Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SteveD · 05-19-2003, 09:49 PM

While it is fun to speculate on topics like this, I think we must admit that the answer may be unknowable.

I personally don't think that an eternal universe in one form or another is impausable just like I don't think that an infinite universe in spatial dimensions is impausable. But, I really have no idea what the truth of the matter is.

I see absolutely no dilemma for atheism here.

Steve

Silent Dave · 05-19-2003, 10:28 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?

Say the universe began to exist from nothing. You say that that's intuitively wrong, and I happily concede the point; it is also intuitively wrong that light exists as both a wave and a particle, and yet it is so. The computer you're reading this on right now is based on that fact. So, simply by reading this post, you concede the debate.

Say the universe always existed. Our definition of "always existed" would be that there is no point in time where it didn't exist. This is the case for the universe; it therefore could have existed for a finite period of time -- thus sidestepping your "paradoxes" -- and yet have always existed.

Either way, there is no dilemma here in the sense you mean, since an atheist could give either answer (or, depending on how you define "begin," even both answers) quite comfortably.

Dave

HRG · 05-20-2003, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
i will grant for now, that we can dismiss causation (although i might want to come back to it).
the absence of potentiality is different. for something to be actualized there must first be the potential for the actualization.
but in the case where nothing existed, potentiality did not exist and so there cannot be anything actually. also randomness did not exist either and therefore it could not have just happened.

"Potentiality" and "randomness" are not part of reality, but part of our thinking of reality. They do not exist, except as concepts in our mind.

Potentiality, specifically, is meaningfuk only within a specific metaphysical system which is not universal by far. Metaphysics can do very well without the (IMHO anthropomorphic) concept of potentiality. What philosophers think "could have", "could not have" or "must have" happened, is not binding on reality.

Regards,
HRG.

thomaq · 05-20-2003, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
Actually, there is one more alternitive, although I'm not sure whether it is sound. Quentin Smith wrote an article entitled "Time was Caused by a Timeless Point." He introduces the idea that the initial singularity is "metaphysically necessary", and caused the universe to exist. (By metaphysically necessary, I mean that the singularity exists in all possible worlds.)

this sounds interesting. i'd like to read more about that.

thomaq · 05-20-2003, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity
How is this a dilemma for atheism? This would be a dilemma for every belief system, so I don't see why one would wish to single out atheism.

true, but isnt this primarily an atheist web-site?

thomaq · 05-20-2003, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tenspace
Maybe more appropriate to call this a dilemma in our quest for knowledge. No need to look at it through bible-colored glasses, eh?

Thomaq, use this as an opportunity to expand your knowledge. May I suggest:

"The Elegant Universe", by Brian Greene

I think this will go a long way in helping you understand where we are in our search to answer these most fundamental questions.

Ten

i'll check that book out, sounds interesting. let me once again say that i am not putting forth theism as an alternative nor am i looking at things through bible-colored glasses. just wanted to take a look at how atheism itself might answer some of these questions.

thomaq · 05-20-2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silent Dave
Say the universe began to exist from nothing. You say that that's intuitively wrong, and I happily concede the point; it is also intuitively wrong that light exists as both a wave and a particle, and yet it is so. The computer you're reading this on right now is based on that fact. So, simply by reading this post, you concede the debate.

Dave

some things that seem intuitively right or in fact wrong. no debate there. it does not follow that ALL things that seem intuitively right are actually wrong. so no i do not concede the debate. in this thread there are many people saying that there is no way we can have knowledge about such things. if this is the case, then doesn't it seem more rational to lean towards our intuition on this matter? we can know that our intuition is wrong in the case of light particle/waves, we cannot know that something can come from nothing, and so it seems more rational to lean towards intuition in this matter.

Quote:

Say the universe always existed. Our definition of "always existed" would be that there is no point in time where it didn't exist. This is the case for the universe; it therefore could have existed for a finite period of time -- thus sidestepping your "paradoxes" -- and yet have always existed.

the big bang is still an event that brought about the existense of the universe, correct?

Quote:

Either way, there is no dilemma here in the sense you mean, since an atheist could give either answer (or, depending on how you define "begin," even both answers) quite comfortably.

it still seems like there is a dilemma, i'd like to hear more.

Just_An_Atheist · 05-20-2003, 10:21 AM

It seems to me like there is no way to arrive at truth concerning the beggining of the universe, because no matter at which world view you aim your questions, one is going to have to accept counterintuitive conclusions. If any brand of theism is true, then that particular god(s) would have to create it ex nihilo. This seems just as counterintuitive as the universe just coming into existence ex nihilo. In any case, it doesn't matter what one believes, there is going to be some "delimma" that exists. Therefore, there is no worldview that is superior to atheism in this respect, and consequently, atheism is not effected; evidentially speaking.

thomaq · 05-20-2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Autonemesis
Not in the sense you mean.

What does it do to your false dilemma if the answer to that question is "maybe" or "probably"?

Nope. To the degree that quantum mechanics is validated theoretically and empirically, the dilemma you propose is shown to be too simplistic. Reality turns out to be more quirky than your dilemma assumes.

"Not in the sense you mean."

how so?

"What does it do to your false dilemma if the answer to that question is "maybe" or "probably"?"

if things change in relation to each other within this "quantum field" then time is existing within it. if time is existing within it then you are back to the impossibility of traversing an actual infinte amount of moments which is impossible. unless the quantum field had a beginning itself and now we would be back to square one, do quantum fields pop into being out of nothing?

"To the degree that quantum mechanics is validated theoretically and empirically, the dilemma you propose is shown to be too simplistic. Reality turns out to be more quirky than your dilemma assumes."

please explain this.

thomaq · 05-20-2003, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
It seems to me like there is no way to arrive at truth concerning the beggining of the universe, because no matter at which world view you aim your questions, one is going to have to accept counterintuitive conclusions. If any brand of theism is true, then that particular god(s) would have to create it ex nihilo. This seems just as counterintuitive as the universe just coming into existence ex nihilo. In any case, it doesn't matter what one believes, there is going to be some "delimma" that exists. Therefore, there is no worldview that is superior to atheism in this respect, and consequently, atheism is not effected; evidentially speaking.

it sounds like you would concede that the dilemma of atheism shows that it is irrational, just "less" irrational than any other world view?

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

05-19-2003, 09:49 PM	#31
SteveD Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 118	While it is fun to speculate on topics like this, I think we must admit that the answer may be unknowable. I personally don't think that an eternal universe in one form or another is impausable just like I don't think that an infinite universe in spatial dimensions is impausable. But, I really have no idea what the truth of the matter is. I see absolutely no dilemma for atheism here. Steve

05-20-2003, 10:21 AM	#38
Just_An_Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 134	It seems to me like there is no way to arrive at truth concerning the beggining of the universe, because no matter at which world view you aim your questions, one is going to have to accept counterintuitive conclusions. If any brand of theism is true, then that particular god(s) would have to create it ex nihilo. This seems just as counterintuitive as the universe just coming into existence ex nihilo. In any case, it doesn't matter what one believes, there is going to be some "delimma" that exists. Therefore, there is no worldview that is superior to atheism in this respect, and consequently, atheism is not effected; evidentially speaking.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.