Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-21-2003, 07:03 PM | #111 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ca., USA
Posts: 283
|
Re: Biggest Dilemma for Atheism
Quote:
|
|
05-21-2003, 07:06 PM | #112 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,597
|
Re: Re: A stitch in time...
Quote:
P1: the universe is everything that exists at all times in all places and P2: the universe began to exist then C1: non-existence or "nothingness" is logically prior to the universe. is necessarily true. As I see it: P1a: if anything exists, then the universe exists (by material implication from P1). and P2a: there was some point before the universe existed (by material implication from P2). It necessarily follows that at that point before the universe existed, nothing could have been in existence. Therefore, nothingness would be logically prior to the universe. Another way to put this would be to say that if the universe is all that exists and yet has not always existed, then there must have been some point when nothing existed. Obviously there are issues with the premises and the conclusion, but I don't see any problems with the structure, as such. Regards, Bill Snedden |
|
05-21-2003, 07:13 PM | #113 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,597
|
...saves nine...
Quote:
Quote:
And I may be wrong, but I don't think Vic Stenger or any other cosmologists/physicists are saying that quantum physics demonstrates that the universe popped into existence ex nihilo. Even the probabilistic potential for existence is something. Regards, Bill Snedden |
||
05-21-2003, 07:24 PM | #114 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
|
Biggest non-Dilemma for nothing
Quote:
|
|
05-21-2003, 09:55 PM | #115 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: California
Posts: 118
|
I agree with Bill that something cannot come from nothing.
I have stated before that I personally see no implausability in the idea that something has existed eternally. Your example of people sitting down doesn't convince me. Even if people have been sitting and standing infinitely there is still sitting and standing going on. It could be you doing the standing. Why not? I still don't see why any of this is a problem for atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods and nothing more. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the beginning of the universe. Steve |
05-21-2003, 11:12 PM | #116 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,320
|
Re: Re: Re: A stitch in time...
Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Quote:
Can not a birth be relative to a life and a death? The beginning of the universe can be concieved relative to nothing but it's own doom. Perhaps time is a purely localized phenomenon, suggested by still other theories. Does not space take upon the aspect of time at the event horizon of black holes; irreversable in direction, finite in extent? Quote:
Therefore, points at which the universe didn't exist are an addition to, not a deduction from, the notion that the universe began to exist. We would need to add P2c: The beginning of the universe is defined with reference to a point of nothingness. This is just the sort supressed premise that makes the argument invalid if supressed and irrelevant if explicated. Bill's Conclusion Quote:
Then you would have an argument proving that a silly series of premises about the universe, will lead to one or more confused conclusions about it. Mr. Aquinas' conclusion Quote:
Doubly so, because if naturalism is the best way to go, we actually escape that dillemma and devote our energies to the many more worthy problems at hand. Quote:
I think my rhetorical statement of the problem has suggested my own answer in this case. Sorry if I rambled or spoke jarringly, (intoxication nis swat tit tis.) I'll submit some minor spelling corrections tomorrow. I'm trying to install some spell check programs and am having difficulties. Utter Lack of Disregard, ComestibleVenom |
|||||
05-22-2003, 06:05 AM | #117 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sarver, PA, USA
Posts: 920
|
Quote:
To put it another way, you couldn't show how aleprechaunism or apinkelephantism is irrational by raising questions about the origin of the universe, could you? You have to show why it is irrational to believe that there are no leprechauns or pink elephants, respectively. You're the one asserting the existence of the fantastic, elusive entity, if you are a theist... So, I am asking: where is it? Why should we believe in it? Tell us. I reiterate: Pointing out gaps in human science and knowledge looks, conspicuously, like you're changing the subject. But this is all part of the old game. Instead of leading us to the burning bush that speaks with the voice of God, we get the same old, tired arguments... like First Cause, and its Thomist tack-on of "and that is what we call God." We get preaching and assertions, and fingers pointed to gaps in our science and knowledge... but no actual gods. |
|
05-22-2003, 06:36 AM | #118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
|
Quote:
On a more serious note, I concur with your post, pinkele phants and all. |
|
05-22-2003, 07:01 AM | #119 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: my mind
Posts: 5,996
|
Re: Biggest Dilemma for Atheism
Quote:
The universe as already stated in this thread is what exists now. The universe in past present does not exist anymore, its gone, kaput, an illusion of memory. What does exist is what is now, the present. That is why existence is, not was as in "existed". We merely have the llusion of cause and effect because of our memory, but in reality, the universe by definition its its own cause and effect, because nothingness cannot obviously exist - its nothing. In fact time is perceived by our ability to have memory, but it is completely relative. We perceive cause and effect in our human relative existence, but in the universe's absolute sense time is inexistant, everything, the whole universe is a puff in a instant, likewise if we were to have an absolute sense of time, everything will stand still (we will have to perceive the motion of every single particle for example), and at that moment time would have to disappear too. |
|
05-22-2003, 07:47 AM | #120 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,320
|
Re: Re: Biggest Dilemma for Atheism
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|