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
See more
See less

Underlying Presuppositions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Or eternal...? Hawkings once suggested the universe may be within it's own closed temporal/spatial "bubble," outside of which time and space have no meaning. But the fact is, we really don't know. So why not just say, "we don't know?"
    I 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.
    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 Post
      Why do you think it has to be explained?
      That question has got a very simple answer. Seer claimed he could answer the why questions among which "why does anything exist rather than nothing" was one of them. I then asked him to give an answer to the question instead of just claiming he had one.

      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.
      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
        Either the universe (or all that exists) is self existent or there is a source outside that brought it into existence.
        I 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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          I 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.
          It 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.

          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 Post
            It 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.
            There 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.
            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 Post
              I 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.
              It is difficult to deal with the concept of what is the universe. I say all that exists to include multiverse concepts, etc.

              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 Post
                There 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.
                Maybe. 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.
                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 Post
                  Maybe. 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.
                  I 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.
                  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 Post
                    I 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.
                    Your 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.
                    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 Post
                      Your 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.
                      This is more word tickling. You do not like the words I use, but there are no better words available that either of us know.

                      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 only "nothing" I have heard of giving rise to "something" is what I have called the pregnant void (I forget where I heard that term, but I loved it too). It there is truly nothing there is no potentiality for anything. Where you have that potentiality you have something not nothing. I am not ready to listen to an hour long presentation on the youtube video, however.

                      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 Post
                        Your 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.
                        In 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 Post
                          In 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.
                          In science there is no 'nothing' in the philosophical sense.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            In science there is no 'nothing' in the philosophical sense.
                            So? In science there is no multiverse either. What's your point?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              So? In science there is no multiverse either. What's your point?
                              This is a complete non-sequitur. The multivesre hypothesis remains an open question in science.This is a complete non sequitur; the multivesre hypothesis remains an open question in science.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                So? In science there is no multiverse either. What's your point?
                                The multiverse is an emergent theory based upon science, there is no scientific basis upon which to theorize an actual nothingness.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                38 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                425 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X