding of the scientific method, or cosmology, or the very concept of a theory. I find this very amusing. At least 91 and Telekon know what they're talking about. You Theists can learn a lot from these gentlemen
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do |
|
| Back to top |
|
cw10
Phoenix
Joined: May 24, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 973
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:52 am Post subject: Re: Before God... |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | cw10 wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | Vigilans wrote: |
How can anyone reasonably claim that the scientific explanation for the origins of our universe provide no answers to the beginnings and are inferior when the Theistic explanation also provides no answer? |
The Theists are idiots. There is no ultimate answer.
ruveyn |
Just an endless string of theory and equations? |
It is Turtles all the way down, and Improvement all the way up.
ruveyn |
Endless road construction? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ignorant
Emu Egg
Joined: Dec 22, 2011
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am sure some of you are been introduce to that of quantum entanglement and its theories. and for those who are not, its more simple to say two objects connected over great distances where time and space are more or less irrelevant.
Its hard for many to imagine an infinite space, Where others have come to theorize that the big bang loops back on its self (via Black holes), where The substance of time and space become so warped that it condensate its self to a new singularity (with no space point given all black holes connect) that reemerges as a new big bang.
And yet others Figure that there is more then one big bang, like that of other galaxies there are many others, and that just because we cant see them does not mean they do not exist. and over time they share some sort of energy and mass with each other, even if not collide with each other now and then like our own galaxies do. and potentially through the warping of space time (black holes again) may still share some forms of energy and mass, or even more be quantumly entangled in some ways.
Now consider this, each of our brain cells by its self means little, but taken as a whole creates what we call us. if you were to break it all down to atoms and molecules you would find little connection between them. but when you look at it as a whole it starts to make more sense.
With all things considered it may still be plausible that were all interconnected and entangled with each others essences in such ways that may help explain some of our intuitions, if not even that of what some may call psychic phenomena, that unseen connection. take for instance that of a parent just knowing something is wrong when their own child is in trouble or hurt, over great distances.
Now consider that, what if, all the big bangs out there were like huge brain cells, single yet some how connected. one super mind that extends across all space and time, which we are all a part of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
40djbrooks
Snowy Owl
Joined: Dec 07, 2011
Age: 42
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
God comes from a race called the ALLNESS who is a collective of light beings, he separated himself from the collective and created a void called the gray matter, in other words he shrank himself leaving a empty void, within that void he created universes with beings from his imagination, once one universe was completed he expanded to create another universe till he got to us, one day he will extend again.
Hence the bible saying he is light as he is literally light intelligence and we are all part of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
