Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What do you think

Options
  • 19-05-2008 10:09pm
    #1
    ronbyrne2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,494 ✭✭✭


    What do you think caused the universe or do you think it always existed in one form or another?
    Where do you think all the energy/matter came from?
    How do you think the apparent "arrow of time " arose?
    Why do you think matter came about and can be changed into almost inifite number of elements, chemicals etc and why did it start forming more complexity and eventually become self reproducing anf form life ? Where does enthrophy fit in here.
    What variables occured at origin of current universe to allow for universe to operate in an apparent probablistic fashion?
    Do you think logic is a human abstraction and can not be applied to the creation/existence of this universe.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    Why are you asking these questions in A&A?


  • Options
    #3
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,425 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    ronbyrne2005 wrote: »
    What do you think caused the universe or do you think it always existed in one form or another?
    I don't know if something caused the universe, it probably just existed forever. (yes that's unsatisfactory, but the theistic argument makes even less sense. If someone comes up with a better explanation, i'll review my position
    Where do you think all the energy/matter came from?
    If it always existed then it didn't come from anywhere. Where did god come from?
    How do you think the apparent "arrow of time " arose?
    Time is just what stops everything happening at once
    Why do you think matter came about and can be changed into almost inifite number of elements, chemicals etc and why did it start forming more complexity and eventually become self reproducing anf form life ? Where does enthrophy fit in here.
    Given enough time, everything that is possible (with a probability of greater than zero) will eventually happen. There are only a small number of elements (around 117 at last count) but if you take a large quantity of 117 different parts of anything, you'll be able to make some pretty spectacular things. (I'd love to have 117 different kinds of lego blocks to play with, that would be awesome)
    What variables occured at origin of current universe to allow for universe to operate in an apparent probablistic fashion?
    What other way could it operate? Divine will? which is more plausible? Probability, or a infinitely complex sentient being magicing everything with it's invisible brain.?
    Do you think logic is a human abstraction and can not be applied to the creation/existence of this universe.
    logic is a form of maths. (in its purest sense) Logic and maths are two devices we have come up with to explain the universe. Its possible that quantum theory might add a new dimension to logic/maths. It might be possible that something could be both a triangle and a square at the same time, but I think I'll wait for more evidence before I make up my mind.

    I do know that maths and logic explain so much more than religion ever has. (when we send a rocket into space, who would you rather in mission control, a priest, or a mathematician?)


  • Options
    #4
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    eoin5 wrote: »
    Why are you asking these questions in A&A?
    Isn't it one of the first things a theist will ask you if you dispute that God created us?

    Frankly though, I don't know enough physics/chemistry to even attempt to get my head around it. I can name some ways stuff didn't happen, but that doesn't take a PhD.


  • Options
    #5
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    ronbyrne2005 wrote: »
    What do you think caused the universe or do you think it always existed in one form or another?
    Where do you think all the energy/matter came from?
    How do you think the apparent "arrow of time " arose?
    Why do you think matter came about and can be changed into almost inifite number of elements, chemicals etc and why did it start forming more complexity and eventually become self reproducing anf form life ? Where does enthrophy fit in here.
    What variables occured at origin of current universe to allow for universe to operate in an apparent probablistic fashion?
    Do you think logic is a human abstraction and can not be applied to the creation/existence of this universe.

    What do you think, OP?

    I think I don't really know all that much about physics, but if you check out the large hadron collider video I posted I kinda think that sounds right.

    I would argue as much as I know that logic is the ultimiate in intuitiveness, ultimately logic comes down to 0 and 1.


  • Options
    #6
    Fremen
    Registered Users Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    This is pretty much just a list of the big open problems in science.
    If you want to be scientific about it, there's not really any point in answering a "what do you think?" kind of question. There's very little scope for personal opinion here, unless you want to get into metaphysics and/or nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    Ok so, I'll try my best. These questions are mostly philosophical ones and are good exercises for the mind.

    Allow me to generalise "Where do you think all the energy/matter came from?" to "Where did everything come from?". Its an infinite loop in that if everything came from somewhere then that place must have came from someplace too. The only way to stop is to say that something can come from nothing. So your choices are it either existed forever or something can come out of nothing.

    Time is an interesting one in that its not the same everywhere, for example at the quantum level or at very fast speeds. I think theres some advances to be made in our understanding of time so I'm going to hold out on that one before I go philosophical on it.

    About the formation of the universe theres only one man to point to, Carl Sagan. Theres some great youtube videos of him talking about the Cosmos.


  • Options
    #8
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Excellant questions each one easily have a thread of its own though. I'll give some of them my (limited) understanding of them :). Just from a science point of view of course.
    ronbyrne2005 wrote: »
    What do you think caused the universe or do you think it always existed in one form or another?

    Where do you think all the energy/matter came from?

    These two are related so I'll field them together.

    There are a few Cosmic inflationary theories about (the successors of the big bang model) suggest that the Universe had a beginning and could potentially have arisen from very little matter or possibly even out of nothing at all.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221093222.htm
    ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

    How do you think the apparent "arrow of time " arose?

    The laws of phyics such as quantum, relativity etc do not seem to favour one direction of time over the other and so do not define the arrow of time.

    One theory that I happen to like is that the universe started off in a state of low entropy and enthropy (disorder) has been increasing ever since. If you view time as ensuring that change doesn't happen all at once, and add in the fact that it is much easier to go from a state of low enthropy to high then this gives a nice possible explaination for direction of times arrow. I must stress that this is by no means an accepted fact but is one of the leading theories. How time works and interacts with the universe is a big question in modern physics.
    Why do you think matter came about and can be changed into almost inifite number of elements, chemicals etc and why did it start forming more complexity and eventually become self reproducing anf form life ? Where does enthrophy fit in here.

    All matter came from the creation of the universe. In the beginning there was just hydrogen and helium, other heavier elements such as carbon, iron etc were formed much later by activity in stars and galaxies. There is not an infinate number of elements because not all atom configurations (especially heavier ones) are stable.

    All I know about chemistry is that certain types of atoms tend to group together to form stable molecules. As for increasing complexity and replications the chemical origins of life is not an area I know much about TBH.

    What variables occured at origin of current universe to allow for universe to operate in an apparent probablistic fashion?

    I don't have a an answer for this one what do you mean probablistic?
    Do you think logic is a human abstraction and can not be applied to the creation/existence of this universe.

    I think we can try and understand how it works and have made great strides so far, whether we will ever get all the way there who knows. I doubt I will be around by then (And I'm a fairly young one still)


  • Options
    #9
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    So it seems atheism is a leap of faith afterall. It seems if you are being logical, reasonable and all the other explaintives you usually attribute to yourselves that to say you are atheist has no foundations. Unless you count faith as a foundation?


  • Options
    #10
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So it seems atheism is a leap of faith afterall. It seems if you are being logical, reasonable and all the other explaintives you usually attribute to yourselves that to say you are atheist has no foundations. Unless you count faith as a foundation?

    It's no leap at all to say "I don't know." An atheist simply doesn't have to make up a god to explain what they dont understand.


  • Options
    #11
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    SDooM wrote: »
    It's no leap at all to say "I don't know." An atheist simply doesn't have to make up a god to explain what they dont understand.

    'Don't know' is not atheist. 'Atheist' says that you do know that there is defo no higher power.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JimiTime wrote: »
    'Don't know' is not atheist. 'Atheist' says that you do know that there is defo no higher power.

    They say there's no evidence one exists, and until that changes, they have no reason to believe in it.


  • Options
    #13
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So it seems atheism is a leap of faith afterall. It seems if you are being logical, reasonable and all the other explaintives you usually attribute to yourselves that to say you are atheist has no foundations. Unless you count faith as a foundation?

    You seem to be confusing an atheist with a scientist.

    Any atheist is simply someone does not believe in Gods existance. How that belief was attained is neither here or there. An atheist is not to prove god doesn't exist.
    SDooM wrote: »
    They say there's no evidence one exists, and until that changes, they have no reason to believe in it.

    What he said basically.


  • Options
    #14
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    marco_polo wrote: »
    You seem to be confusing an atheist with a scientist.

    Any atheist is simply someone does not believe in Gods existance. How that belief was attained is neither here or there.

    No confusion. Thing is, most atheists I've come across believe they are logical etc. They usually believe the theist is a deluded fool etc. The word science is usually not too far away when they explain why they are atheists. Even though, science has absolutely nothing to do with holding an atheistic position.


  • Options
    #15
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    SDooM wrote: »
    They say there's no evidence one exists, and until that changes, they have no reason to believe in it.

    Fine, but going from the position above to being atheist, is a leap of faith. Irreligious, Agnostic, Don't think about it, i can understand. Atheist, is saying a higher power does not exist. That certainly is not 'I don't know'.


  • Options
    #16
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,425 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    JimiTime wrote: »
    'Don't know' is not atheist. 'Atheist' says that you do know that there is defo no higher power.
    no, atheist means you don't believe in a deity. Its not about lack of belief, it's about not believing the evidence.

    We're all atheist in regard to faeries and leprechauns. I don't believe in 'little people' but if a faerie appeared before me and started doing crazy tricks then I would definitely re-evaluate my position (or my sanity)


  • Options
    #17
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    JimiTime wrote: »
    No confusion. Thing is, most atheists I've come across believe they are logical etc. They usually believe the theist is a deluded fool etc. The word science is usually not too far away when they explain why they are atheists. Even though, science has absolutely nothing to do with holding an atheistic position.

    I would have to agree that pure science has nothing to say about any particlular religious stance.

    However you cannot ignore that as science does not require any divine entity this will obviously make it attractive to the atheist position and unplesant to a small minority of fundamentalist theists. The majority of the rest either have no strong opinion on the matter or don't really care.


  • Options
    #18
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Fine, but going from the position above to being atheist, is a leap of faith. Irreligious, Agnostic, Don't think about it, i can understand. Atheist, is saying a higher power does not exist. That certainly is not 'I don't know'.

    Once again- Atheists are not necessarily saying a god doesn't exist- they just say that no evidence has ever been provided of one, and until that day they have no reason to. This is different from just saying "there is no god."

    Indeed this is analagous to scientific theory, in which everything which is repeatable through science is still held as a theory, until disproven by another.


  • Options
    #19
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Akrasia wrote: »
    no, atheist means you don't believe in a deity. Its not about lack of belief, it's about not believing the evidence.

    We're all atheist in regard to faeries and leprechauns. I don't believe in 'little people' but if a faerie appeared before me and started doing crazy tricks then I would definitely re-evaluate my position (or my sanity)

    It still means Atheism is a leap of Faith. Its not knowledge, or based on evidence. But rather than saying, 'I don't know', the definite postion of 'I don't believe' is taken.


  • Options
    #20
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JimiTime wrote: »
    It still means Atheism is a leap of Faith. Its not knowledge, or based on evidence. But rather than saying, 'I don't know', the definite postion of 'I don't believe' is taken.

    It's based on the lack of evidence of the contrary position. There is no evidence for a tea pot orbiting the earth, so why would you believe that, etc, etc.


  • Options
    #21
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    marco_polo wrote: »
    I would have to agree that pure science has nothing to say about any particlular religious stance.

    'Pure science'? Would I be right in assuming that you just mean 'science', or does 'pure' describe something else?
    However you cannot ignore that as science does not require any divine entity

    what does that mean though? Science is nothing to do with divine entities, gods etc. Its not about not needing them, its got absolutely nothing to do with them unless they are part of the natural world and can be measured by the scientific method.
    this will obviously make it attractive to the atheist position

    Thats the bit that confuses though. it doesn't really do anything to the atheist position.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    SDooM wrote: »
    It's based on the lack of evidence of the contrary position. There is no evidence for a tea pot orbiting the earth, so why would you believe that, etc, etc.

    Ok so, you believe that a God could exist then?


  • Options
    #23
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Ok so, you believe that a God could exist then?

    It's an infinite universe. :) I guess a god could exist, despite all current evidence being to the contrary.


    EDIT: TBH, I would love magic to exist in this world, but because I wish it was true doesn't make it so.


  • Options
    #24
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    JimiTime wrote: »
    It still means Atheism is a leap of Faith. Its not knowledge, or based on evidence. But rather than saying, 'I don't know', the definite postion of 'I don't believe' is taken.

    It is the opposite of a leap of faith. If you are defining an atheist as someone who would absolute reject God in spite of the appearance of irrefutable evidence of Gods existance then I would have to disagree with you.

    But by saying that I open up a long and never ending circular argument over wordplay so I'll just leave my say at that ;).


  • Options
    #25
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    SDooM wrote: »
    It's an infinite universe. :) I guess a god could exist, despite all current evidence being to the contrary.

    Evidence to the contrary? I understand when you say there is a lack of evidence for god, but actually evidence to the contrary?


  • Options
    #26
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    marco_polo wrote: »
    It is the opposite of a leap of faith. If you are defining an atheist as someone who would absolute reject God in spite of the appearance of irrefutable evidence of Gods existance then I would have to disagree with you.

    But by saying that I open up a long and never ending circular argument over wordplay so I'll just leave my say at that ;).

    No bother, Time for me bed anyway Yawn:) Nighty night.


  • Options
    #27
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Evidence to the contrary? I understand when you say there is a lack of evidence for god, but actually evidence to the contrary?

    Well in specific cases the fact that certain gods seem to have desires and wants mapped by the people who wrote their holy books which are supposed to be their immutable words counts against them somewhat for me.


  • Options
    #28
    ronbyrne2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,494 ✭✭✭ronbyrne2005


    I'm just interested in hearing peoples views on these big unknowns. I have never and can't ever see myself beleiving in the mythical nonsense the organised religions spout. I just am a naturally anxious person and feel anxious about all these things most days. I question everything nowadays and don't know what to think about my existence in this universe. "How can intelligence and self awareness arise from otherwise inanimate matter?" "how does gravitation really work" "maybe my existence is an illusion a la the matrix" "what is time" "what is self?" "why are the billions of variables required for life/space/time etc just right(fine tuned universe etc)" " is there something sinister behind the true origins/nature of life/universe"
    I know the standard responses given by cosmologists,scientists etc but want to know individuals think based on their reading/watching of philosophical/scientific material on the issues. I feel I can only "beleive" in the phenomena I experience during my life and on what is widely established scientific fact but even at that science is constantly discovering new things about everything so that I am starting to think all i can base my existence on is what I experience phenomenologically during my life.


  • Options
    #29
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    JimiTime wrote: »
    'Pure science'? Would I be right in assuming that you just mean 'science', or does 'pure' describe something else?

    By pure I meant simply meant the pursuit and evaluation of cold hard experimental data. Not to any subsequent interpretation by non scientists.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    what does that mean though? Science is nothing to do with divine entities, gods etc. Its not about not needing them, its got absolutely nothing to do with them unless they are part of the natural world and can be measured by the scientific method.

    Thats the bit that confuses though. it doesn't really do anything to the atheist position.

    The rest can wait til tommorrow


  • Options
    #30
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    ronbyrne2005 wrote: »
    I'm just interested in hearing peoples views on these big unknowns. I have never and can't ever see myself beleiving in the mythical nonsense the organised religions spout. I just am a naturally anxious person and feel anxious about all these things most days. I question everything nowadays and don't know what to think about my existence in this universe. "How can intelligence and self awareness arise from otherwise inanimate matter?" "how does gravitation really work" "maybe my existence is an illusion a la the matrix" "what is time" "what is self?" "why are the billions of variables required for life/space/time etc just right(fine tuned universe etc)" " is there something sinister behind the true origins/nature of life/universe"
    I know the standard responses given by cosmologists,scientists etc but want to know individuals think based on their reading/watching of philosophical/scientific material on the issues. I feel I can only "beleive" in the phenomena I experience during my life and on what is widely established scientific fact but even at that science is constantly discovering new things about everything so that I am starting to think all i can base my existence on is what I experience phenomenologically during my life.

    There is no doubt that it is extremely difficult to abrest of modern science, even for most professional ones. However I don't think there is anything sinister about the universe, but there is no denying that it is a strange place (and I personally think wonderfully elegant).

    I suppose an atheist would say make the best of the life now, a theist would say wait untill you see the next one (once you are good of course :) ).

    Best advice would be to get a few good books and draw to your own conclusions (If only to take a rest from thinking about everything so much :D).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    JimiTime wrote: »
    It still means Atheism is a leap of Faith.

    The atheist position is a rejection of the sort of leaps of faith that are necessary to believe in a god for which there is no evidence. No atheist that I know of has ever said 'there is no god' and you are being deliberatelty disingenuous in suggesting that. I simply don't believe in things without there being some evidence, and the evidence for the type of god that your average churchgoer believes in is non-existent. Yes there could be a god or gods of some kind, but I'll bet you all of eternity that he/it is not listening to your prayers, and certainly not acting on them to make the rains come or cure Auntie Mary's lung cancer. It's spectacularly naieve to think that an incredibly advanced supernatural entity would need a bunch of animals on a small planet in the middle of nowhere to gather on a weekly basis and chant obscure mutterings in some kind of praise/ego boost to the poor lonely creator of universes.


Advertisement