First Cause

[Bozo Erectus]

So once again, it comes down to some extra-universial force, and belief.

All based on faith.

The only 'faith' I have is that the most profound mysteries of existence are unexplainable based on human logic. You reject the existence of god, because you cant find sufficient evidence of a god within the universe you were born into. So youre trapped. You cant move on to the next level. You can one day conceivably understand all the physical processes in this universe, but you will never be wise.

You have no evidence of that, especially the part of the claim that states that something "came into existence".

Evidence? Whats that?

 

[nihilistic]

Thats a really long story, and probably not fit for this particular thread. However, Birdjaguar is explaining my POV extremely well (better than me actually), listen to him if your Universal Translator is malfunctioning and you cant grok what I'm saying.

We understand perfectly well what he is trying to say. We are trying to say two things:

1. This is not very different from the claim of existense of [deity x], both in terms of concept and of probability.

2. We use the term "universe" to define the set of entities that we can interact with. If this "thing" has interacted with us, then it is within our universe. If it cannot interact with us, then there is simply no point thinking about it, as all discussions about it would be unfalsifiable, thus pointless.

[Neomega]Youre such a smart guy, cant you see that science and human logic are finite, because they were born in this universe?

The wording of "finite" is extremely misleading. What you meant was probably "limited" or "bounded" [by the boundares of this universe]. Of course, you could also be appealing to physics by incurring that the finite number of states of the finite number subatomic particles can only generate a finite number of states, thus unable to possess "infinite" knowledge, and such; but I doubt it. Just please don't use the word "finite". It implies that there is a point where we cannot learn anymore.

I dont know for sure what god is, but I have a pretty good idea of what god isnt: God isnt bound to this universe, or subject to its laws.

If said deity [if existent] interacts with our universe, then it is within our universe. If it doesn't, then this is all BS.

 

[Neomega]

The only 'faith' I have is that the most profound mysteries of existence are unexplainable based on human logic. You reject the existence of god, because you cant find sufficient evidence of a god within the universe you were born into. So youre trapped. You cant move on to the next level. You can one day conceivable understand all the physical processes in this universe, but you will never be wise.

Hmm... perhaps I can move to the next level, I just will not be taking the same path as you...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Don't claim you know how the universe began if you cannot pinpoint the absolute beginning. Not the few moments afterward. The absolute beginning. If you cannot do this, you cannot be sure if the universe ever began.

Does that kind of thinking also apply to quark theory? or the probabalistic nature of quantum mechanics?

To say with probalistic certainty that the universe had a beginning does not require a specific time and date to be correct. And since your preferred alternative has been discredited, I'm not surprised at your strident demand for proof beyond what is accepted by the scientific community.

 

[Neomega]

Here:

We are accelerating in our expansion.

If this is the case, the universe 50 trillion years ago, would be much, much, much tinier than compared to today, yet it would still contain all the same amount of energy and mass.

50 trillion years from now, if this acceleration is a constant rate of accleration, our entire universe will appear to have the same exact properties as teh universe 50 trillion years ago appears to us today.

I wonder what the intelligent consciousnesses that inhabited that super tiny (in our perception) universe that existed 50 trillion years ago, thought about the universe that existed 50 trillion years before them.

If time is also accelerating, this makes the passage of time, (in our perception), of the universe 50 trillion years ago, go very, very, very slow indeed. Every electron disappearing and re-appearing at a much, much slower rate. Perhaps all that compressed energy was actually disappated by the slower movement of time, as amount of energy, and time are inextricably linked.

 

[Neomega]

Does that kind of thinking also apply to quark theory? or the probabalistic nature of quantum mechanics?

And since your preferred alternative has been discredited, I'm not surprised at your strident demand for proof beyond what is accepted by the scientific community.

My preffered alternative has not been discredited, it is just harder to prove.
And Mr. Hawking tend to fall on my side of this debate, as did Mr. Einstein, who tried his entire life to prove it. Your wikipedia says a majority of the scientists, and I ahve read enough to know there are plenty of astrophysicists who still like a constant existance, as opposed to a singularity.

It is impossible to prove the exiastance of infinity, as it is impossible to prove the existane of 0. However, this does not mean either is incorrect, and it most certainly does not mean 1 is the answer.

Probablistic certainty the universe has a beginning?

Do you actually know what you are talking about, or are you bluffing again?

To say with probalistic certainty that the universe had a beginning does not require a specific time and date to be correct.

But, Big Bang does not say that there was nothing, and then there was something. Therefore, a constant existance can still fit quite nicely.

 

[nihilistic]

The only 'faith' I have is that the most profound mysteries of existence are unexplainable based on human logic.

It need not be explainable to begin with, never mind human logic.

You reject the existence of god, because you cant find sufficient evidence of a god within the universe you were born into.

we are not actively rejecting any possibility. We are simply refusing to give extra credence to a theory that has thus failed to differentiate itself from BS. You can dream up a theory of a god creating the universe, I can dream up a trillion different theories of various entities creating the universe, and theories of entities creating the entities that crerated the universe, and have the equal amount of falsifiability (testability) as your theory: none. Just because we don't have an answer and probably cannot find an answer does not mean that we need to resort to bullsh*t. Alternatively, we can simply tell the truth that we really do not know. Take a course in philosophy, and you will see how the answer of not having an answer is almost always superior of having either the wrong answer or BS as an answer.

So youre trapped. You cant move on to the next level. You can one day conceivable understand all the physical processes in this universe, but you will never be wise.

This is the problem, the different "wise" and "perceived wise". You have no idea if the "next level" you moved to is the next level of contradiction, or of irrelevance. You might perceive the person having the wrong answer or the BS answer as being "wiser" than the person who admitted that he cannot find an answer, but neither of the former two is actually "wiser" than the latter, but they are definitely less honest.

Evidence? Whats that?

Don't tell me that is a serious question.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Hmm... perhaps I can move to the next level, I just will not be taking the same path as you...

Dont you get it? There is no next level for you. You will only entertain questions that are explainable within the framework of this universe. Youre religion is Science. You are a priest. And you are stuck on Cosmic Flypaper.

We use the term "universe" to define the set of entities that we can interact with. If this "thing" has interacted with us, then it is within our universe. If it cannot interact with us, then there is simply no point thinking about it, as all discussions about it would be unfalsifiable, thus pointless.

Nihilistic, you miss the point entirely. The problem isnt that god cant interact with us within our universe, the problem is that we cant even begin to interact with god until we free our minds from the prison of this universe.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You are fully within your rights to limit your choices to the easy path of reason and exclude the other "half" of the human experience.

What's wrong guys? Am I the only one here apalled at this pathetic attempt at trolling? How is "reason" easier (since difficulty can only be comparative) to grasp than the alternatives? There are essentially no restrictions for an argument to be religiously viable. You can claim to believe in anything, regardless of its factual basis. For an argument to be "reasonable", it would have to be self-consistent and not be contradictory to all repeatable observations. I don't see how that can be "easier" than blind acceptance.

My attempt to troll was pathetic merely because it wasn't an attempt at all. Reason is an "easy" path because it has rules and procedures and peer review and all the things that guide research. The actual work is certainly laborious and challenging. Once you move off the defgined path of scientific inquiry, the path is murky, dark and full of charletans and nutcases. Finding truth in that world is far more difficult and the answers are always subject to criticism. But they are not necessarily wrong.

Bad example. You seem to forgotten a whole field of science that deals with this: pschology. A better example would be the people who opted for ritualistic mantras over surgery to take care of cancer.

No, I think it was a good one. It is more subtle than yours which assumes that only traditional battle lines are accurate reperesentations for the discussion. Until the recent advent of wholistic medicine, doctors often treated only physical symptoms and completely ignored any other aspect of a patient's life, relegating them to someone else and a different independent treatment routine. We now know that all our "parts" are connected and to gloss over non physical elements is a huge mistake with all kinds of implications for our physical and mental well being..

 

[Birdjaguar]

Help I can't catch up..................

 

[nihilistic]

To say with probalistic certainty that the universe had a beginning does not require a specific time and date to be correct.

AFAIK there is no probablistic certainty, nor any method of quantifying said probability. If you have a reasonable method, may I nominate you for nobel prize in theoretical physics? Maybe philosophy and metaphysics too, if there are any such prizes.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Don't tell me that is a serious question.

Of course its a serious question. The fact that you dont see it as one only illustrates the vast conceptual gulf that seperates us.

 

[Neomega]

Dont you get it? There is no next level for you. You will only entertain questions that are explainable within the framework of this universe. Youre religion is Science. You are a priest. And you are stuck on Cosmic Flypaper.

Funny, I could percieve you in the same way. Instead I will go on my experiences, and let you live your life according to your own. Assuredly our planes of existance have only minimal crossing, and the effect is minimal to say the least. My religion is not science. If it were, I would accept the big bang, instead I question.

Nihilistic, you miss the point entirely. The problem isnt that god cant interact with us within our universe, the problem is that we cant even begin to interact with god until we free our minds from the prison of this universe.

Free your mind man. Open your perceptions.

And is this universe realy so bad for you to be calling it a prison?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

And is this universe realy so bad for you to be calling it a prison?

Neo, youre apparently also suffering from Cosmic Stockholm Syndrome

 

[nihilistic]

My attempt to troll was pathetic merely because it wasn't an attempt at all. Reason is an "easy" path because it has rules and procedures and peer review and all the things that guide research.

Wow, you are the first person to consider that "easy". You must be a genius.

The actual work is certainly laborious and challenging.

Where is this "actual work"?

Once you move off the defgined path of scientific inquiry, the path is murky, dark and full of charletans and nutcases. Finding truth in that world is far more difficult and the answers are always subject to criticism. But they are not necessarily wrong.

Of course finding truth is dificult without any mechanism to decide truthfullness, but you need not find truth. You can BS all you want and the results would still be essentially indistinguishable from the results of your attempting to find truth. Of course, your findings may not be neccesarily wrong as long as you stay off reality (which is testable), but they are also not neccesarily relevant.

No, I think it was a good one. It is more subtle than yours which assumes that only traditional battle lines are accurate reperesentations for the discussion.

Traditional battle lines? What are those?

Until the recent advent of wholistic medicine, doctors often treated only physical symptoms and completely ignored any other aspect of a patient's life, relegating them to someone else and a different independent treatment routine.

They also call up witchdoctors and exorcists to rid the body of demons. What's your point? Science is very much in the now.

We now know that all our "parts" are connected and to gloss over non physical elements is a huge mistake with all kinds of implications for our physical and mental well being..

I'm not aware of such "non-physical elements". Could you name some of them?

 

[Birdjaguar]

We understand perfectly well what he is trying to say. We are trying to say two things:

1. This is not very different from the claim of existense of [deity x], both in terms of concept and of probability.

Yes, I agree. How one labels and characterizes such an existence depends upon one's perspective and the point one is tryng to make. I would probably try to make a different point then you. Our biases aside, we could both be right. Or wrong.

2. We use the term "universe" to define the set of entities that we can interact with.

Ok, that is the universe we know and love.

If this "thing" has interacted with us, then it is within our universe.

Characteristics of "thing": infinite, permanent, unchanging, eternal

If the universe sprung forth, was created by, or came to be by whatever process you choose to name, from that "thing", then the universe is a manifestation of the "thing" and since our universe is finite, the "thing" is also beyond our universe. Interaction by the very nature of the relationship is unavoidable, even if we are unaware of it. Our lack of awareness doesn't preclude it being there.

Notice I did not include conscious, loving, all knowing or prone to writing books in my description of "thing". Nor did I specify the nature of the interaction.

If you asign different characteristics to this "thing" then the model will change and its relationship to the universe will change.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here:

We are accelerating in our expansion. If this is the case, the universe 50 trillion years ago, would be much, much, much tinier than compared to today, yet it would still contain all the same amount of energy and mass.

50 trillion years ago is before the birth of our universe. The last reference I read places the big bang about 14 billion years ago. Your tenacious clinging to a steady state universe has no more current scientific proof than my claim of a permanent, unchanging, eternal, infinite existence that is beyond all time and space.

 

[nihilistic]

Characteristics of "thing": infinite, permanent, unchanging, eternal

Besides the fact that you can't substantiate any of this, how is this relevant?

If the universe sprung forth, was created by, or came to be by whatever process you choose to name, from that "thing",

ok, go on ...

then the universe is a manifestation of the "thing" and since our universe is finite,

Stop using words you either don't know or don't bother to clarify. What does "finite" mean in this case?

the "thing" is also beyond our universe. Interaction by the very nature of the relationship is unavoidable, even if we are unaware of it. Our lack of awareness doesn't preclude it being there.

You realize that if it can interact with us then it is not really beyond our universe, beyond the set of entities we can potentially interact with?

Notice I did not include conscious, loving, all knowing or prone to writing books in my description of "thing". Nor did I specify the nature of the interaction.

It's not as if you can specify with any degree of plausibility. But even at this stage it is still indistinguishable from any random set of claims I can dream up about things outside our realm of existence.

 

[nihilistic]

50 trillion years ago is before the birth of our universe. The last reference I read places the big bang about 14 billion years ago. Your tenacious clinging to a steady state universe has no more current scientific proof than my claim of a permanent, unchanging, eternal, infinite existence that is beyond all time and space.

That's where you are wrong. During our time here on this universe, we have never seen any demonstration of matter created or destroyed, so it is currently quite unreasonable to assume that matter can be initially created or ultimately destroyed.

Furthermore, if you can demonstrate that your theory of an entity creating our universe is more probable than the theory that matter simply existed, then you have nothing to demonstrate that the theory that there must be an entity creating that entity which created us as being less probable than your theory. Your theory of something had to create us at some point is merely a case of displacement of responsibility with regard to the question of eternal-ness. Instead of dealing with it, you offload the question to said god to deal with, which really isn't a satisfactory answer to many.

 

[Neomega]

50 trillion years ago is before the birth of our universe. The last reference I read places the big bang about 14 billion years ago. Your tenacious clinging to a steady state universe has no more current scientific proof than my claim of a permanent, unchanging, eternal, infinite existence that is beyond all time and space.

So now what you are telling me, is there is a force beyond time and space... that created time and space?

Why go into a further dimension? Why not just stop at time, which is difficult enough as it is to comprehend, and let time be the infinite force?