The physical universe as we understand it today isnt infinite even though it may be infinitely expanding while the uncaused original Reality (God or Multiverse) has to be infinite by nature. Only then you get some sort of satisfactory answer.
Existence of God (split from old thread)
- Thread starter MichaelP
- Start date
I think the opposite may likely be true. The theist do not put nearly enough attributes on the original Reality simply becouse of the limited knowledge they have and to add to the confusion the attributes which the theist recognise are exaggerated and out of perspective so we end up in many respects with some unatractive grotesque mask of distorted truth.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Wether the universe is infinite or not is impossible to know at this moment.
What we know is that every single part and particle of this physical universe is apparently limited and so it must have been created/manifested. Only that which is already infinite doesnt require a cause for its existence.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Nope, we do not know that.
If you're talking about nr of particles that is.
No need to throw a 'but' into there. You're rephrasing my last sentence
Your first sentence isn't true. We don't understand our universe to be finite. We don't know how big it is. The best we can do is figure out its lower bound. IF it is finite, it seems to be at least a million time bigger than we can observe. Could be bigger. We couldn't tell if it was.
The opposite of what I said isn't "they didn't put enough attributes on". I am fine with the idea of attributes being added to the conception of the multiverse. What I mean is that there are specific attributes they add to the multiverse model that I don't think are warranted from the evidence we have.
"God is greater than you can imagine" <- sure okay
"And He didn't want Hebrews to eat pork for about 2000 years of human history" <- wait, what?
Last edited:
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
That's 'cause Pigs are cool. Also, given that these religions were written around or near the desert, pigs take up waaay to much food and water compared to other animals.
So what's behind the Hindu love for cows?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Actually, we have no idea if the universe is infinite or not.
Even if it were infinite, that doesn't really change anything. Introducing God into the answer makes things a lot more complicated no matter how complex or infinite the universe is.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Multiverse Theory hypothesizes that the question for a "cause" is not a sensible question anyway, because "time" is inherent to our universe. There simply may not have been a "before the big bang".
Add String Theory, and we're just 3-dimensional-beings traveling through the fourth dimension (time), and none of our rules apply to the dimensions above ours anymore.
Given that String Theory is so much more plausible than the God Hypothesis, that alone completely destroys the argument that "Only that which is already infinite doesnt require a cause for its existence".
Add String Theory, and we're just 3-dimensional-beings traveling through the fourth dimension (time), and none of our rules apply to the dimensions above ours anymore.
Given that String Theory is so much more plausible than the God Hypothesis, that alone completely destroys the argument that "Only that which is already infinite doesnt require a cause for its existence".
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
In a quickly written and rather amateurish philosophy paper in University I once argued that St. Thomas Aquinas' need for a first cause or first mover was a faulty argument because it is possible to imagine a multi-variable system which does not require a first cause. I used linear algebra to show this and had a proof and everything. Mind you it was rather quickly thrown together and I think I only got good marks on it because it was perhaps a curious way of looking at the problem from the professor's point of view. Or he just didn't understand the math and assumed it wasn't just BS
Either way not requiring a creator is not so crazy, even if the system is not infinite. We are used to our dimension of time - and from the way we experience the universe we conclude that everything has to have a beginning. But that's only from our extremely limited point of view.
Either way not requiring a creator is not so crazy, even if the system is not infinite. We are used to our dimension of time - and from the way we experience the universe we conclude that everything has to have a beginning. But that's only from our extremely limited point of view.
AmtrakQuebec
King
His Noodliness has been spotted off the coast of Angola... an area rife with piracy (Arrrrrr)
This was reported in a Scientific Journal so it can't be fake news...
All hail his Noodliness... pasta be unto you.
This was reported in a Scientific Journal so it can't be fake news...
All hail his Noodliness... pasta be unto you.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
All hail his Noodliness!
I agree that introducing God into the problem makes things lot more complicated from our extremely limited pov.
"God hypothesis" has been around for thousands of years and it gave us morals and philosophy. Try to imagine living in the world without morality. The world without morals is animal and practically unbearable or its a world where the technologicaly advanced animals have destroyed themselves and their environment and turned everything into (radioactive) desert. I dont know anything about string theory but if it doesnt explains morals and human psychology it explains only a portion of reality leaving the most important aside in which case it may serve as a nice temporary consolation for an atheist but thats likely all.
There are different standards of truth. Its only natural. If you put different statements like that together it looks bizzare. I understand that eating pork at old times was bringing some health issues leading even to death. It was quite rational to abstain from it and one could put it in line with things "God wants" but hey God is the one responsible for existence of death in the first place...
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
And how is that a good thing? It's a hypothesis coming from times when humanity was basically scientifically illiterate by today's standards. We've looked at like... 99.83% of the things it attempts to explain and found the natural explanations behind all of those things. You're clinging to the 0.17% that we haven't (fully) explained yet. I mean imagine that.. we as a species have pushed our scientific understanding of the universe so far, that the "common logic" that we've evolved with is no longer sufficient to fully understand what lies beyond the boundaries that we're exploring, but the greatest minds of our time are still pushing us forward and slowly but sure pealing away the layers of a world that works by different rules.
And you're reading a book that was written by ancient peasants.
No, String Theory does indeed not explain morality - a bummer for something that runs under the banner of the "Theory for everything", isn't it? 8)
But thankfully, we have other working theories for where morality came from. The basic concepts are not even hard to imagine or understand. You take the social behaviors that are inherent to any animal (especially pack animals like humans), add a mind that has a sense of their place within their "society", and what consequences their actions will have on others and themselves, and there you go, the beginnings of morality.
And yes, what we think is moral is subjective in this framework, and changes over time. That's a good thing, because we can revise problems. Were morality objective and derived from the Bible, we would forever be stuck with the many immoral things in the moral framework of the bible, such as homosexuality being a sin, and being raped but not screaming loud enough meaning that you should be stoned. What a terrible book.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
First, no he isn't. It was written primarily by the scholars of the day. Second, what is wrong with peasants?
J
We don't expect them to have good insight on a variety of issues. They can certainly have good ideas, but there's no reason to assume that their ideas are going to stand the test of time.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Using the term "Abrahamic" God is the same as calling "god" a superman or spaghetti. It is turning God into a human concept. That is a problem introduced into the issue, not a solution.
Abraham did not see God as the solution of why things are the way they are. So kind of pointless to use the argument "God did it" as part of the same reasoning.
It is not wrong for one to need to get to the top of things which is the same as saying "turtling down" to the bottom line. Nor is the need to find the uncaused cause wrong. The point is that is just human reasoning and not even the reasoning of the universe itself, if material even had a capacity to reason. If however one only accepts materialism, then one must conclude that material does in fact reason. Else we're back to only God can reason, and has given humans the ability to do so as well, but on their own cognizance and free will.
The problem is that materialistic only humans will never accept God, and to them God will never be a reality, but only a concept. The point that God is active or not in the universe is also unnecessary to those who are pure materialist. How can a being that does not exist, con humans into a realization that God is not necessary? Even if they move the goal post and accuse God of being unethical, they are indeed pointing out that an unethical God does indeed exist.
Abraham did not see God as the solution of why things are the way they are. So kind of pointless to use the argument "God did it" as part of the same reasoning.
It is not wrong for one to need to get to the top of things which is the same as saying "turtling down" to the bottom line. Nor is the need to find the uncaused cause wrong. The point is that is just human reasoning and not even the reasoning of the universe itself, if material even had a capacity to reason. If however one only accepts materialism, then one must conclude that material does in fact reason. Else we're back to only God can reason, and has given humans the ability to do so as well, but on their own cognizance and free will.
The problem is that materialistic only humans will never accept God, and to them God will never be a reality, but only a concept. The point that God is active or not in the universe is also unnecessary to those who are pure materialist. How can a being that does not exist, con humans into a realization that God is not necessary? Even if they move the goal post and accuse God of being unethical, they are indeed pointing out that an unethical God does indeed exist.
Similar threads
