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, 04:53 AM   #4
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, 04:56 AM   #5
Kate
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
 
Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428

"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Kate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 05:06 AM   #6
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   #7
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, 05:17 AM   #8
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, 05:28 AM   #9
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, 06:06 AM   #10
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, 06:08 AM   #11
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, 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, 06:37 AM   #13
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, 06:50 AM   #14
Godlovesyou
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 108
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote View Post
No, thats [sic] an ass-ertion, a.k.a "logic" yanked from one's ass.
well, if you are have not the ability to think logically and reasonably, i cannot help you. Your vocabulary doesnt help your case either. You deserve my simpathy.
Godlovesyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 07:50 AM   #15
Victus
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
My understanding is that the big bang wasn't matter expanding into space-time, but space-time itself expanding from a singularity. If this is the case, then asking what caused the singularity is problematic. The entire concept of "before", and by extension cause and effect relationships, are meaningless in the context of this singularity.

That is, the existance of the universe doesn't need a cause, and if it does, there's no way for us to know what that cause was.

"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
Victus 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 11:41 AM.


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