Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Underlying Presuppositions
Collapse
X
-
Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostWhy do you think it has to be explained?
You are saying: "Either the universe (or all that exists) is self existent or there is a source outside that brought it into existence. The choice is yours and is entirely personal preference, since there can be no evidence." I don't suppose you think that is an answer to the question. It rather seems to stress the point that satisfying answer can be given, though perhaps more options than you point to should be taken into consideration. You actually rather seem to point to why seer will not be able to answer the question in a satisfying way. He might be able to make a claim, and he might point to no definite certainty in this area and then forget that this would also undermine his own claims.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostEither the universe (or all that exists) is self existent or there is a source outside that brought it into existence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostI am the one who said, "Why do you think it has to be explained?" There is no evidence scientific evidence possible so while you can say "I don't know" at least in that sense. Many of us have a different view and our (my) beliefs are at least as sound as those that say there is no God.
As for your beliefs being "sound," when one posits an omnipotent, eternal, omniscient being, the only thing that is rendered impossible is the logically impossible. So of course your beliefs are "sound" from a logical point of view. The question is whether there is adequate evidence on which to base a belief in such a being. I say "no." I presume you say "yes." That difference is based on how we intepret the available evidence. Neither position is irrational, IMO. One of them is clearly wrong, and each of us thinks it is the other.
Such is life...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostIt is clear to me that there is inadequate scientific evidence to make statements about origins. I cannot agree what there is "no evidence scientific evidence possible." Our sciences have pushed to realms of the small and distantly past in ways that would have been seen as "impossible" only a century ago. The tools we build to make these investigations continue to improve, and people keep coming up with new ways to investigate things we were not able to investigate before. So our scientific progress is itself evidence that peering into these realms is at least possible, though we do not know how to do it today.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by crepuscule View PostI wouldn't define the universe as 'all that exists' (if it were, there can be nothing outside). But i'd like to point out that neither a self-existent universe nor a caused one in itself poses a problem for atheism.
A caused existence may not be a problem for you personally. It does leave open the question of what that cause might be.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThere can be no scientific evidence for what is not a part of the universal system. You can only, perhaps, make guesses based on what you see inside the system.
The problem with "everything that exists" as the definition of "universe" is that "other "universes (which physics speculates about) become meaningless. If they exist, they are part of THIS universe by definition. Indeed, the definition "all that exists" is so broad, god becomes part of the universe.
If "the universe" is all matter/energy within this space/time continuum, the definition allows for the possible existence of other universes, and other "things" out there. It also allows for the possibility that we might be able to find ways to study, perhaps even connect to, these other realities/universes.
Today, that is the stuff of science fiction. We do not even know if these "other universes" exist, can be reached, or can be studied.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostMaybe. I think the problem lies with the definition of "universe" as "everything that exists," if I have interpreted your earlier post correctly. I think most physicists use this as their definition: "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."
The problem with "everything that exists" as the definition of "universe" is that "other "universes (which physics speculates about) become meaningless. If they exist, they are part of THIS universe by definition. Indeed, the definition "all that exists" is so broad, god becomes part of the universe.
If "the universe" is all matter/energy within this space/time continuum, the definition allows for the possible existence of other universes, and other "things" out there. It also allows for the possibility that we might be able to find ways to study, perhaps even connect to, these other realities/universes.
Today, that is the stuff of science fiction. We do not even know if these "other universes" exist, can be reached, or can be studied.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostI do not have the language to deal with what is the universe. My intention is to include the "mystical" pregnant void that gives rise to all these other speculated universes out there. This would include not just our known universe. Is there a word for that? I just say all that is. This would not include the God who created the whole thing. My point is to include all that is as part of the creation. Tickling the words does not speak to any of this.
For the record, I love the phrase "mystical pregnant void." It is marvelously visual, and even aligns with one proposition from Lawrence Krauss: that "nothing" is one of the most unstable states possible, and always gives rise to "something." Frankly, the entire idea boggles my mind, but there is apparently at least some evidence (or possiblility) that pure nothingness must give rise to "something." There is a youtube recording of a lecture by him here. These things are just so darned cool! I wish I was that smart/knowledgeable.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYour choice of words suggests a pre-existing bias: when we call it "creation," we assume a "creator." "Universe" is the accepted word, AFAIK, for all that we KNOW exists. I do not know of a word for all of the potential universes/realities that COULD exist. As far as I know, these are still largely fodder for mathematical and physics speculation.
For the record, I love the phrase "mystical pregnant void." It is marvelously visual, and even aligns with one proposition from Lawrence Krauss: that "nothing" is one of the most unstable states possible, and always gives rise to "something." Frankly, the entire idea boggles my mind, but there is apparently at least some evidence (or possiblility) that pure nothingness must give rise to "something." There is a youtube recording of a lecture by him here. These things are just so darned cool! I wish I was that smart/knowledgeable.
ETA: "I wish I was that smart/knowledgeable. " Me too.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYour choice of words suggests a pre-existing bias: when we call it "creation," we assume a "creator." "Universe" is the accepted word, AFAIK, for all that we KNOW exists. I do not know of a word for all of the potential universes/realities that COULD exist. As far as I know, these are still largely fodder for mathematical and physics speculation.
For the record, I love the phrase "mystical pregnant void." It is marvelously visual, and even aligns with one proposition from Lawrence Krauss: that "nothing" is one of the most unstable states possible, and always gives rise to "something." Frankly, the entire idea boggles my mind, but there is apparently at least some evidence (or possiblility) that pure nothingness must give rise to "something." There is a youtube recording of a lecture by him here. These things are just so darned cool! I wish I was that smart/knowledgeable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIn case you weren't aware, Krauss' theory of "nothing" has been almost universally panned by philosophers (and even a number of fellow cosmologists). What Krauss has in mind when he talks of "nothing" is empty space...but that's not what philosophers mean when they refer to "nothing". What they mean by "nothing" is not a quantum vacuum, not empty space, but not anything.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostSo? In science there is no multiverse either. What's your point?
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
404 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
310 responses
1,389 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 11:50 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
227 responses
1,105 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment