how can we best explain our existence ?

robindch

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

[...] like me saying you claim to believe in a god.

Good point.

Actually, one of the benefits of having an abstract deity whom one must "believe in" (rather than "believe"), is that one can sidestep to a large degree the attributes of the deity concerned and hide behind the abstract idea which is more difficult to deny. In this way, it's easy to get lots of people together, each of whom thinks that all the others believe the same things as they do, and hey-presto -- instant religion!

20goto10

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you understand that from an atheist perspective the question of why the universe exists doesn't make any sense?

Maybe I still have a bit of the brain washing left in me even though I've been an atheist since about 8 or 10 years old, but I disagree that the question of why the universe exists is irrelavent. The ultimate quest surely is to find out why there is something instead of nothing? There's just so many questions to answer before we can even ask that but its still a valid question nonetheless to which nobody has an answer.

Sam Vimes

20goto10 wrote: »

Maybe I still have a bit of the brain washing left in me even though I've been an atheist since about 8 or 10 years old, but I disagree that the question of why the universe exists is irrelavent. The ultimate quest surelys just so many questions to answer before we can even ask that but its still a valid question nonetheless to which nobody has an answer.

There are two ways you can ask the question of why there's something instead of nothing (really there are lots but let's just look at two). The first way looks at natural forces and big bangs and matter and anti-matter etc, from this perspective the why is essentially synonymous with the how. But this is not the question being posed by Jakkass. He wants to go beyond this and work out the purpose behind the how, something that only makes sense if you assume that there is an intelligent being with an intelligent purpose. He's basically criticising the atheist perspective because it doesn't answer the question of why god created the universe.

Ickle Magoo

20goto10 wrote: »

Maybe I still have a bit of the brain washing left in me even though I've been an atheist since about 8 or 10 years old, but I disagree that the question of why the universe exists is irrelavent. The ultimate quest surely is to find out why there is something instead of nothing? There's just so many questions to answer before we can even ask that but its still a valid question nonetheless to which nobody has an answer.

He didn't say it was irrelevant, he said it doesn't make sense. It's like asking "why" heat evaporates water...

From an atheist perspective there is no why the universe exists - that infers causation or purpose - it just does, the question is how...

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't "excluded" these possibilities. I asked you for a fuller explanation so I can read more on it and consider it myself. That's the reason I myself said this:


I will need to take my time and read these.

But part of your belief in god was based off the idea that you couldn't imagine the Universe starting without him.
I have provided two examples, both of which are far more supported than your explanation.

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism itself is a position based on incredulity.

Oh, this should be good.
How is Atheism a position based on incredulity?

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't deny this much. I merely said it was ironic that you would mention that my argument was such given your own position.

Well 1) that isn't my position, though I sense you'll be doing a lot of word games to make it seem like it.
2) It is you postion because there is no other way to take your words.
3) It's a logical fallacy, why do you believe it's a valid argument?

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no intention in explaining why it isn't, because I haven't stated such. I recognise that I have huge difficulties in believing that things are a happy coincidence.

Then surely you understand the fact you can't understand something doesn't mean it's not so and that such a statement is the flimsiest foundation for an argument.

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained that I believe that God created the scientific laws, and through His omnipotence created all things. He started off the process of Darwinian evolution.

How did he create the scientific laws?
How do you know that he did?

Jakkass wrote: »

As for how exactly God did entirely everything, I will never know. I don't claim to know this either. What I do say is, that I find the position that there was an intelligent cause to the universe to make more sense than the conclusion that this existence is a happy coincidence.

And again I have provided you two well supported ideas (that are based on something other than "I don't see any other explanation.")

It's not a coincidence btw. I'm sure you've had the difference between you winning the lotto and anybody winning the lotto before.

Jakkass wrote: »

Like most people, I need to make sense of something before I subscribe to it. It is pretty much the same reason why many of you claim not to subscribe to Christianity.

Hold on.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for how exactly God did entirely everything, I will never know. I don't claim to know this either.

How does this work.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I mean, the reason why the universe exists not why I believe in God. One of the greatest questions of all involves, why is there something rather than nothing. It's a question that I am inclined to think of as a philosophical thinker, it's something that really cannot be ignored, at least from my perspective.

I wasn't talking about why you believe in god, i was talking about you started with the assumption that god did it and then try to reason towards it. An honest philosophical line of reasoning can only lead to that the conditions of the pre universe existence where suitable for the creation of the universe, but only someone looking for god would go onto assume that god is a required condition for making a universe.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the love of God being narcissistic, it isn't about a need. God could have easily chosen to hate His creation. The point of view that Christians would hold, isn't that God loves us because we need it, it's because God loves all creation, us included as its stewards.

Again, i didn't say this. His narcissism is evident in how he requires all of his creation to love him, and bestows unimaginable torture to those who dont.

Jakkass wrote: »

I just find it incredibly difficult that all of this, this vast universe of which we inhabit a tiny speck is merely a happy coincidence.

Reality isn't limited by your credulity. Two thousands years ago, how many would have found it hard to believe that lightning was the result of charged particles in the atmosphere interacting with each randomly, a happy coincidence, and not the anger of their god?

Jakkass wrote: »

Even rejecting the consideration of God, I believe that the universe as it stands had a beginning, and had a cause. Establishing what that cause is is another matter.

If nothing else, can you please explain why you think cause and effect even applies to the beginning of the universe, while keeping in mind that cause and effect only exist if time exist?

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, claiming that God is infinite certainly doesn't make it so. If God is finite (something I don't particularly believe in) there could be other causes. At some point there would need to be a terminating factor, an "unmoved mover" as is discussed by Aquinas, otherwise the cycle would be unfulfilled, just as I would be getting a bit frustrated after the 20th time of having my call redirected, due to the lack of a real outcome.

If we wish to claim that this unmoved mover is something other than God, I'm quite happy to listen to your views as to what it could be.

I dont claim anything about an unmoved mover as I dont claim that the way we percieve reality (linear time dependent cause-and-effect) applies to the creating of the universe (as linear time was created with the creation of our universe). You are trying to bring in a strawman, which you have been told many times doesn't apply.

Sam Vimes

King Mob wrote: »

Hold on.

How does this work.

As far as I can see you invoke god to answer the question of why and then you don't have to bother with the question of how. You don't actually have to be able to explain anything, you say that it was done by an infinitely complex and incomprehensible being and leave it at that. That's why the answer is so superficially satisfying.

mewso

You got me thinking and while pondering your interesting ideas I discovered a hidden message in the text.

Jireh777 wrote: »

A well-known scientist, a very decorated scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. In his scientific career he had become noted for one great discovery, it was a categorical contribution that he made. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Nothing exists outside of those categories. That was a very astute discovery and didn't come until the nineteenth century.

Now think about that. Spencer even listed them in that order...time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

recedite

20goto10 wrote: »

The ultimate quest surely is to find out why there is something instead of nothing? There's just so many questions to answer before we can even ask that but its still a valid question nonetheless to which nobody has an answer.

I may not be a physicist or a mathematician, but the general concept is this;
If you have zero, you can make something of it; +1 and -1
Also +2 and -2 etc....
Thus every particle has its opposite, and all matter is shadowed by corresponding antimatter. The search for the infamous Higgs bosun particle at the Hadron collider is connected with this theory.
As for the "Why?"; things can happen at subatomic level at random which can lead to much larger effects at our scale; its the old "butterfly landing on the other side of the world" concept.

Valmont

Stephen Hawking's new program Universe is a great two hour look at the formation of the universe and how life itself might have developed. I must admit, I'm more confused now than I was before I had seen it. I suppose Carl Sagan's Cosmos is the next logical step?

Nemi

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't claim to know this either. What I do say is, that I find the position that there was an intelligent cause to the universe to make more sense than the conclusion that this existence is a happy coincidence.

I'd have thought that this argument was settled by David Hume quite a while ago. I mean, clearly you can choose to believe in a god, and there is no reason why you shouldn't. But I don't think you can justify it as making more sense.

As Hume points out, if we posit that a god created the universe, all we can infer from that is that a god capable of producing the reality we know exists. If we feel reality is a little bit crap, then the only god you can infer exists is a god who makes a world that's a little bit crap. The whole omnipotent, omnisient business is beyond human experience. So you can choose to believe it. But you cannot claim that it makes more sense to belief it.

Now, this is quite a different question to whether you find believing does all kinds of good things to your life. And, if that is your experience, then clearly you should believe. And that makes sense, as to disbelieve would deprive you of those good things. But, I'm afraid, there is no way in which the idea of a supreme divine creator makes more sense than some mechanical process creator.

stevejazzx

recedite wrote: »

I may not be a physicist or a mathematician, but the general concept is this;
If you have zero, you can make something of it; +1 and -1
Also +2 and -2 etc....
Thus every particle has its opposite, and all matter is shadowed by corresponding antimatter. The search for the infamous Higgs bosun particle at the Hadron collider is connected with this theory.
As for the "Why?"; things can happen at subatomic level at random which can lead to much larger effects at our scale; its the old "butterfly landing on the other side of the world" concept.

The problem is the zero though?
That first bit of matter? An abscence of it's explanation does not proves anything though, that I do agree.

recedite

stevejazzx wrote: »

The problem is the zero though?
That first bit of matter?

Zero is nothing. So you start with nothing and make something. Its a kind of maths magic.

Dades

recedite wrote: »

Its a kind of maths magic.

We discovered this last year - it's called dogmathics.

pH

recedite wrote: »

Zero is nothing. So you start with nothing and make something. Its a kind of maths magic.

No, you start with nothing, end up with nothing, just nothing rearranged in a more interesting way!

The zero-energy Universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the Universe is exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.[1] The amount of positive energy in form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in form of gravity.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_Universe

20goto10

A zero energy universe does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. Why can you add 2 and subtract 2 in the first place?

20goto10

recedite wrote: »

I may not be a physicist or a mathematician, but the general concept is this;
If you have zero, you can make something of it; +1 and -1
Also +2 and -2 etc....
Thus every particle has its opposite, and all matter is shadowed by corresponding antimatter. The search for the infamous Higgs bosun particle at the Hadron collider is connected with this theory.
As for the "Why?"; things can happen at subatomic level at random which can lead to much larger effects at our scale; its the old "butterfly landing on the other side of the world" concept.

Well I suppose the question I'm asking is why anti-matter and matter do not cancel each other out. I don't fully understand the Higgs Boson but I know it is what gives us mass. So is that to say that the Higgs Boson particle(s) is the reason matter and anti-matter do not cancel each other out?

pH

20goto10 wrote: »

A zero energy universe does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. Why can you add 2 and subtract 2 in the first place?

Um, the zero energy universe hypothesis says there *is* nothing (rather than something), so in a roundabout way it does explain "why there is nothing rather than nothing"

20goto10

pH wrote: »

Um, the zero energy universe hypothesis says there *is* nothing (rather than something), so in a roundabout way it does explain "why there is nothing rather than nothing"

But it can't be true otherwise how does matter exist. You're saying all matter is cancelled out by all antimatter. So poof, there is nothing. We know we have matter and antimatter, so they have not cancelled each other. There is something other than nothing, or there is nothing rather than something. It's the same question.

pH

20goto10 wrote: »

But it can't be true otherwise how does matter exist. You're saying all matter is cancelled out by all antimatter. So poof, there is nothing. We know we have matter and antimatter, so they have not cancelled each other. There is something other than nothing, or there is nothing rather than something. It's the same question.

No it's not entirely about matter/anti matter - Einstein's e=mc2 allows us to convert between matter and energy, so basically if you convert all matter to energy and add it all with all the other energy you get zero.

20goto10

So if e=0 then mc2 = 0 so there is no matter.

King Mob

pH wrote: »

No it's not entirely about matter/anti matter - Einstein's e=mc2 allows us to convert between matter and energy, so basically if you convert all matter to energy and add it all with all the other energy you get zero.

Unfortunately that's not quite how it works.

Anti-matter annihilates with matter and produces energy equivalent to the masses of the particles times the speed of light squared.

So for non-zero mass you get non-zero energy, and vice versa.

Also there is a newly observed phenomena called the CP violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/space/18cosmos.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation#CP_violation_and_the_matter.E2.80.93antimatter_imbalance

That said there's a model for the spontaneous creation of the universe from the quantum foam hat requires zero energy.

liamw

King Mob wrote: »

That said there's a model for the spontaneous creation of the universe from the quantum foam hat requires zero energy.

But how did Yahweh create the talking snake from zero energy?

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not quite how it works.

Anti-matter annihilates with matter and produces energy equivalent to the masses of the particles times the speed of light squared.

So for non-zero mass you get non-zero energy, and vice versa.

Also there is a newly observed phenomena called the CP violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/space/18cosmos.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation#CP_violation_and_the_matter.E2.80.93antimatter_imbalance

That said there's a model for the spontaneous creation of the universe from the quantum foam hat requires zero energy.

New? - 1964?

King Mob

stevejazzx wrote: »

New? - 1964?

new to me.....

recedite

20goto10 wrote: »

A zero energy universe does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. Why can you add 2 and subtract 2 in the first place?

Maybe its all in the mind, just like the page you are reading now. This page contains some pretty heavy stuff, but what would it weigh, in terms of mass?

King Mob wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation#CP_violation_and_the_matter.E2.80.93antimatter_imbalance

That said there's a model for the spontaneous creation of the universe from the quantum foam hat requires zero energy.

I used to have one of those foam hats, but since google started monitoring me, I have been wearing a tinfoil hat . Stops them from reading my mind :pac:

stevejazzx

King Mob wrote: »

new to me.....

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not quite how it works.