Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thomaq · 05-19-2003, 05:10 PM

either the universe began to exist from nothing. or it always existed.
the first seems intuitively wrong.
the second is implausible.
there are two options for the view that the universe has always existed.
option 1: the universe existed and things in the universe changed in relation to each other (time existed). this seems implausible because it means that an actual infinite amount of time would have to pass before we reach the present. if i was standing up, and an infinite amount of people had to sit down before i could sit down, i would never sit down. if an infinite amount of moments would have to pass before we get to the present, we would not have a present.

option 2: the universe always existed but in a completely changeless state. this is implausible because how would you ever get the "first" change or first motion? this is as intuitively wrong as the universe springing into existence out of nothing.

so forget theism or any other explanation, how do atheists deal with this dilemma. have i left out an option? should we even be asking these questions?

Just_An_Atheist · 05-19-2003, 05:26 PM

Just some questions concerning definitions: Define nothing, why would it be impossible for something to come out of nothing? The word nothing implies a complete lack of laws, so there could be no "principle" that could keep something from "springing" into existence.

Autonemesis · 05-19-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
either the universe began to exist from nothing. or it always existed.
the first seems intuitively wrong.

Then came quantum mechanics, and our intution got better training. Dilemma resolved.

jgn1142 · 05-19-2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
either the universe began to exist from nothing. or it always existed.
the first seems intuitively wrong.
the second is implausible.
there are two options for the view that the universe has always existed.
option 1: the universe existed and things in the universe changed in relation to each other (time existed). this seems implausible because it means that an actual infinite amount of time would have to pass before we reach the present. if i was standing up, and an infinite amount of people had to sit down before i could sit down, i would never sit down. if an infinite amount of moments would have to pass before we get to the present, we would not have a present.

option 2: the universe always existed but in a completely changeless state. this is implausible because how would you ever get the "first" change or first motion? this is as intuitively wrong as the universe springing into existence out of nothing.

so forget theism or any other explanation, how do atheists deal with this dilemma. have i left out an option? should we even be asking these questions?

" HOW ABOUT .....we do not have the posibility to REALY understand what is UNIVERSE ... our explanation is limited to the LIMITED posibilities we have and to the LIMITED infirmation we can get with our LIMITED senses.....So let us go back to Sokrates final thought:
"THE ONLY THING I KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT I KNOW NOTHING" in relation to the existing DIMENSIONS and information we are realy very small.......to even think that we can give a real expanation that will be close to REALITY.
So I think that any eplanation from any point of view is wrong by the FACT that we can not realy see something that we are a TINY
PART only and nothing more.

Jack
jgn1142

thomaq · 05-19-2003, 05:30 PM

"Just some questions concerning definitions: Define nothing, why would it be impossible for something to come out of nothing? The word nothing implies a complete lack of laws, so there could be no "principle" that could keep something from "springing" into existence."

nothing: the absence of anything. including the absence of potentiality.
therefore there is nothing that could come from something.

are you really comfortable with the proposition - something came from nothing. i agree that nothing includes the absence of laws but it also includes the absence of anything that the laws might apply to.

thomaq · 05-19-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Then came quantum mechanics, and our intution got better training. Dilemma resolved.

nonsense. quantum mechanics is something, right? so quantum mechanics always existed? if so, did change occur within quantum phenomena? now you are back to the actual infinite dilemma.

Elvithriel · 05-19-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
are you really comfortable with the proposition - something came from nothing.

thomaq, obviously you are. If not, then who created God?

thomaq · 05-19-2003, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elvithriel
thomaq, obviously you are. If not, then who created God?

that would be a theist dilemma. i am not offering theism as a solution. i am just talking about the atheist dilemma.

thomaq · 05-19-2003, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jgn1142
" HOW ABOUT .....we do not have the posibility to REALY understand what is UNIVERSE ... our explanation is limited to the LIMITED posibilities we have and to the LIMITED infirmation we can get with our LIMITED senses.....So let us go back to Sokrates final thought:
"THE ONLY THING I KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT I KNOW NOTHING" in relation to the existing DIMENSIONS and information we are realy very small.......to even think that we can give a real expanation that will be close to REALITY.
So I think that any eplanation from any point of view is wrong by the FACT that we can not realy see something that we are a TINY
PART only and nothing more.

Jack
jgn1142

so in your opinion we should not even be asking these questions?

Just_An_Atheist · 05-19-2003, 05:47 PM

If there is no law, then there is no reason that a lack of potentiality would mean anything. Furthermore, causation is usually a temporal and spacial phenomenon, at least that's how it appears to us. If there is no time, and no space, then why care about causation at all?

05-19-2003, 05:10 PM	#1
thomaq Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: california Posts: 154	Biggest Dilemma for Atheism either the universe began to exist from nothing. or it always existed. the first seems intuitively wrong. the second is implausible. there are two options for the view that the universe has always existed. option 1: the universe existed and things in the universe changed in relation to each other (time existed). this seems implausible because it means that an actual infinite amount of time would have to pass before we reach the present. if i was standing up, and an infinite amount of people had to sit down before i could sit down, i would never sit down. if an infinite amount of moments would have to pass before we get to the present, we would not have a present. option 2: the universe always existed but in a completely changeless state. this is implausible because how would you ever get the "first" change or first motion? this is as intuitively wrong as the universe springing into existence out of nothing. so forget theism or any other explanation, how do atheists deal with this dilemma. have i left out an option? should we even be asking these questions?

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

05-19-2003, 05:26 PM	#2
Just_An_Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 134	Just some questions concerning definitions: Define nothing, why would it be impossible for something to come out of nothing? The word nothing implies a complete lack of laws, so there could be no "principle" that could keep something from "springing" into existence.

05-19-2003, 05:30 PM	#5
thomaq Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: california Posts: 154	"Just some questions concerning definitions: Define nothing, why would it be impossible for something to come out of nothing? The word nothing implies a complete lack of laws, so there could be no "principle" that could keep something from "springing" into existence." nothing: the absence of anything. including the absence of potentiality. therefore there is nothing that could come from something. are you really comfortable with the proposition - something came from nothing. i agree that nothing includes the absence of laws but it also includes the absence of anything that the laws might apply to.

05-19-2003, 05:47 PM	#10
Just_An_Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 134	If there is no law, then there is no reason that a lack of potentiality would mean anything. Furthermore, causation is usually a temporal and spacial phenomenon, at least that's how it appears to us. If there is no time, and no space, then why care about causation at all?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.