Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 5:30 am
"How did a Universe come from nothing? If not nothing - then what? Explain the rise of the Universe without implying a supernatural agent of some kind."
The thing is - you have the universe coming from nothing a much as we do. "God did it" doesn't address the question of how God made something from nothing.
Basically you are arguing for God did magic and made the universe.
As everything we know of that was previously ascribed to magic and has since been explained by science has never proved to be magic this is just another God of the gaps argument.
We don't know how the universe started or from what. That doesn't mean magic is the answer - particularly as it has never been before for any unanswered question.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Posts: 1272
Threads: 3
Joined: July 29, 2012
Reputation:
7
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 6:35 am
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2013 at 6:38 am by Lion IRC.)
(November 8, 2013 at 5:30 am)max-greece Wrote: "How did a Universe come from nothing? If not nothing - then what? Explain the rise of the Universe without implying a supernatural agent of some kind."
The thing is - you have the universe coming from nothing a much as we do.
True.
Quote:"God did it" doesn't address the question of how God made something from nothing.
It's a good start wouldn't you say?
It's a firm claim. It's corroborated by the testimony of a gazillion biblical theists.
Quote:...Basically you are arguing for God did magic and made the universe.
Define magic. Dark Energy?
You know what Genesis says. It's just a simple 4 words. Nothing contentious.
" In the beginning God..."
Quote:...As everything we know of that was previously ascribed to magic...[God] has since been explained by science...
Has it? Why are there still "gaps"?
Quote:... this is just another God of the gaps argument.
What gaps?
Quote:..We don't know how the universe started or from what. That doesn't mean magic is the answer - particularly as it has never been before for any unanswered question.
How is atheistic...'we don't know', better than theistic...'we think we DO know'
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 6:40 am
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2013 at 6:41 am by Esquilax.)
(November 8, 2013 at 6:35 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How is atheistic...'we don't know', better than theistic...'we think we DO know'
Because if you don't have an answer, pretending that you do doesn't get you anywhere near determining the truth, and as plenty of creamed data and fallacious theistic arguments have shown, there are plenty on your side for whom the facts are worthless, assuming they get in the way of the conclusion you think we should all already have come to.
Question: why are you so desperate to have an answer, without having all the facts? Why is any answer, so long as it's firm, beat out an honest admission of temporary ignorance? Do you care about being correct, or do you just care about having an answer to avoid saying that you don't know?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 1272
Threads: 3
Joined: July 29, 2012
Reputation:
7
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 6:44 am
I have all the facts I need.
Thanks for asking.
Posts: 2177
Threads: 45
Joined: June 5, 2013
Reputation:
39
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 6:44 am
"It's a good start wouldn't you say?"
Not really, no. Its an opening assumption that could be wrong. If it is wrong then everything you deduce from that point will be wrong.
"It's a firm claim. It's corroborated by the testimony of a gazillion biblical theists."
None of whom actually know. Are we establishing the value of a claim by its popularity now?
"How is atheistic...'we don't know', better than theistic...'we think we DO know'"
Well the first answer is honest and the second rarely includes the word "think."
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 6:46 am
(November 8, 2013 at 6:35 am)Lion IRC Wrote: How is atheistic...'we don't know', better than theistic...'we think we DO know'
![[Image: 20131031.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.smbc-comics.com%2Fcomics%2F20131031.png)
Quote:I have all the facts I need.
Thanks for asking.
You have all the beliefs that you want to have. Facts are demonstrable, and you can't demonstrate shit.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 18503
Threads: 79
Joined: May 29, 2010
Reputation:
125
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 6:46 am
Here is something that came from nothing: The idea of gods.
Posts: 1152
Threads: 42
Joined: July 8, 2013
Reputation:
23
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 11:13 am
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2013 at 11:15 am by MindForgedManacle.)
(November 8, 2013 at 2:34 am)Jesus is Lord Wrote: Anthropocentrism is not escapable. Athiests and theists alike view the world through filters. The criticism of anthropocentrism is like one fish calling another fish wet. The question is - how does a universe which all physicists would agree is deeply ordered, begin from nothing? If it did not begin from nothing, explain what preceeded it without invoking anything supernatural.
No, it's escapable so long as you realize that when physicists talk of 'laws', they don't mean prescriptive dictates, rather than just descriptions of how things behave under certain conditions.
And of course, you "conveniently" ignored my explicitly non-supernatural account of the origin of the universe. Dishonest much?
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 8, 2013 at 11:25 am
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2013 at 11:26 am by Faith No More.)
(November 8, 2013 at 2:34 am)Jesus is Lord Wrote: Anthropocentrism is not escapable. Athiests and theists alike view the world through filters. The criticism of anthropocentrism is like one fish calling another fish wet.
Yes, an anthropocentric viewpoint is inescapable. The criticism comes when one side embraces it, rather than making an attempt to minimize it.
(November 8, 2013 at 2:34 am)Jesus is Lord Wrote: The question is - how does a universe which all physicists would agree is deeply ordered, begin from nothing? If it did not begin from nothing, explain what preceeded it without invoking anything supernatural.
First you must explain to me how something can precede something else when time does not exist.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 10
Threads: 1
Joined: November 6, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: Universe from Nothing?
November 9, 2013 at 10:30 pm
(November 8, 2013 at 11:13 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: (November 8, 2013 at 2:34 am)Jesus is Lord Wrote: Anthropocentrism is not escapable. Athiests and theists alike view the world through filters. The criticism of anthropocentrism is like one fish calling another fish wet. The question is - how does a universe which all physicists would agree is deeply ordered, begin from nothing? If it did not begin from nothing, explain what preceeded it without invoking anything supernatural. No, it's escapable so long as you realize that when physicists talk of 'laws', they don't mean prescriptive dictates, rather than just descriptions of how things behave under certain conditions. [/quote]
"...how things behave under certain conditions" is not the same thing as "how things behaved under a given condition." The kind of science we practice is fundamentally predictive in nature. "how things behave under certain conditions" is predictive generalization. It reflects inherent order in the universe.
[/quote]
And of course, you "conveniently" ignored my explicitly non-supernatural account of the origin of the universe. Dishonest much?
[/quote]
----You were one of the only people who actually tried to answer my original question - thank you for bringing up your answer again, and I apologize for skimming.
How does subscribing to the B-theory allow the universe to exist any more than A-theory? Since you choose an a-temporal stance, the question must be rephrased for you:
"Why is there a universe, rather than nothing?"
If we ascribe temporal dimensions to objects as though they were physical dimensions inherent to the object, then your view of the universe would require all things to have infinite temporal dimensions. How would you avoid this? It must be avoided, as all the finite elements of the universe that we can actually study do not have unlimited temporal dimensions.
|
