RE: "That's not nothing"
May 16, 2014 at 11:43 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2014 at 11:48 pm by Freedom of thought.)
I like this thread, its been 4 pages, and we've talked about nothing very successfully.
Joking aside, can we just conclude that something can come into existence without a cause? Sure, it probably isn't from absolute nothing, but its plausible from what we understand of the laws of physics, that a universe can appear where a universe once was not, and thus we don't need to propose a cause. Since this 'quantum foam' stuff existed preceded the universe, there was always something, but maybe preceding is a poor phrase, because time might have came into existence with the energy in the universe as a result of entropy (see the arrow of time). If you want to interpret this a cause, this could be considered a material cause of the universe (if you insist quantum events still obey causation). We have a past finite universe, with a beginning to it, and its completely plausible according to science; And that is what we should be celebrating, as Krauss put it. We non believers are closer to god than any theist is, because we are getting closer and closer to understand the 'mind of god' through science, like how the universe got here, while a theist can only put fingers in their ears trying to cover up this science, or trying to find ways to get around it. Theism is a way to avoid growing up, avoid learning, and avoid having to deal with death. Atheism/naturalism is about facing up to these obvious facts, accepting reality for how it is, and embracing the absurdity that is life.
But if you think about it, no one really thinks the universe can come from absolute nothing... When theists say the universe came from nothing, they are not saying god made it from nothing, but god created the universe, thus the universe really did come from something (god). When atheists say the universe came from nothing, they are not saying the universe was made from nothing either, but from the laws of physics producing the universe or some sort of pre-existing material like a vacuum. Something had to have always existed, and we're taking the simpler route by assuming some physical substrate always existed. God is therefore superfluous. Its enough to assume a physical reality, but to assume on top of that an extra supernatural reality is unfounded, and definitely violates Occam's Razor. Why assume god has all these sorts of rationalized justifications as to why he permits evil/suffering, when its simpler to assume no such being exists? Why assume morals can only come from god, when its simpler to assume that morals are just a human creation? Why assume all this unnecessary bullshit, when we can just claim no such thing exists? Apologetics from people like WLC are so convoluted to the point it loses meaning, and they do logical backflips through hoops just to mend obvious inconsistencies; Why do that when you can just say no such being exists? God really is superfluous, and people will go through extreme lengths just to save their comfort blanket in their existential storm. With enough time, and enough hard work, any inconsistency can be rationalized, and apologists demonstrate that every day.
Joking aside, can we just conclude that something can come into existence without a cause? Sure, it probably isn't from absolute nothing, but its plausible from what we understand of the laws of physics, that a universe can appear where a universe once was not, and thus we don't need to propose a cause. Since this 'quantum foam' stuff existed preceded the universe, there was always something, but maybe preceding is a poor phrase, because time might have came into existence with the energy in the universe as a result of entropy (see the arrow of time). If you want to interpret this a cause, this could be considered a material cause of the universe (if you insist quantum events still obey causation). We have a past finite universe, with a beginning to it, and its completely plausible according to science; And that is what we should be celebrating, as Krauss put it. We non believers are closer to god than any theist is, because we are getting closer and closer to understand the 'mind of god' through science, like how the universe got here, while a theist can only put fingers in their ears trying to cover up this science, or trying to find ways to get around it. Theism is a way to avoid growing up, avoid learning, and avoid having to deal with death. Atheism/naturalism is about facing up to these obvious facts, accepting reality for how it is, and embracing the absurdity that is life.
But if you think about it, no one really thinks the universe can come from absolute nothing... When theists say the universe came from nothing, they are not saying god made it from nothing, but god created the universe, thus the universe really did come from something (god). When atheists say the universe came from nothing, they are not saying the universe was made from nothing either, but from the laws of physics producing the universe or some sort of pre-existing material like a vacuum. Something had to have always existed, and we're taking the simpler route by assuming some physical substrate always existed. God is therefore superfluous. Its enough to assume a physical reality, but to assume on top of that an extra supernatural reality is unfounded, and definitely violates Occam's Razor. Why assume god has all these sorts of rationalized justifications as to why he permits evil/suffering, when its simpler to assume no such being exists? Why assume morals can only come from god, when its simpler to assume that morals are just a human creation? Why assume all this unnecessary bullshit, when we can just claim no such thing exists? Apologetics from people like WLC are so convoluted to the point it loses meaning, and they do logical backflips through hoops just to mend obvious inconsistencies; Why do that when you can just say no such being exists? God really is superfluous, and people will go through extreme lengths just to save their comfort blanket in their existential storm. With enough time, and enough hard work, any inconsistency can be rationalized, and apologists demonstrate that every day.
