The Universe: Accidental or Deliberate?

[Corinthian]

I don't see anything about the origin of, well, existence. I'd say Universe, but then people trot out the Multiverse theory.

[Achilles]

Great link, Mr. Jones. While it will be some time before we can test any of these hypothesis, I like to think that quantum fluctuation/zero-energy research is the most promising, as it seems to point toward the simplest explanation. My 2 cents.

[Totenkopf]

The last time I took three away from five, it gave two.

 

 

But the question was "Where did the big bang singularity came from?" ^^

 

 

For instance it could come from another universe that collapsed earlier. Anyway, basically it existed in that kind of "space" where all universes have their roots.

 

If you've seen Midnight Run (Bob Deniro, Charles Grodin), then you should have gotten the reference.

 

As to the other, some people say everything came from the Big Bang (ie singularity). But if it needed matter and energy to exist (no matter which "universe/multiverse/yada yada yada), then that material had to preexist and come before the singularity. Seems pretty circular. The singularity comes from preexisting matter which apparently was created by that singularity. Seems pretty chicken and egg.

[Arcesious]

Although this doesn't prove anything, this is my reply to the argument over how something could form from nothing, which I consider as the best possible explanation at this time. (However, who am I to rate what theories are the most likely, when everything is 'possible' since we don't really know for sure?)

 

In the beginning, there was nothing. No laws of physics or anything to control whether or not something did or did not exist, or happened.

Due to this, everything possible that could happen happened. Infinite possibilities.

(Or it could just as easily be that the universe always existed, and that paradoxes of that are void, becuase it could 'just be like that no matter what, because it already is')

 

To revise and make it clearer:

In the beginning, there was nothing. No laws of physics or anything to control whether or not something did or did not exist, or happened.

Due to this, IE, nothing stopping anything from happening or existing, it was all able to happen becuase nothing was holding it back from happening, so everything possible that could happen happened. Infinite possibilities. Before this, I theorize, there were no physics, but once things happened and existed, the laws of physics immediately became standard laws of the universe. Thereby, theoretically, the laws of physics would not exist if no forms of matter or anything else of a 'material form' existed, becuase they woudl have nothing to 'govern by their laws'. The laws of physics, by my theorizing, wouldn't be able to work and happen without matter, so they couldn't exist until matter formed. And so, again, since the laws of physics theoretically by my theory didn't exist at this 'time', so, therefore matter formed because it was not bound by the law stating 'matter cannot be created or destroyed'.

 

-------------------------

 

This, IMO, is the 'most logical' conclusion I've been able to reach after reading about all kinds of various theories, so that is why I hold this conclusion as what I think is the most-likely-to-be-true theory. However, If soemone would be able to enlighten me in a much more logical conclusion/theory, I'd appreciate it.

[Ray Jones]

If you've seen Midnight Run (Bob Deniro, Charles Grodin), then you should have gotten the reference.

Gee, now that you mention it, I actually saw that movie, like 15 years ago and the German version too. I'm pretty sure your reference got lost in translation or whatever somehow.

 

As to the other, some people say everything came from the Big Bang (ie singularity). But if it needed matter and energy to exist (no matter which "universe/multiverse/yada yada yada), then that material had to preexist and come before the singularity. Seems pretty circular. The singularity comes from preexisting matter which apparently was created by that singularity. Seems pretty chicken and egg.

The point is, there is not nothing and one singularity or two, there is something and in this something it happens that a bubble of spacetime is pressed into existence. A process analogue to those bubbles in sparkling water that randomly seem to come out of nowhere. Small ones, big ones, colliding, separating, long lasting, short living ones, fast moving, slow moving. There are active areas with tons of them and areas without any activities. One big difference is that the bubbles in the water "go surface" and release its contents into the air, but that is just because of our planet's gravitational field and because it's in an open glass. So if you put the sparkling water into a closed tank out into zero gravity, the bubbles theoretically would "pop up" just to dissolve in the water again a uncertain time later.

 

Circular? Yes. Like pretty much all things. Chicken/Egg? Egg.

 

I don't see anything about the origin of, well, existence. I'd say Universe, but then people trot out the Multiverse theory.

The point is, there is not really a "starting point". The "begin" of our universe is not the begin of existence. There is no thing that is there just one time. There is one Sun but countless stars. There is one Earth but countless planets - you get the point.

 

It's like a fractal. There is no smallest thing, nor a biggest thing, there is only the way you look at it, but it just keeps on repeating itself in absolute precise yet not determinable patterns anyway.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology

 

While it will be some time before we can test any of these hypothesis, I like to think that quantum fluctuation/zero-energy research is the most promising, as it seems to point toward the simplest explanation.

The problem about any of those theories is to find out where the hell all this quantum crap, floating around, creating universes and whatnot, is coming from, and whether it runs on hybrid technology. ^^

 

 

 

 

--

However, to keep the *fantasy* going (also tangents theistic aspects):

 

Life and the fate of the Universe

the Omega Point

why the Universe may be "fine-tuned"

[Arcesious]

Well that's interesting.... If only I was alive before those scientists came up with those kinds of theories I'd be able to be famous for theories like that...

(IE, I've already reached the conclusion of what this 'Fractal Cosmology' Theory is... )

The 'Omega Point' theory, however, seems soemwhat farfetched though, IMO...

[Darth InSidious]

Achilles, I'm not sure what you're asking by requesting 'proof' - are you asking where my proof is that it is a mainstream Christian belief that God is nontemporal/atemporal/transtemporal/time is applied inadvisably to deity, then I believe it crops up in the Summa Theologica - after the arguments for God's immobility, there comes an argument for His eternity - at least in the Shorter. I'm sure there's other examples of the argument, though I'm afraid I can't point you to them.

 

If you're asking where my proof is that God is eternal/exists beyond the bounds of linear time, I could reverse the question back at you and ask where your evidence that God exists within the bounds of linear time is.

 

Of course, I'm sure you could respond that you find no evidence for God anywhere, but this line of discourse leads us somewhat off the topic at hand, I think.

 

If I were to answer, I would probably say that it is a matter of reason, rather than evidence per se, and that it is, for me, a necessity of God as creator.

 

In any case, I was not in this case endorsing or condemning that idea - only raising it to highlight a possible reason why Jae might not be worried by that particular question.

[Achilles]

Achilles, I'm not sure what you're asking by requesting 'proof' - are you asking where my proof is that it is a mainstream Christian belief that God is nontemporal/atemporal/transtemporal/time is applied inadvisably to deity, then I believe it crops up in the Summa Theologica - after the arguments for God's immobility, there comes an argument for His eternity - at least in the Shorter. I'm sure there's other examples of the argument, though I'm afraid I can't point you to them.

No, sir, the question was "what evidence do we have that would allow us to conclude that the definition is correct". I have no doubt that there is sufficient evidence to show that the definition exists, however that is not the same thing.

 

For example, some people argue that it was the flying spaghetti monster and not the judeo-christian god that created the universe. If you were to ask me for evidence for the claim, I could simply direct you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, if you were to ask me what proof I had that He actually did it, then I would probably need (because you would probably require) something a little more substantiative.

 

I hope that helps to clarify.

 

If you're asking where my proof is that God is eternal/exists beyond the bounds of linear time, I could reverse the question back at you and ask where your evidence that God exists within the bounds of linear time is.

You could, but then you'd be guilty of using the burden of proof logical fallacy to avoid answering the question.

 

Of course, I'm sure you could respond that you find no evidence for God anywhere, but this line of discourse leads us somewhat off the topic at hand, I think.

Perhaps it would. I don't think you answering the original question would though, as it would be directly related to the topic.

 

If I were to answer, I would probably say that it is a matter of reason, rather than evidence per se, and that it is, for me, a necessity of God as creator.

I don't know that we could say it was a matter of reason, but I think it being something personal is understanable.

 

In any case, I was not in this case endorsing or condemning that idea - only raising it to highlight a possible reason why Jae might not be worried by that particular question.

Fair enough. I do think that we should all be careful to apply our standards of evidence consistently. All too often is seems that scientific explanations are held to a very high standard while theological explanations are not. If the bar is going to be set low, then the bar should be set low for everyone, but we also need to be cautious that this route won't actually provide us any answers.

 

Thanks for your response.

[Darth InSidious]

No, sir, the question was "what evidence do we have that would allow us to conclude that the definition is correct". I have no doubt that there is sufficient evidence to show that the definition exists, however that is not the same thing.

 

For example, some people argue that it was the flying spaghetti monster and not the judeo-christian god that created the universe. If you were to ask me for evidence for the claim, I could simply direct you to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, if you were to ask me what proof I had that He actually did it, then I would probably need (because you would probably require) something a little more substantiative.

 

I hope that helps to clarify.

Yes, that's clearer, thank you.

You could, but then you'd be guilty of using the burden of proof logical fallacy to avoid answering the question.

Indeed.

 

Perhaps it would. I don't think you answering the original question would though, as it would be directly related to the topic.

True, but arguing along such lines does seem to cause something of a drift away from the original point in many cases.

 

I don't know that we could say it was a matter of reason, but I think it being something personal is understanable.

I meant only that it can be arrived at through reason.

 

 

Fair enough. I do think that we should all be careful to apply our standards of evidence consistently. All too often is seems that scientific explanations are held to a very high standard while theological explanations are not.

Oh, indeed, indeed. I think this is perhaps partly down to the wide publication of high-quality scientific literature in a manner comprehensible to the public, while theology still rather tends towards a firm division between specialism and populism.

If the bar is going to be set low, then the bar should be set low for everyone, but we also need to be cautious that this route won't actually provide us any answers.

Indeed.

Thanks for your response.

And thank you for yours.

[Achilles]

I meant only that it can be arrived at through reason.

Again, I don't think that it can. That line of reasoning will also support any deity (imagined or historical) that we care to dream up. However, if we are going to allow that the flying spaghetti monster hypothesis deserves the same level of consideration afforded the judeo-christian god hypothesis, then there really isn't a problem. But then again, we still aren't answering the OP's question either

[Darth InSidious]

Well, that depends on the nature of the FSM. If it is a material being, I don't think it works...if, however, the FSM is defined as Spirit/nonmaterial, I think it could apply.

 

On its own, the logic can be applied elsewhere, yes. You could in theory apply it to Atum, Ahura-Mazda, or any other creator-deity. I don't think this necessarily means that the argument is invalid however. You could argue (although I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in the argument) that these are all reflections of the same concept, in any case. But given the lack of philosophical literature addressing this sort of thing from the time, such questions are rather up-in-the-air...

 

Anyway, as you say - this doesn't answer the OPs question.

[Corinthian]

Frankly, attempting to logically argue the existence of a Deity is impossible. That's just how it is. If it were possible for the human mind to break God down into a set of equations and factors that we could understand, he wouldn't really be God. They call upon this little thing called Faith for a reason.

[Ray Jones]

Hey, but it's part of the free will deal that we can ignore that and try anyway, isn't it.

[Achilles]

Well, that depends on the nature of the FSM. If it is a material being, I don't think it works...if, however, the FSM is defined as Spirit/nonmaterial, I think it could apply.

I don't think it would be too difficult to create a claim to that effect

 

On its own, the logic can be applied elsewhere, yes. You could in theory apply it to Atum, Ahura-Mazda, or any other creator-deity. I don't think this necessarily means that the argument is invalid however. You could argue (although I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in the argument) that these are all reflections of the same concept, in any case.

Indeed, but what evidence would we have for that?

 

And even if we were to put that problem aside, how do we know that any of the currently available "concepts" are actually correct? We could assume that one of them is, but then how do we argue for one over the other without any objective criteria?

 

It all seems a bit messy to me.

 

Anyway, as you say - this doesn't answer the OPs question.

Perhaps the best move then is for everyone to acknowledge that we don't know the answer. Unfortunately, I see this as being a sticking point for those that presume to know the answer already though

[Rev7]

I believe that we have a creator. I believe that He formed and shaped us, and the universe that we live in. That is just what I think.

[nine.roses]

Where do you think the Universe came from? Was its creation an accident?

 

To be honest, we haven't seen any proof that there has been a beginning or will be an end. We look at the universe through a pinhole, crafting theories only by observing occurances on Earth (or in our galaxy) and try to crowbar said theories into something we know little about. Things here all seem to begin and end, and eternity is difficult to imagine. I contend that time just running in circles (or simply not existing at all - an illusion, perhaps?) is more likely than the illogical "it came into being from nothing".

 

Why is there life? What is the meaning of it? In other words, why does the Universe exist?

 

I can give you no less an annoying answer than "life exists simply because it had the opportunity to".

 

Does everything need a reason? Or can it just be, no questions asked? I find it amusing how humans believe everything apparently needs to have a reason to be there, as if everything must be processable by the human mind. Is there really a point to anything at all? I suppose not. But to humans, that's just depressing - nice big rounded answers are power. Which, I suppose, is why we created God. Here's a chap who gives the touch of a human-like mind to all in existence, and thus will apparently be able to give us the answers we so desprerately crave. Comforting, isn't it?

 

On a less pessimistic note, injecting meaning into ones own life and the life of others is a rather noble aspiration, and I applaud those who do so. Have fun and make love whilst it's here, and appreciate the simple beauty of nature without thinking about it too much.

[Achilles]

To be honest, we haven't seen any proof that there has been a beginning or will be an end.

I don't think the science is on your side on this one

 

We look at the universe through a pinhole, crafting theories only by observing occurances on Earth (or in our galaxy) and try to crowbar said theories into something we know little about.

Again, this is not supported by science.

 

I can give you no less an annoying answer than "life exists simply because it had the opportunity to".

Great answer. I wish more people were comfortable with it.

 

Does everything need a reason? Or can it just be, no questions asked? I find it amusing how humans believe everything apparently needs to have a reason to be there, as if everything must be processable by the human mind. Is there really a point to anything at all? I suppose not. But to humans, that's just depressing - nice big rounded answers are power. Which, I suppose, is why we created God. Here's a chap who gives the touch of a human-like mind to all in existence, and thus will apparently be able to give us the answers we so desprerately crave. Comforting, isn't it?

*applause*

 

On a less pessimistic note, injecting meaning into ones own life and the life of others is a rather noble aspiration, and I applaud those who do so. Have fun and make love whilst it's here, and appreciate the simple beauty of nature without thinking about it too much.

Well said.

[Arcesious]

One thing that's left me in question about what I beleive is modern-day miracles. I've read Hume's argument against Miracles, but some of the 'miracles' today don't seem to be well debunked from any place I can find. For example, there were a few miracles my pasor spoke about, one being a situation in which the crew aboard a ship had to abandon ship in a storm, and at the same exact time that was happening, the wives the men of that crew had to the sudden urge to pray for their husbands, and their husbands survived. A person had appendicitus twice, and his Christian family prayed for him, and he recovered from both times without needing his appendix removed.

'Miracles' like that are leaving me in question about what I want to beleive. Does anyone have a refute against the modern day miracles? Because I can't find anything against them, only more arguments trying to prove thast they really are miracles from God. Maybe it's more that I don't want to admit Christianity possibly being true after all of this, or maybe it's just that more people search on Google for proof of miracles, and more arguments of Miracles being true come up first...

[Achilles]

One thing that's left me in question about what I beleive is modern-day miracles. I've read Hume's argument against Miracles, but some of the 'miracles' today don't seem to be well debunked from any place I can find.

I think it's important to consider who has the burden of proof in situations like these. Here's how it doesn't work: Anyone can make any claim and that claim is considered legitimate and true until someone can debunk it. Why is this important? Because a lot of people are going to say a lot of things. Sometimes they believe what they are saying but sometimes they have an agenda. If you believe everything you hear, then how are you ever going to know what is true and what isn't?

 

For example, there were a few miracles my pasor spoke about, one being a situation in which the crew aboard a ship had to abandon ship in a storm, and at the same exact time that was happening, the wives the men of that crew had to the sudden urge to pray for their husbands, and their husbands survived.

How do you know these things actually happened though? Is it possible that the pastor has taken liberty with a few facts to increase the dramatic effect of the story? Is it possible that whoever told the pastor the story simply made it up? Is it possible that the events described by the pastor happened exactly as he says they did? The answer to all these questions is "yes". So we know that a lot of things are possible. I guess that leaves us wondering which of possibilities are likely (hint: even if there was some evidence that could show us that the wives did all start to pray at that exact moment, do we have any evidence to show us that their prayers had effect? Circumstantial evidence isn't going to be good enough here because we have to rule out that the sailors wouldn't have survived without prayer).

 

A person had appendicitus twice, and his Christian family prayed for him, and he recovered from both times without needing his appendix removed.

Same thing as above. How do we know that the person had appendicitis? How do we know that prayer is what "cured" him? Also, if prayer is such an effective treatment for appendicitis, why did the person get it a second time?

 

'Miracles' like that are leaving me in question about what I want to beleive. Does anyone have a refute against the modern day miracles?

This is a good question. I think the more important question though is: Do the people making claims of modern day miracles have any evidence that a miracle took place at all?

 

Consider that there are organisms in the animal kingdom that are capable of regeneration. Theoretically, if you chop an earthworm in two, each half will regenerate and you'll have two earthworms where you only had one before. "Miraculous", no? We might not exactly how this happens but we know that it does. Are we better off spinning our wheels with apologetics trying to determine why god will answer the prayers of earthworms and not humans when it comes to regeneration or are we better off using observations and experiments trying to figure out how it is earthworm (and lizards, etc) are able to do this in the first place?

 

Because I can't find anything against them, only more arguments trying to prove thast they really are miracles from God.

How do we disprove that they aren't miracles from the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Remember this hypothesis is equally possible.

 

Maybe it's more that I don't want to admit Christianity possibly being true after all of this, or maybe it's just that more people search on Google for proof of miracles, and more arguments of Miracles being true come up first...

*shrugs* At some point, the thought may occur to you that chasing this line of reasoning is going to be a huge waste of your time. As I pointed out earlier, a lot of people say a lot of things. If you see it as your responsibility to debunk each claim, then you are going to spend a lot of time trying to do the impossible (homework: please debunk the claim that there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Mars and Jupiter). Or you can accept that the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim and use all that extra "free time" to study other things instead.

 

I hope that helps. Thanks for reading.

[ForeverNight]

How do we disprove that they aren't miracles from the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Remember this hypothesis is equally possible[/Quote]

 

I haven't really been following this discussion, I just saw it was the most updated thing in Kavar's Corner, and I decided to read this post...

 

Well, there is something about your remark here that bugs me.

 

You say that it is equally possible, possible. Now, I'm not going to say: "Of course God exists! How can you be so stupid to believe otherwise!!!!" Because that is just plain stupid.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a product of Pastafarianism (Sp?) or something like that. Not an established religion.

 

Not to say that a religion has to be established to be correct, but its a good starting point.

 

But, what does the flying spaghetti Monster do? It's there... it 'flies' and its made of Spaghetti and Meatballs...... Oh, and its a member of a Parody religion that was created in 2005 to get revenge on the Kansas Schoolboard...

 

Wow... Now, I'm being told that it is equally, equally possible for the miracles to have come from the FSM??? What the heck has the world turned into??? A parody religion is given equal footing as a real one???

 

Wow. Not to try to attack you Achilles, but you might want to reword that one.

[Samuel Dravis]

I think his point was that there's not much concrete evidence to distinguish a real religion from a parody religion except age and acceptance.

[Achilles]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a product of Pastafarianism (Sp?) or something like that. Not an established religion.

And what is the process for "establishing" a religion? It is rigorous enough that I should be duly impressed? Or it is a bunch of guys sitting around a fire deciding that henceforth their collection of stories is "established"?

 

Not to say that a religion has to be established to be correct, but its a good starting point.

Why is it a good starting point?

 

But, what does the flying spaghetti Monster do? It's there... it 'flies' and its made of Spaghetti and Meatballs......

We have evidence of him at the moment of Creation. I think you mock the awesome power of His noodly appendage by referring to Him as "Spaghetti and Meatballs".

 

Oh, and its a member of a Parody religion that was created in 2005 to get revenge on the Kansas Schoolboard...

And calvinism was created in response to a list of complaints against the catholic church. New religions are invented all the time for a variety of reasons. By what criteria do we decide that some of these inventions are legitimate while others are not?

 

PS: christianity is an spin-off of judaism.

 

Wow... Now, I'm being told that it is equally, equally possible for the miracles to have come from the FSM??? What the heck has the world turned into??? A parody religion is given equal footing as a real one???

Define "parody" and "real" for me

 

Yes, whatever explanations you cannot rule out have to be considered. You cannot rule out FSM, invisible pink unicorns, zeus, thor, pixies, fairies, etc, etc.. The logic demands that you consider all possible explanations until the process of elimination is complete. For the purposes of this discussion though, I've decided to throw logic and critical thought aside and accept the FSM hypothesis without any proof. Of course, this also means that I will also be arbitrarily dismissing any other hypothesis, even though I've just admitted that I have no good reason to do so.

 

Wow. Not to try to attack you Achilles, but you might want to reword that one.

I'll be happy to if you can tell me why I should

 

Thanks for the post. I appreciate you allowing me to have fun with my response.

 

I think his point was that there's not much concrete evidence to distinguish a real religion from a parody religion except age and acceptance.

[Jae Onasi]

Despite the fact that I plan on eating His Flying Noodliness for dinner with marinara and put an end to this utterly ridiculous analogy, it has become way off topic. This is an origins thread. Discuss atheism and theism in the correct thread or I'll close this one.

[Achilles]

Despite the fact that I plan on eating His Flying Noodliness for dinner with marinara and put an end to this utterly ridiculous analogy, it has become way off topic. This is an origins thread. Discuss atheism and theism in the correct thread or I'll close this one.

Since Creation via FSM is still a creation hypothesis, I don't see how FSM discussion is off-topic. Feel free to close whatever you need to.

 

Posts 43-47 and the now deleted 49 and 50 don't discuss origins at all, they discuss pasta. Those of you who made those posts are arguing whether the Italian Restaurant of Holiness is a religion or not, not the origin of the universe. Put the arguments in the right threads please. --Jae