Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The expanding universe is a Big Bang phenomenon, not a beginning of matter phenomenon. As has been pointed out, what made the big bang? I would risk a large wager that it is one event in a cosmos full of them and the age of our Universe is nothing compared to the age of the Cosmos of which it forms part.
Thus the car rolling downhill (your analogy, not mine ) relates to the whole process of what started matter before the Big bang? Reason tells me that just as there must be nothingness beyond where everything ends - and an infinite something is incomprehensible, then that nothingness had the uncreated potential to become something (and there are hints that like time, number or mathematical basis is actually something more than a human calculating convention. It exists. And that supposition is reinforced by the knowledge that matter is made of nothing. I would bet that when you got down to the basics of the basics, the very stuff of which stuff is made it is nothing but a formation of force, giving the illusion of matter.
If that's something pointless to discuss, I am happy with that. The rationale of atheism - god -disbelief- is pretty much based on the discussion being pointless. My crappy speculations seem better than an uncreated fully formed cognizant God waving a magic wand.
My target is organized religion and its pernicious influence. Not a very speculative creative will - whatever that might mean.
The expanding universe is a Big Bang phenomenon, not a beginning of matter phenomenon. As has been pointed out, what made the big bang? I would risk a large wager that it is one event in a cosmos full of them and the age of our Universe is nothing compared to the age of the Cosmos of which it forms part.
Thus the car rolling downhill (your analogy, not mine ) relates to the whole process of what started matter before the Big bang? Reason tells me that just as there must be nothingness beyond where everything ends - and an infinite something is incomprehensible, then that nothingness had the uncreated potential to become something (and there are hints that like time, number or mathematical basis is actually something more than a human calculating convention. It exists. And that supposition is reinforced by the knowledge that matter is made of nothing. I would bet that when you got down to the basics of the basics, the very stuff of which stuff is made it is nothing but a formation of force, giving the illusion of matter.
If that's something pointless to discuss, I am happy with that. The rationale of atheism - god -disbelief- is pretty much based on the discussion being pointless. My crappy speculations seem better than an uncreated fully formed cognizant God waving a magic wand.
My target is organized religion and its pernicious influence. Not a very speculative creative will - whatever that might mean.
In all and connecting to previous, if man is going to understand energy cannot be created or destroyed, the phenomenon of motion also cannot be created and destroyed. This presents a serious problem for a nothingness in its full meaning to have ever been a consideration.
There is no such thing as an infinite nothingness without a value from what can be percieved, infinity is a necessary and real value in the universe, known in many ways in the math. A known and real property in the functioning of the universe allowing it to exist. If it is assigned the word nothingness then the assigned has a value by its participation and 'workings alongside some-thingness.
Therefore the rolling car cannot be created or destroyed, and...also supports the suggested idea of many universe's. It would appear that nothingness if used in the convo is not nothingness as it is known at all, and has a value.
To say there must be nothingness beyond where everything ends presumes without any support, existence in the ultimate reality can be measured with that protractor again.
Anyway now this is going into another topic of religion and so on. These would be management issues in the idea's being discussed. I hope everything goes well with it because its become an eye-opener with communication and events anywhere happening, brought to your living room in living color. Communication has become a mirror in the sky reflecting all of the effort and goof ups in mans management of himself and the big distraction $$$.
Anyway its going to take some time thats for sure.
If a religion destroys a community, the community should destroy the religion for the community.
If a community is not destroyed by a religion -and politely said, another community or source
"has no business destroying or setting out to destroy" what has added value to whatever fortunate community.
I think thats an important provision right across the board regardless. ( also healthy human flourishing is not hard to distinguish)
Last edited by stargazzer; 05-20-2013 at 11:33 AM..
Yes, yes, sorry. That was perhaps unfair. It is rather that I think the arguments you make are invalid, like the one taking God as a given or that the materialist default is unseated or nature is 'obviously' God. These are invalid and pointing it out just makes no headway. I understand that you think they are justified and I don't.
I must also apologize for my similarly unfair post in the other thread, Arequipa. I should not put you in the same category as those I have on ignore. Our differences involve what is sufficient to qualify as God. You do not think Nature qualifies and I do. You want God to exhibit or evidence incontrovertible "forward planning" etc. I place NO requirements on God other than the most basic met by Nature and confirmed by science. Everything else is "Beliefs About God" and subjective. Peace, my friend.
I place NO requirements on God other than the most basic met by Nature and confirmed by science.
Well, in that case at most you're a Deist, and at the least an Antagonist.
Theism presumes a god-thing with anthropomorphic qualities. That appeals to small-minded people who cannot grasp the complexities and mysteries of the Universe, requiring a "superior being" to be the causal factor for all that is unexplained. It also appeals to people who think they ought to receive, or deserve, some kind of reward in an After-Life, or who have some thing for "Justice."
Operating on the assumption that you might actually have even the remotest possibility of being correct, and Nature is "god".....what's the point?
How does "Nature as god" differ from no god at all? It doesn't, and I suffer no penalty nor do I gain any benefit in accepting "Nature as god" or rejecting it in its entirety.
So, again, what's the use?
I can reject "Nature as god" whilst simultaneously roaming the forest wandering around the little animals communing with the Earth spiritually -- and actually derive more benefit and peace of mind, but that is my doing, not Nature's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer
In all and connecting to previous, if man is going to understand energy cannot be created or destroyed, the phenomenon of motion also cannot be created and destroyed.
It doesn't work that way. Motion is not a force, rather it is the product of forces, and where Vectors are concerned, the forces would be additive (eg Gravity).
Would it? It seems to me to do no more than add one more far -fetched sci -fi scenario to a huge list of undisprovable possibilities, any one of which could be true and belief in any one of which to the exclusion of others, let alone as fact where there is no evidence is illogical. Occams razor - one of the handy tools of the logical toolkit is specifically designed to plane off such excrescences.
But... but, that didn't really disprove anything.
Occam's razor cuts away to the fewest assumptions right? Well, how few assumptions would you have to make to assume rather than any countless reasons why something might just "pop into existence" arbitrarily, something made had a maker. Everything, from this computer I'm typing on, to this glass jar, to this desk either grew from the ground, was made by volcanoes, or crafted by people. "God" is shorthand for "there is an original cause for this thing but I don't know what it is or how it works."
On the unicorn note, there are kinds of fanciful reasons (collective psychic imagination for instance), why many different cultures have such myths. Or, maybe, the simplest is that someone saw something, and recorded "I remember when we used to have unicorns, they were tasty and we ate them all" gradually getting passed down as a legend (and having the description change through retelling) rather than history once enough time passes. But who cares about unicorns, they're yummy, but ultimately just food.
But in terms of the main argument, this is a causal link, the simplest of logical conditions. I made kimchi last week. Do you know of any kimchi that made itself? No?
Now, the section of Occam's razor that says "when you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not (a unicorn)" is a valid point. Created things need a creator. But not necessarily the Creator. Anything from the Big Bang to Elder Gods is an acceptable substitute, and someone who presents a convincing origin story has my attention. Just the point of causeless generation if applied to atheism seems kinda iffy.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 05-20-2013 at 04:37 PM..
I must also apologize for my similarly unfair post in the other thread, Arequipa. I should not put you in the same category as those I have on ignore. Our differences involve what is sufficient to qualify as God. You do not think Nature qualifies and I do. You want God to exhibit or evidence incontrovertible "forward planning" etc. I place NO requirements on God other than the most basic met by Nature and confirmed by science. Everything else is "Beliefs About God" and subjective. Peace, my friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Nature is Subjective.
I am reasonably certain you do not mean this the way I would take it . . . because I have been essentially making this argument in the qualia debate quite regularly. I use the existence of OUR subjectivity and experiences as the basis for inferring that Nature itself MUST be subjective. Subjectivity is a PERSONAL experience . . . making Nature a kind of "Super-person" (God) experiencing (in part) through us and other subjective experiencing creatures.
Quote:
Well, in that case at most you're a Deist, and at the least an Antagonist.
Actually . . . I am a panentheist and a pure Christian. I accept none of the orthodoxy and dogma of the mainstream religions.
Quote:
Theism presumes a god-thing with anthropomorphic qualities. That appeals to small-minded people who cannot grasp the complexities and mysteries of the Universe, requiring a "superior being" to be the causal factor for all that is unexplained. It also appeals to people who think they ought to receive, or deserve, some kind of reward in an After-Life, or who have some thing for "Justice."
THAT would be what I was referring to. I do not accept any of that. I believe we exist because Nature (God) exists and we are an integral part of producing the subjectivity (consciousness) that characterizes God.
Quote:
Operating on the assumption that you might actually have even the remotest possibility of being correct, and Nature is "god".....what's the point?
Life . . . and the requirement to grow and reproduce . . . God is a living God and we are part of that reproduction and growth. The accelerating expansion of the universe is evidence of that growth.
Quote:
How does "Nature as god" differ from no god at all? It doesn't, and I suffer no penalty nor do I gain any benefit in accepting "Nature as god" or rejecting it in its entirety.
So, again, what's the use?
But you can properly produce the kind of subjectivity and state of consciousness that is compatible with and adds to the growth and expansion of God . . . or you can fail to do so (and perhaps need to be "recycled" or "refined" . . . just to list a couple of possibilities in the interest of pure objectivity). IOW . . . reap whatever you sow.
Quote:
I can reject "Nature as god" whilst simultaneously roaming the forest wandering around the little animals communing with the Earth spiritually -- and actually derive more benefit and peace of mind, but that is my doing, not Nature's.
But you are part of Nature (God) . . . so that is not exactly true.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 05-20-2013 at 07:36 PM..
I must also apologize for my similarly unfair post in the other thread, Arequipa. I should not put you in the same category as those I have on ignore. Our differences involve what is sufficient to qualify as God. You do not think Nature qualifies and I do. You want God to exhibit or evidence incontrovertible "forward planning" etc. I place NO requirements on God other than the most basic met by Nature and confirmed by science. Everything else is "Beliefs About God" and subjective. Peace, my friend.
No problem. I have always said that we have more in common that we have differences. Peace.
In all and connecting to previous, if man is going to understand energy cannot be created or destroyed, the phenomenon of motion also cannot be created and destroyed. This presents a serious problem for a nothingness in its full meaning to have ever been a consideration.
There is no such thing as an infinite nothingness without a value from what can be percieved, infinity is a necessary and real value in the universe, known in many ways in the math. A known and real property in the functioning of the universe allowing it to exist. If it is assigned the word nothingness then the assigned has a value by its participation and 'workings alongside some-thingness.
Therefore the rolling car cannot be created or destroyed, and...also supports the suggested idea of many universe's. It would appear that nothingness if used in the convo is not nothingness as it is known at all, and has a value.
To say there must be nothingness beyond where everything ends presumes without any support, existence in the ultimate reality can be measured with that protractor again.
Anyway now this is going into another topic of religion and so on. These would be management issues in the idea's being discussed. I hope everything goes well with it because its become an eye-opener with communication and events anywhere happening, brought to your living room in living color. Communication has become a mirror in the sky reflecting all of the effort and goof ups in mans management of himself and the big distraction $$$.
Anyway its going to take some time thats for sure.
If a religion destroys a community, the community should destroy the religion for the community.
If a community is not destroyed by a religion -and politely said, another community or source
"has no business destroying or setting out to destroy" what has added value to whatever fortunate community.
I think thats an important provision right across the board regardless. ( also healthy human flourishing is not hard to distinguish)
It is quite possible that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It merely goes somewhere else. The Cosmos is a big place.
Occam's razor cuts away to the fewest assumptions right? Well, how few assumptions would you have to make to assume rather than any countless reasons why something might just "pop into existence" arbitrarily, something made had a maker. Everything, from this computer I'm typing on, to this glass jar, to this desk either grew from the ground, was made by volcanoes, or crafted by people. "God" is shorthand for "there is an original cause for this thing but I don't know what it is or how it works."
On the unicorn note, there are kinds of fanciful reasons (collective psychic imagination for instance), why many different cultures have such myths. Or, maybe, the simplest is that someone saw something, and recorded "I remember when we used to have unicorns, they were tasty and we ate them all" gradually getting passed down as a legend (and having the description change through retelling) rather than history once enough time passes. But who cares about unicorns, they're yummy, but ultimately just food.
But in terms of the main argument, this is a causal link, the simplest of logical conditions. I made kimchi last week. Do you know of any kimchi that made itself? No?
Now, the section of Occam's razor that says "when you hear hoofbeats, expect horses not (a unicorn)" is a valid point. Created things need a creator. But not necessarily the Creator. Anything from the Big Bang to Elder Gods is an acceptable substitute, and someone who presents a convincing origin story has my attention. Just the point of causeless generation if applied to atheism seems kinda iffy.
I would say that introducing a cognizant creator is introducing a surplus logical entity to the matter. It is true that something from nothing explaining all the facts is an assumption or hypothesis. I am just showing ways in which it can be taken as a not unfeasible one. The cognizant mind theory may be true, but it certainly not the only possible one, as theists like to suggest.
'When you see a universe made of nothing expect a creation from nothing, not a big invisible unicorn waving a magic wand.' I am just saying that nothing is proven either way - like abiogenesis, but, like abiogenesis, there are evidential signposts that something from nothing, like life from non -life has some circumstantial evidence going for it. Goddunit really has nothing but a claim without mechanism.
Most of the laws of the universe, such as the conservation of mass or the second law of thermodynamics do not involve things created from thin air, but rather mass or heat are displaced from one area to another. Ex nihilo creation is an article of faith for the church. You shouldn't buy it (since it's faith), and I don't (because it flies in the face of both reasonable faith, and scientific laws).
So, you either have infinite regression madness (first cause is a powerful but self-defeating logic, because if it rests on the assumption that everything had a creator, but that would include gods too. Of course, I'm insane enough not to care about infinite regression, since the alternative happens neither in nature nor the scientific world), or a system where "matter is neither created nor destroyed." That is, the universe always existed, but before it was "created" it was in superdense form, and exploded outward. Or some precausal origin, as in here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) relates to the whole process of what started matter before the Big bang? Reason tells me that just as there must be nothingness beyond where everything ends - and an infinite something is incomprehensible, then that nothingness had the uncreated potential to become something (and there are hints that like time, number or mathematical basis is actually something more than a human calculating convention. It exists. And that supposition is reinforced by the knowledge that matter is made of nothing. I would bet that when you got down to the basics of the basics, the very stuff of which stuff is made it is nothing but a formation of force, giving the illusion of matter.
