Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Ok, so this MAY get trolled out of hand.....BUT

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Ok, so this MAY get trolled out of hand.....BUT
SiegeLord
Member #7,827
October 2006
avatar

I'd say this argument is more like a rebuttal to "where did the primordial atom come from?" question.

Yeah. Honestly, the only remotely tenable place for god right now is him exploding with a big bang and not existing thenceforth. And that's only because there's no good scientific explanation that I'm aware of of how big bang arose. I wouldn't bet on the god exploding explanation being true however.

"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."-Ecclesiastes 1:18
[SiegeLord's Abode][Codes]:[DAllegro5]:[RustAllegro]

gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
avatar

To clarify, you don't need to explain how God came to exist in order to believe God is the best explanation of the cause of the universe.

You need to explain it because the sole reason for introducing a god as the "cause of the universe" is to explain how something could come from nothing.

--
Move to the Democratic People's Republic of Vivendi Universal (formerly known as Sweden) - officially democracy- and privacy-free since 2008-06-18!

_Kronk_
Member #12,347
November 2010

Grow thread grow! >:D

gnolam said:

You need to explain it because the sole reason for introducing a god as the "cause of the universe" is to explain how something could come from nothing.

If you believe that there is no god, then you believe that the physical laws that govern the universe simply "are".

If you believe that there is a god, then you believe that he/it/she/they simply is/are.

Either way, something has to exist with no explanation for how it came into being.

--------------------------------------------------
"If only our dreams were fires to ignite, then we could let the whole world burn" -Emery

My blog: http://joshuadover.tumblr.com

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

But it's simpler to believe that the stuff we see "just came to be" than it is to believe "god and all the stuff we see just came to be".

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

BigSir
Member #6,894
February 2006

I got this from Stephen Hawking's “Into the Universe”. The argument is that since time and space are united and without space you cannot have time then time did not exist before the creation of the universe. Since there is no time prior to the creation of the universe, the concept of “before” the universe has no meaning.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

If you're going to use the pedantic definition of time as "measurement of entropy", sure.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

BigSir said:

Since there is no time prior to the creation of the universe, the concept of “before” the universe has no meaning.

For the same reason, it doesn't really make sense to say that the universe was "created" since "creation" is an action and therefore requires the existence of time. I feel like this is just arguing semantics, though. I think the concept of cause and effect makes sense without time, so you could still ask about the cause of the universe. And the cause of the cause of the universe, etc. I guess you could toss aside these questions as having no practical significance, but they're still valid questions. Maybe there are limits to human reasoning after all.

BigSir
Member #6,894
February 2006

I don't remember the argument exactly but apparently at the quantum level things come into and out of existence all of the time.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

BigSir said:

I don't remember the argument exactly but apparently at the quantum level things come into and out of existence all of the time.

But there's always an anti-whatever to balance it out, and we can't find our "anti-universe".

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

BigSir said:

I don't remember the argument exactly but apparently at the quantum level things come into and out of existence all of the time.

Maybe it's a good conceptual explanation for some physical phenomena but surely, you can't directly observe things coming into and out of existence? I don't know much about quantum physics.

William Labbett
Member #4,486
March 2004
avatar

Stas B. said:

surely, you can't directly observe things coming into and out of existence?

Not sure if that's a question or a statement. Anyway how can you be sure ?

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

Read that as "makes no sense to me, but I'm not an expert". Are we talking about tangible or conceptual things spontaneosly coming in and out of existence? I mean, acceleration is real but not tangible. An atom is both real and tangible. Are we talking about things belonging to the first or second category? Can we detect the things themselves or only their effects on other things?

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

The virtual particles haven't been directly observed yet, but they're hoping...

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

Not sure if that's a question or a statement. Anyway how can you be sure ?

Generally, if the statement ends with a '?' (question mark) it constitutes a question. :P

I thought I was the king of pointless discussions, but I've lost my crown. Even I don't care enough to debate this topic any further. We have covered religion and creation in the other thread. I will bring up one point though, we are gods in a small manner (we create games, art, music, web sites, etc out of nothing). Perfection is just another delusion of man in the same regard as religion. < scratches head>With all the programmers, geeks, musicians, and artists we have here I can't figure how these are the only topics that seem to be most active lately</scratches head>

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

With all the programmers, geeks, musicians, and artists we have here I can't figure how these are the only topics that seem to be most active lately

Because we can't come to a definite conclusion, so it goes on endlessly.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

The virtual particles haven't been directly observed[repository.uwa.edu.au] yet, but they're hoping...

Wikipedia said:

Quote:

If a single particle is detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual. Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles.

Sounds to me like virtual particles can't be detected by definition. I think they fall into the category of concepts invented to explain various phenomena. It's not the same as actual tangible things coming into and out of existence.

I thought I was the king of pointless discussions, but I've lost my crown.

Really? Can you sense the irony? I don't think there's anything quite as pointless as you popping up and informing the participants of a discussion about how pointless it is.

Quote:

Even I don't care enough to debate this topic any further

Quote:

I will bring up one point though

::)

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Check out the third paragraph here.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

Stas, in fairness, Specter did refrain from actual debate, and instead made a comment that is actually quite perceptive and positive: that we're all gods in a small way. The 'pointless discussions' comment can be taken as tongue-in-cheek. So there's no need to be mean.

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Hootenanny

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

Check out the third paragraph here

Alright. I'm not acquainted with fancy modern physics so let's put it another way: does any of you, knowledgeable gentlemen, have an example of something just coming into existence for no reason whatsoever?

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Stas B. said:

Alright. I'm not acquainted with fancy modern physics so let's put it another way: does any of you, knowledgeable gentlemen, have an example of something just coming into existence for no reason whatsoever?

The universe? 8-)

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

The reason the universe came into existence is so the chicken could cross the road. :'(

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

What I was trying to point out is that there must be some inherent flaw in the way humans reason. It makes no sense to just arbitrarily draw a line somewhere and say "Well, this thing has no cause as far as I'm concerned". On the other hand, everything having a cause implies a realized actual infinity, which doesn't really make sense to me either.

23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
avatar

Stas B. said:

What I was trying to point out is that there must be some inherent flaw in the way humans reason.

That's been my position the whole time ...

--
Software Development == Church Development
Step 1. Build it.
Step 2. Pray.

Stas B.
Member #9,615
March 2008

Yeah, well, some people have more flawed reasoning than others. :P



Go to: