Primal

Well even theists must admit something must have existed for ever, basically because to bring about another existence an object must first exist. Either an object exists or it does not, and if it does not it cannot cause the existence of anything else to occur. If it does exist then it must either have existed forever or have been caused. One then has to suppose one of two things 1) Something existed forever. 2) Something came out of nothingness for no reason whatsoever, just "poof" and an object apeared.


The second scenerio sounds absurd, so the first must be the case. Now then, tehre seem to be two main viewpoints in regards to the universe 1) The material universe always existed. 2) The material universe was created by God, an agent that always existed. Given Occam's Razor the first stands and the second falls.

galiel

Just read the posts of the lunatic religious right on this site.

Talk about "infinite regression"...

99Percent

Common sense, not logic, dictates that infinite regress cannot be, likewise an infinite universe, or infinite division of space or time.

Something coming from nothing is impossible also because nothingness does not exist.

Existence simply is, it is self-caused. The universe is self-caused.

The past and the future are an illusion of memory and imagination - they don't exist either. Only the present exists.

Thats all there is to it.

galiel

Common sense has long proven inadequate as a tool for understanding the universe, particularly when it comes to this kind of discussion. Common sense does not help us understand the wave-particle duality, nor Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, nor modern cosmology theories such as the multiverse or the self-generating or "bootstrapping" universe.

Critical thinking today is based upon three tools for aquiring knowledge that go beyond common sense: Empiricism, rationalism and skepticism. Massimo Pigliucci does an excellent job of explaining each of them in his short essay: "Goethe's active doubt and the meaning of skepticism", which is the "Finale" to his approachable book, "Tales of the Rational: Skeptical Essays About Nature and Science.

You can make dogmatic declarations about how "that's all there is to it" until the cows come home, and that will not add to human understanding an iota of the contribution modern science makes on a daily basis.

Primal

99: If existence is self-caused that means it was already around, in which case; there is no reason for existence to cause anything. Existence can just drift at this point.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Does it seem to anyone else that both sides are arguing for their respective terms for the same thing, rather than arguing for different states?

I mean, one side says 'there's no infinite regression; the universe is eternal'--while the other side says 'there is infinite regression; the universe is eternal.

Thanks to everyone, so far, though--this has been an amazing discussion. I've learned a lot.

Keith.

99Percent

You are confusing science with philosophy.

galiel

First of all, my comments were in response to your assertions regarding the physical nature of the universe, including the assertion that the universe is self-caused and that an infinite universe or infinite division of space or time are impossible. Those are testable assertions to which science can apply. This entire topic is about whether, in order to have a universe that always existed, an infinite regression of events is required. This is a question about the physical and temporal nature of the universe, completely within the realm of science.

Second, I do not accept your distinction in the first place: it is the same false dichotomy theists use to argue that science cannot examine matters of faith. In fact, I do not accept that there is any realm of human experience for which the tools of critical thinking which I mentioned--empiricism, rationalism and skepcitism--are not only well suited as exploratory tools, but are the best tools available for the purpose of gaining understanding. If you discard logic, then there is nothing to debate. You are left with separate sets of dogmatic assertions (like competing religious doctrines).

It is you, sir or madam, who are sorely confused.



[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>