Religion - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

No, I have to say I don't accept them, because of a few problems. First, everything we know about that began to exist must have a cause, yes, but to begin with, the cause can very well be random and, speaking of this particular case, not necessarily "planned" by an agent, such as God (Note: I got to admit speaking of God as an agent is slightly amusing. He is not just an agent, he is a damn good secret agent. There are lots of rumors going about, but noone has actually ever seen him). More importantly though, we can only try to use this deduction about things that we actually know anything about, such as things in our universe after it began to exist. I don't have a clue about what really happened at the point in time when the universe began to exist and I don't expect to ever find out, but if Hawking and those lads are anywhere on the track it was something where the natural laws we know are useless. Because of this lack of knowledge I find it better to refrain from claiming anything about it. I can find it interesting to discuss what the causes might be, but those discussions can't be much more than ramblings.

Yes, there is a readily available explanation (that is, God did it), and yes again, there are no alternative explanations. But the problem is that the readily available explanation can't be shown to have any grounds whatsoever. It's only merit is that it can't be proven wrong. As I said before then, if we don't know how it is, it is better to try to find out and until we do that just accept the fact that we do not know. What religion has done instead is give an explanation and kill anyone who actually finds out something of real interest because it potentially exposes the flaws in the explanation religion offers.

In conclusion, the lack of another explanation does not make a bad explanation any better.

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

@ Bork

I was not implying that the "readily available explanation" is God, that's jumping way ahead. By "agent" I mean something with agency, like you or me. We can cause things to happen. To claim that agency is a bad explanation, you must give a reason.

I still hold that if time and space were caused, the cause must, by necessity, be timeless and immaterial. This is not "rambling", this is a direct and unavoidable deduction. I also hold that the best explanation of this is an agent, and I'm yet to hear an argument against it. In fact, you admit it can't be disproved and that there are no alternative explanations. Your claim of a lack of knowledge in this area does nothing to deny the knowledge we do have.

Also, to clarify - what do you mean when you say "the cause can very well be random"? I assume you don't mean "randomness itself". What sort of cause are you ascribing randomness to?

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

But the reality is that we do not really have any knowledge. All we can say is that with the knowledge we do have about how things work in this universe there must by necessity be a timeless and immaterial something causing anything. What we are talking about though is a point outside (or right on the edge of) this universe, which means that the knowledge we have about how things work IN this universe are worthless.

If the "readily available explanation" is not God, but just anything with the power to cause something we do not really have a readily available explanation of a whole lot, and in a discussion about religion saying that something caused the universe to begin isn't really adding a whole lot. Even if we were to agree on that we haven't really gotten anywhere on whether there is a God or not (and, of course, not whether that God is anything like the way he/she/it is described by any known religion). As the argument goes we agree that something must have caused the universe to start, and the religionist immediately takes that as a fact arguing for a God. It does not.

I have to admit to not knowing much about "randomness itself". All I was trying to say about the cause for something being random is that it does not necessarily have to be an intended cause, it may just as well have happened randomly in the every day speech meaning of the word, which scientifically of course isn't random at all but can be traced back through all the events and explained and analysed in infinity. That does not mean anyone or anything, whether human or divine, is behind it.

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

ZebraRock

" There is not one single argument that makes it any more reasonable to believe in a God than to believe in vampires or witches or little green men. "

Disagree. Most people who have lived on this earth believe in God, maybe 2 people believe in little green men. This would suggest that God is in fact self-evident to humanity
There is of course the Witness Argument, (compare the number who have experienced God vs Vampires) which ties into what I was saying
Then, of course, there is the Cosmological argument.
One can find belief in God if they look at any part of the world with a completely open mind. One cannot, ever, no matter how open the mind, find belief in Vampires. Ever. No one is prepared to build fantastic monuments, to dedicate their lives, to sacrifice themselves for a Vampire. I don't care so much that you disagree but statements like these are insulting.
Thank you, have a nice day.

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

ZebraRock wrote:

" There is not one single argument that makes it any more reasonable to believe in a God than to believe in vampires or witches or little green men. "

Disagree. Most people who have lived on this earth believe in God, maybe 2 people believe in little green men.

You'll be surprised how many people believe in "little green men". More believe in "God" because it's more socially acceptable. Either way, neither can be proved or disproved any greater than the other. Why does it matter which ridiculous claim has more followers?

Quote:

One cannot, ever, no matter how open the mind, find belief in Vampires. Ever.

Do you have evidence contrary to the existence of "vampires"? If you do not, you can't really just disavow them as being impossible to logically believe in.
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

What he said, and also: That everyone believed the earth was flat did not make it flat. There was a time when everyone in Scandinavia believed in Thor and Odin. With your logic they were right then but are wrong now.

Furthermore, the witness argument isn't really an argument. There are lots of claims of having seen other things than God. Those claims are normally regarded as hallucinations or lunacy. In the case of God they are for some reason not.

Finally the good old cosmological argument. This one in essence states "Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Thus, the universe had a cause". That argument sounds good but is severely flawed. That the universe began to exist is nothing but a guess. It may not. It may just as well always have been there. This type of argument is generally referred to as an "argument from ignorance". It is also nowadays considered untrue in scientific circles that everything that begins to exist indeed has a cause. Even if we would consider this faulty argument valid it does not lead us to God. You might as well apply the cosmological argument to God then and say that something must have caused him/her/it to exist. NAY!, says the religion-monger. God has always existed. Other than that being a pretty bold statement to make without anything to back it up you may as well then claim that the universe has always existed.

Again, when lacking knowledge it is better not to make claims than end up with ridiculous ones.

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

SquishypuffDave wrote:

@ Bork
I still hold that if time and space were caused, the cause must, by necessity, be timeless and immaterial. This is not "rambling", this is a direct and unavoidable deduction. I also hold that the best explanation of this is an agent, and I'm yet to hear an argument against it. In fact, you admit it can't be disproved and that there are no alternative explanations. Your claim of a lack of knowledge in this area does nothing to deny the knowledge we do have.

A little late in coming (just a year and some) but there is actually an alternative explanation. Again, this is only guesswork just like God is, but at least it offers an alternative, and one that logically holds up too. That explanation is nothing other than The Big Bang Theory (with capitals, just like God). The Big Bang Theory states that space and time was created in that singularity and by making that statement it does gone with the need for an agent. The Big Bang was the first thing that happened. "Well that is a stupid claim", some might say, but do think again. If both space AND time was created there, nothing CAN have come before it. Asking what came before time is like asking what's north of the north pole. The answer is: Nothing.

albummaster
Janitor

Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin

I think multiverse theory gets around some of the issues with needing a 'beginning'. Our universe could just be born out of another universe, which would have been born out of another etc.

interesting articles on this here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news...wormholes/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...072015.htm
http://www.space.com/8293-universe-born...heory.html

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Ooh, I'm glad we resurrected this. Smile

Bork wrote:

That the universe began to exist is nothing but a guess. It may not. It may just as well always have been there. This type of argument is generally referred to as an "argument from ignorance".

A past eternal universe would go against the widely accepted big bang model of the origin of the universe, not to mention invoking a whole host of logical paradoxes, like that "counting down from infinity" example.

If you wish to argue for a past-eternal universe, you might want to check out the Borde/Guth/Valenkin theorem published in 2003, which gives that theory a substantial pummeling. This includes multiple universe theories.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

Here's just a quote from Valenkin's book "Many Worlds in One":

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (, pg. 176).

"Nothing but a guess" wouldn't be quite the term I'd use.

Bork wrote:

A little late in coming (just a year and some) but there is actually an alternative explanation. Again, this is only guesswork just like God is, but at least it offers an alternative, and one that logically holds up too. That explanation is nothing other than The Big Bang Theory (with capitals, just like God). The Big Bang Theory states that space and time was created in that singularity and by making that statement it does gone with the need for an agent. The Big Bang was the first thing that happened. "Well that is a stupid claim", some might say, but do think again. If both space AND time was created there, nothing CAN have come before it. Asking what came before time is like asking what's north of the north pole. The answer is: Nothing.

I agree that since time came into existence at that point, there was nothing chronologically prior to the singularity. That does nothing to remove the need for something causally prior to its existence. Remember, I describe the cause as necessarily timeless. I recognise that what one person finds plausible, another may find implausible, but do you not find the idea absurd that the universe came into being from nothing, by nothing, and for no reason? What could be more absurd than that?

If you find this concept a bit to murky to really discuss fruitfully, I'd like to perhaps talk about the ontological issues of the universe's existence. Instead of "where did the universe come from?", I think a better (more neutral) question would be "what is the explanation of the universe's existence", because that includes the option of it existing by necessity. Better yet: "why does anything exist instead of nothing?". It's possible that the universe could have not existed. So why does it? Why not just nothing?

On a very basic level, things that exist are either contingent (depending on something else for its existence) or necessary. Logically, there must be at least one thing in that exists necessarily, otherwise there would be an absurd regress of contingent entities (like an infinite stack of turtles, each supported by another turtle below it). The short of it is: the universe cries out for an explanation. Even if it had no beginning, it would still require an explanation of its existence, either from an external cause, or by its own necessity. And if you assert that the universe is necessary, you are taking an extremely radical view held by very few philosophers which is incompatible with its having a beginning, and the burden of proof would be on you to show what about the universe is necessary.