Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2010, 03:40 AM   #1
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
how can we best explain our existence ?

how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 04:14 AM   #2
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Since none of these explains "the cause of the existence of our universe" (especially number 3), perhaps there isn't one.

I think you're full of number 2.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 04:38 AM   #3
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote View Post
Since none of these explains "the cause of the existence of our universe" (especially number 3), perhaps there isn't one.

I think you're full of number 2.
So you agree with that equation ?

Nothing x Nobody = Everything ?
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 05:17 AM   #4
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
So you agree with that equation ?

Nothing x Nobody = Everything ?
I use the "=>" symbol for "Yields" rather than the equality sign which impermissibly operates bidirectionally. For example the "fuel + oxygen + heat = ash + smoke + light" equation implies that you can put some ash and smoke in a box, shine a light on it and watch a previously burned document reappear.

Noting that "Nobody" is a special case of "Nothing", the following holds:
Given that we can demonstrate "Nothing x Nothing => Something", it follows that "Nothing x Nothing => A Singularity" is entirely possible. It can be reduced to "Nothing => Something" all by itself. After all, what you call "Nothing" has mass. In fact, everything, the proper set of all particular things, if left to itself, will eventually cease to exist. The universe is not eternal into the future either.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 06:08 AM   #5
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote View Post
Given that we can demonstrate "Nothing x Nothing => Something", .
please demonstrate it.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 04:53 AM   #6
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.
Your terms are inadequately defined. "beginning" can be understood as a point in the eternal existence of something that coincides with the beginning of time. That would constitute a fourth possibility for your list. Hubble thought that the expanding universe was eternal while every part in it had a finite beginning ("steady-state creation"). Until the Big Bang was effectively proved, that was very plausible and would have been a fifth list item.

Your reference to a "cause" suggests a mere mechanical process akin to "The Nitrogen in this sample was caused by the decay of Carbon", with no intelligence or intentionality involved. All of the other phenomena described loosely by religionists as "creation" are merely reformation of existing stuff. Even that reformation can be shown to slavishly follow rigid laws and so is not following a design or being guided by an intelligence. Even if we all settled on #3 as most plausible, we would be not an inch nearer to the god of Abraham, nor indeed, to any god at all.

Because of the Big Bang plus the known existence of things which have beginning but no cause, I think #2 is most plausible. A cause, in the sense of item #3, is an unnecessary complication that can be deleted leaving #2 again.

Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 05:06 AM   #7
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote View Post
A cause, in the sense of item #3, is an unnecessary complication that can be deleted leaving #2 again.

Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?
I disagree on the simple basis that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Therefore, something or someone must have caused the universe.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 05:11 AM   #8
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
I disagree on the simple basis that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.
Who are you, Billy Preston? This is an assertion, not a basis. Before you assert, define: what is "nothing"?

Quote:
Therefore, something or someone must have caused the universe.
No. Therefore you are still full of number two.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 06:06 AM   #9
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote View Post
This is an assertion, not a basis. Before you assert, define: what is "nothing"?
.
nothing is the absence of any thing. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Thats logic.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 06:37 AM   #10
Philboid Studge
Organ Donator
 
Philboid Studge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Beastly Muck
Posts: 13,136
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
nothing is the absence of any thing. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Thats logic.
No, thats [sic] an ass-ertion, a.k.a "logic" yanked from one's ass.

However, if everything came from God, then God herself must be "the absence of any thing." Argyle, God is nothing. Ipso fatso, God does not exist and we are in accord.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La propriété, c'est le vol ...
Philboid Studge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 05:28 AM   #11
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
I disagree on the simple basis that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Therefore, something or someone must have caused the universe.
Someone or something must exist or it cannot "cause" anything. You are making a completely unfounded assumption by calling a cause "someone" and you are making an invalid implicit assumption that "cause" is the same as "creates from nothing". Your other mistake is assuming that there is a time or place where "absolutely nothing" exists. "Nothing" is locally unstable and material is appearing and disappearing without a cause, all the time.

Your simple basis is simply and demonstrably incorrect.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 06:09 AM   #12
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote View Post
"Nothing" is locally unstable .
how can nothing be unstable, if it is the absence of any thing ?
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 09:37 AM   #13
Sternwallow
I Live Here
 
Sternwallow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
how can nothing be unstable, if it is the absence of any thing ?
It is unstable because it is unbalanced and it spontaneously collapses into stuff, non-nothingness. This is the quantum foam, stuff appearing where nothing state fails.

You may have heard the question "why is there something rather than nothing?". The simple answer is that something, not nothing, is the default or natural state. Nothingness is incapable of sustaining itself for long periods.

You (and I) imagine that the universe consists of a LOT!!! of stuff so it must have required tremendous effort to create. It turns out that the sum of the energy in the universe (including the energy bound up in particles and the negative energy) is dead-on zero.

The creator or cause of the universe that you so ardently seek, may be as feeble as the heat from a single match or even less. Therefore, even if there was a "cause" for the universe, that cause does not need to be either powerful or intelligent. Need I mention that it would not have any sort of personality or person-hood?

How can all of this have come from nothing? All of this is nothing that has temporarily decomposed.

"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
Sternwallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 09:54 AM   #14
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,923
Quote:
Godlovesyou wrote View Post
I disagree on the simple basis that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Therefore, something or someone must have caused the universe.
And what caused your magically delicious imaginary friend to exist, blood drinker?

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 11:07 AM   #15
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
ghoulslime wrote View Post
And what caused your magically delicious imaginary friend to exist, blood drinker?
permit to cite from my personal virtual library :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...ed-god-t77.htm

The question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:01 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational