Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thomaq · 05-29-2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris

1.There are a number of problems with your proposition not least of which is your assertion that the "irrational" explanations for the existence of the universe are "the" claims of naturalism rather than simply two possible explanations.

2. More fundamentally, you would need to demonstrate that there exists a "rational" explanation for the existence of the universe and that naturalism necessarily precludes this explanation. If you can't, then all you've demonstrated is that all worldviews are irrational.

Chris

1. what are some more possible options? i'd like to examine those.

2. "If you can't, then all you've demonstrated is that all worldviews are irrational."

included in the "all" that you mentioned is naturalism, and therefore you agree that i have demonstrated the irrationality of naturalist explanations for the universe?

thomaq · 05-30-2003, 09:08 AM

does everyone agree that i have demonstrated that the current naturalist explanations for the universe are irrational? if not, why?

The AntiChris · 05-30-2003, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
included in the "all" that you mentioned is naturalism, and therefore you agree that i have demonstrated the irrationality of naturalist explanations for the universe?

No. You've simply demonstrated that your view of rationality is irrational.

Chris

thomaq · 05-30-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris
No. You've simply demonstrated that your view of rationality is irrational.

Chris

are you kidding? i dont know if this even warrants a response, but please, show me how i'm irrational.

The AntiChris · 05-30-2003, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
are you kidding? i dont know if this even warrants a response, but please, show me how i'm irrational.

Ok. If, according to your reasoning, no possible rational worldview exists, then either the existence of rationality itself is in question or, just possibly, what you consider to be "rational" may be mistaken.

Chris

thomaq · 05-30-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris
Ok. If, according to your reasoning, no possible rational worldview exists, then either the existence of rationality itself is in question or, just possibly, what you consider to be "rational" may be mistaken.

Chris

i did not say that "no possible" rational worldview exists. i am examining naturalism and finding that it is irrational. it was you who said that i have demonstrated "all worldviews to be irrational". i have not looked at all worldviews yet to determine that they are all irrational. can you show me where i am wrong or where any of the points i have made have implied a misunderstanding of rationality? do you have any response to the specific points that i made in the first post?

madmax2976 · 05-30-2003, 02:38 PM

I�ll chime in�

Quote:

When it comes to the existence of the universe, the naturalist explanation seems to be irrational.

1. the universe �sprang� into existence out of nothing approx. 13.7 billion years ago

Actually this is a view held by some naturalists. Victor Stenger discusses such a possibility in �Has Science Found God?�. He does so based on a definition of �nothing� as it applies to a void with no particles and zero energy state and uses the physics principles of symmetry. You should give it a read before you judge it.

Quote:

2. the universe has always existed

Here we have to define �universe� in conjunction with �always�. Always would mean for all time. Time is a feature of the universe. As there was no time in which the universe did not exist, we can answer this question affirmatively � the universe has always existed. (The Big Bang notwithstanding)

Quote:

2a. the universe has always existed and things in the universe changed in relation to other things (time existed)

I�m not sure what the significant difference is between this and 2.

Quote:

2b. the universe existed in a static state (no change, no time)
(universe as used here could also be the �timeless singularity� since universe is defined as: everything that exists, and from this �timeless singularity� came the universe as we know it approx. 13.7 billion years ago).

Does it even make any sense to say something exists without a reference of time?

Quote:

1. Is irrational because �somethingness� cannot come to being from �pure nothingness�.

More to the point, �pure nothingness� is downright inconceivable. I can�t picture it. Existence itself seems to be fundamental � even more so that a deity would be. If the universe is all that exists � it makes no sense to ask where all of existence �came from�.

As one guy put it:

Quote:

This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole requires a casual explanation. It does not. The universe is the total of which exists. Within the universe, the emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose the existence of entities - and all emergences of new entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of something that acts as a cause. To demand a cause for all of existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists, it is part of the existence; if it does not exist, it cannot be a cause. Nothing does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause "outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The forms of existence may change and evolve, but the fact of existence is the irreducible primary at the base of all casual chains. Existence -not "god" - is the First Cause.

Quote:

According to (1.) the universe did have a beginning (13.7 billion years ago) and thus according to (1.) the beginning was logically preceded by �nothingness�. Therefore (1.) is irrational.

When we say something had a �beginning� we always reference that as something changing to some other form. That is the typical usage of the word.

Here, you have adopted a very different usage � that of something just popping in out of nothing (using your definition of nothingness) � rather than being formed from preexisting materials. Therefore, I don�t see what is necessarily logical about the �beginning� being preceded by nothing. (more on this later)

Quote:

1a. the universe is the totality of existence
1b. the universe began to exists 13.7 billion years ago
1c. therefore, the universe is necessarily logically preceded by nothingness

This renders option (1.) irrational.

No, you�ve contradicted yourself in more ways than one. If the universe is the totality of existence, to postulate that it �came from� something is to suppose there is something external to it. But if it is the totality of existence, then nothing could be external to it.
Furthermore, as time is a feature of this universe, considering what �proceeded� it is nonsensical. There were no moments before the universe. There was no �before�.

Quote:

2a. the universe (including space/time) has always existed.

This is irrational due to the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite amount of moments.

You�re not being careful here. Always implies for �all time�. Time is a feature of the universe, so of course the universe has always existed.
As for eternity or a timeless state of affairs, who says it would be an �infinite amount of moments�? Timelessness would mean no moments at all.

In any case, what you have to do is show that a term like �always� has any meaning apart from the universe.

Quote:

2b. the universe existed in a static state (no change, no time). Call this the singularity if you like.

A. If the universe exists now in a dynamic state, then it is irrational for the universe to have existed in a static state, unless there is some reason for it to change from one to the other.
B. It is more rational to believe that the universe is currently in a dynamic state than a static state.
C. Therefore, it is irrational to think that the universe existed in a static state.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn�t seem to follow from the premises. What has its current state got to do with the possibility of what its former state may have been?

And by positing some external reason for the universe changing states, you�ve contradicted an earlier premise that the universe was all of existence.

Quote:

I understand this is presupposing that causality would apply to the singularity. One might say that causality began as a result of the shift from static to dynamic.

If by shift from static to dynamic you mean a shift from a timeless phase to one with time, we�re back to the same old dilemma. There was no time at which the universe did not exist � therefore it always has existed.

Quote:

What reason is there for this assertion? This would seem to be an appeal to quantum mechanics, or spontaneity. However, if causality does not apply to the singularity, why does spontaneity?

Both concepts are time dependent as they are meaningless without time as a reference � at least to me.

The AntiChris · 05-30-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
i did not say that "no possible" rational worldview exists. i am examining naturalism and finding that it is irrational. it was you who said that i have demonstrated "all worldviews to be irrational". i have not looked at all worldviews yet to determine that they are all irrational. can you show me where i am wrong or where any of the points i have made have implied a misunderstanding of rationality?

Quote:

I said: you would need to demonstrate that there exists a "rational" explanation for the existence of the universe and that naturalism necessarily precludes this explanation. If you can't, then all you've demonstrated is that all worldviews are irrational.

You said: included in the "all" that you mentioned is naturalism, and therefore you agree that i have demonstrated the irrationality of naturalist explanations for the universe?

I'm not sure why you titled your OP "Naturalism Irrational" when it seems that what you really intended to "prove" was that "all worldviews are irrational".

Chris

thomaq · 05-30-2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris
I'm not sure why you titled your OP "Naturalism Irrational" when it seems that what you really intended to "prove" was that "all worldviews are irrational".

Chris

one worldview at a time. for now its naturalism and for now its irrational, until someone can show otherwise.

i'm in the process of responding to madmax2976 right now.

Jet Grind · 05-30-2003, 05:03 PM

The view that naturalist hold is often misunderstood as "something coming from nothing". One thing that theists forget when they argue that something can't come from nothing, and that that disprooves atheism, is that they are only going on one cosmological model. The popular cosmological model amongst theists is that the universe began as an "actuality" that soon expanded to fill a vacuum. The reason that it's popular is that it violates the laws of physics and requires a supernatural intervention in order to make it happen. There are other cosmological models that do not violate the laws of physics, I'd once again highly recommend that you read Victor Stengers book "Has Science Found God."

There is also a new one I came across lately called the Ekpyrotic Universe model (names after an ancient model that the universe arose after a sudden bust of fire). Check it out.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010413-1.html

Basically this states that our universe began when two "membranes" in a 5th. dimension collided to creat out own 4D universe. This takes care of the first cause argument, as it is conceiveable that this 5th. dimension has always existed.

Pretty interesting stuff.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-30-2003, 09:08 AM	#22
thomaq Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: california Posts: 154	does everyone agree that i have demonstrated that the current naturalist explanations for the universe are irrational? if not, why?

05-30-2003, 05:03 PM	#30
Jet Grind Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Southern Maine, USA Posts: 220	The view that naturalist hold is often misunderstood as "something coming from nothing". One thing that theists forget when they argue that something can't come from nothing, and that that disprooves atheism, is that they are only going on one cosmological model. The popular cosmological model amongst theists is that the universe began as an "actuality" that soon expanded to fill a vacuum. The reason that it's popular is that it violates the laws of physics and requires a supernatural intervention in order to make it happen. There are other cosmological models that do not violate the laws of physics, I'd once again highly recommend that you read Victor Stengers book "Has Science Found God." There is also a new one I came across lately called the Ekpyrotic Universe model (names after an ancient model that the universe arose after a sudden bust of fire). Check it out. http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010413-1.html Basically this states that our universe began when two "membranes" in a 5th. dimension collided to creat out own 4D universe. This takes care of the first cause argument, as it is conceiveable that this 5th. dimension has always existed. Pretty interesting stuff.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.