Originally posted by BigDoggProblemEdit: Upon reflection, there are some who indeed subscribe to this crazy belief.
I've read his posts. Are you quite sure about his belief system?
Edit: Upon reflection, there are some who indeed subscribe to this crazy belief.
"And the earth was without form, and [b]void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."[/b]
"And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."BIG DOGGPROBLEM
This belief in a void is not the same thing since it applies to the universe and not existence itself.
6 edits
Hmm...I don't think many people hold to the view that there was once a time where there existed nothing and then suddenly there was the seed of everything (except theists who let God exist in spite of nothing else (If he has existed for eternity, why'd he wait so bloody long to create the universe???) what was he doing before this...twiddling his righteous thumbs?, and more importantly where was he whilst there wasn't a universe...who made this magic dimension they don't mind not having a cause?)...I doubt this is a semantics issue where you would define nothing as no planets, stars etc... neither.
Of 3 of the more popular choices I see only one that has any plausibility:
1) Something not supernatural has existed in such states that we'll never know about for all eternity...whether you say it is the big bang-big crunch-big bang etc, or whether something has been just sitting there locked in a standoff until until such time that one little straw broke the camels back (as it were) and caused the big bang, or whatever else.
Of the other 2, I thoroughly reject the idea that to resolve the problem of something being needed to cause the universe; one should invent an uncaused supernatural deity that has always existed just to get round this particular dilemma...by this kind of reasoning it surprises me that we don't have an explanation for every single process that takes place in the universe -- hold on, we do actually...FSM did it!!!
there is a third idea I hear of sometimes where apparantly time did not exist before the big bang...Don't particularly like this idea neither because this solution would seem to assign to time some properties that are not justified, for how long did time not exist before it decided enough is enough and kick start the universe? (yes I know...how long did time not exist is a contradiction in this context, I just don't particularly like this one anymore than I like the god solution)
Originally posted by AgergOf 3 of the more popular choices I see only one that has any plausibility:
Hmm...I don't think many people hold to the view that there was once a time where there existed nothing and then suddenly there was the seed of everything...I doubt this is a semantics issue where you would define nothing as no planets, stars etc... neither.
Of 3 of the more popular choices I see only one that has any plausibility:
1) Something not superna ...[text shortened]... this context, I just don't particularly like this one anymore than I like the god solution)
1) Something not supernatural has existed in such states that we'll never know about for all eternity...whether you say it is the big bang-big crunch-big bang etc, or whether something has been just sitting there locked in a standoff until until such time that one little straw broke the camels back (as it were) and caused the big bang, or whatever else. AGERG
Agerg , you are my kind of Atheist! You at least have the rational know how to think yourself out of this silly idea of something from nothing! Welcome aboard the good ship eternal existence!! We are in agreement on one thing , the only plausible explanation is something so utterly permanent and irreducible that it never not existed.
I have got some minor follow up questions for you.
a) Would you accept that whatever this thing is it would have to be made of something quite different and superior in many ways to nature as we understand it? You paint a picture of this something being of such a "state that we'll never know" which strongly suggests something over and above the normal state we know as the universe. This seems to me like a supernatural state or a state over and above nature. I understand your reticence for calling it supernatural , but is that not what you have described? I can't imagine that you think this state to be inferior in energy and substance to the universe given that the universe depends on it and this thing has been around forever which suggests huge unlimited amonts of energy. Given that what you have described is by logical definition beyond or above space/time and without beginning it sounds quite "super" to me.
b) The idea of this state being "locked in a stand off" until the "straw breaks the camels back" also strongly suggests a state that is contingent on something else for it's momentum. This camel's back image points to a process that culminates in something , but an eternal state is not contingent on anything else. What starts this process? The state itself must do this because there's nothing else to do it. But why (or how) would a non-contigent state lock itself in stand off ?
c)"I thoroughly reject the idea that to resolve the problem of something being needed to cause the universe; one should invent an uncaused supernatural deity that has always existed just to get round this particular dilemma"AGERG
I thoroughly reject this too.
However , what you have described is a non-contingent state that must logically be uncaused , eternal and substantially different from nature and it must have always existed. The deity bit is different . You do not logically have to believe this thing has a mind or that it cares or thinks but can you at least see that it would be illogical and disingenuous for a theist to believe in a God that wasn't eternal , uncaused and made of something other than the nature we currently know. It would be irrational to believe otherwise.
6 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterhmm...my usage of the word 'states' was not meant to imply shifting from natural to supernatural.
Of 3 of the more popular choices I see only one that has any plausibility:
1) Something not supernatural has existed in such states that we'll never know about for all eternity...whether you say it is the big bang-big crunch-big bang etc, or whether something has been just sitting there locked in a standoff until until such time that one little straw han the nature we currently know. It would be irrational to believe otherwise.
a) Would you accept that whatever this thing is it would have to be made of something quite different and superior in many ways to nature as we understand it? You paint a picture of this something being of such a "state that we'll never know" which strongly suggests something over and above the normal state we know as the universe. This seems to me like a supernatural state or a state over and above nature. I understand your reticence for calling it supernatural , but is that not what you have described? I can't imagine that you think this state to be inferior in energy and substance to the universe given that the universe depends on it and this thing has been around forever which suggests huge unlimited amonts of energy. Given that what you have described is by logical definition beyond or above space/time and without beginning it sounds quite "super" to me.
no need for any supernatural connotation...a big ol' boiling singularity might do it...or again, just a never ending series of big bangs and crunches...to be honest I really don't know...certainly don't put it down to magic though...don't quite see how I imply that it is above and beyond space time...I do not hold to the existence of any entity physical or non-physical that exists outside time...I don't assign to any entity the property that for some event C, it never has and never will have proceeded or regressed to an event D (where event D could perhaps be similar to event C) in the way that time specifies the duration between event A and event B for some physical entity that doesn't exist outside time.
In fact...if we let event C = God not creating the universe, event D = God creating the universe and event E through infinity being all the other things he does...how does do you actually rationalise the problem of an entity eternally existing for which it's entire existence and thoughts all occured instantaneously?
b) The idea of this state being "locked in a stand off" until the "straw breaks the camels back" also strongly suggests a state that is contingent on something else for it's momentum. This camel's back image points to a process that culminates in something , but an eternal state is not contingent on anything else. What starts this process? The state itself must do this because there's nothing else to do it. But why (or how) would a non-contigent state lock itself in stand off ?
I don't know what caused it!...sometimes I notice that things that have just been sat some place for ages suddenly have a tendancy to fall...I usually put it down to that object being at limiting equilibrium, just the faintest little bit of force leting all hell break loose; and then just carrying on without considering ghosts and gods etc..., perhaps something similar happened at the big bang!
I thoroughly reject this too.
However , what you have described is a non-contingent state that must logically be uncaused , eternal and substantially different from nature and it must have always existed. The deity bit is different . You do not logically have to believe this thing has a mind or that it cares or thinks but can you at least see that it would be illogical and disingenuous for a theist to believe in a God that wasn't eternal , uncaused and made of something other than the nature we currently know. It would be irrational to believe otherwise.
I see no logic in inventing something that is uncaused to resolve a problem with causation elsewhere...it would of course be foolish to some for believing in a limited God...I just see it as more foolish to actually believe in God in the first place.
Something seems to have had to have always existed...I choose the physical universe over a magic friend.
Originally posted by AgergTouchy ...aren't we?
hmm...my usage of the word 'states' was not meant to infer shifting from natural to supernatural.
[b]a) Would you accept that whatever this thing is it would have to be made of something quite different and superior in many ways to nature as we understand it? You paint a picture of this something being of such a "state that we'll never know" which strongly ...[text shortened]... have always existed...I choose the physical universe over a magic friend.
"I see no logic in inventing something that is uncaused to resolve a problem with causation elsewhere...it would of course be foolish to some for believing in a limited God...I just see it as more foolish to actually believe in God in the first place.
Something seems to have had to have always existed...I choose the physical universe over a magic friend."AGERG
Do you not see that something that has always existed without beginning has to be logically Uncaused? There's only two ways of resolving causation logically , either something from nothing (which you agree is implausible) or something uncaused. Come on Agerg , think about it a bit harder! Haven't you made that logical leap yet?
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterbut then I can just say that the universe is *uncaused* it just does what the hell it likes (as it were), always has and always will...problem solved
Touchy ...aren't we?
"I see no logic in inventing something that is uncaused to resolve a problem with causation elsewhere...it would of course be foolish to some for believing in a limited God...I just see it as more foolish to actually believe in God in the first place.
Something seems to have had to have always existed...I choose the physical u aused. Come on Agerg , think about it a bit harder! Haven't you made that logical leap yet?
with regards to being touchy: By foolish I certainly do not suggest stupid - just mis-guided. (very mis-guided)
Originally posted by Agerg...I usually put it down to that object being at limiting equilibrium, just the faintest little bit of force leting all hell break loose; AGERG
hmm...my usage of the word 'states' was not meant to imply shifting from natural to supernatural.
[b]a) Would you accept that whatever this thing is it would have to be made of something quite different and superior in many ways to nature as we understand it? You paint a picture of this something being of such a "state that we'll never know" which strongly ...[text shortened]... ave always existed...I choose the physical universe over a magic friend.
And where might this faintest little bit of force come from? Once you have reach the ultimate ground of all existence there's no where else to go. You can only look to the thing itself. It must have oscillated itself off it's equilibrium. Nothing else could have done it.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterAnd where might this faintest little bit of force come from? Once you have reach the ultimate ground of all existence there's no where else to go. You can only look to the thing itself. It must have oscillated itself off it's equilibrium. Nothing else could have done it.
...I usually put it down to that object being at limiting equilibrium, just the faintest little bit of force leting all hell break loose; AGERG
And where might this faintest little bit of force come from? Once you have reach the ultimate ground of all existence there's no where else to go. You can only look to the thing itself. It must have oscillated itself off it's equilibrium. Nothing else could have done it.
I choose that over God or FSM...I also like the idea of the big bang, big crunch, big bang......too.
Originally posted by Agergbut then I can just say that the universe is *uncaused* it just does what the hell it likes (as it were)...problem solved AGERG
but then I can just say that the universe is *uncaused* it just does what the hell it likes (as it were), always has and always will...problem solved
with regards to being touchy: By foolish I certainly do not suggest stupid - just mis-guided.
Good , I thought for a minute there you were saying that the idea of something uncaused was dumb , but it appears that you could believe in a universe that was uncaused and eternal (always existing) . So it's not so stupid then if a Theist posits that God must be eternal and uncaused.
You see , you would still be a million miles way from believing in a God of any type , but you would at least be able to see why theists have come to the conclusion that God is eternal and uncaused without beginning. It's not so stupid afterall , even if you think the rest of it is.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterAh but the difference is that I don't require that something needing to be caused or uncaused must have been *first caused* by something uncaused...this brings up a contradiction.
but then I can just say that the universe is *uncaused* it just does what the hell it likes (as it were)...problem solved AGERG
Good , I thought for a minute there you were saying that the idea of something uncaused was dumb , but it appears that you could believe in a universe that was uncaused and eternal (always existing) . So it's not so stupid ...[text shortened]... uncaused without beginning. It's not so stupid afterall , even if you think the rest of it is.
Originally posted by AgergThe only problem with the big crunch , big bang idea is that much of the science points towards the big unending expansion idea . The universe continues to accelerate apart. It also begs the question - can you have a bang without a crunch or a crunch without a bang? Which came first bang or crunch? Logic would suggest that you need to have a bang before you can have a crunch because otherwise the universe would have to be out there on it's own first before it could crunch.
[b]And where might this faintest little bit of force come from? Once you have reach the ultimate ground of all existence there's no where else to go. You can only look to the thing itself. It must have oscillated itself off it's equilibrium. Nothing else could have done it.
I choose that over God or FSM...I also like the idea of the big bang, big crunch, big bang......too.[/b]
The problem with saying the universe is uncaused and eternal is that it a) shows many of the traits of non permanence and finitude (eg decay) and b) it has loads of contigency in it. If the universe really was eternal and uncaused I would expect stars that never ran out of gas and unlimited energy with no decay. There would be evidence of permanence and no beginnings or endings in sight. There would be no need for a big bang because eternal existence does not depend on anything.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterbut the theist solution begs the question: how can you have something that had to exist such that everything else could have not always existed without there being a point where *it* didn't exist?...wherever and however you throw problems with causality...those that fall upon your solution are far worse.
The only problem with the big crunch , big bang idea is that much of the science points towards the big unending expansion idea . The universe continues to accelerate apart. It also begs the question - can you have a bang without a crunch or a crunch without a bang? Which came first bang or crunch? Logic would suggest that you need to have a bang befor t. There would be no need for a big bang because eternal existence does not depend on anything.
Also, perhaps this time is special and that the universe will not experience a big crunch, who knows?