Freethought & Rationalism Archive

99Percent · 05-22-2003, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
I have my reservations about the ontological supremacy of time, as depicted here. The distinction between the past and future as an absolute distinction may itself be a localized illusion of the universe.

You can say a particular thing existed, or will exist, because we have a relative point of view of that particular thing. But you cannot say the universe existed because the universe is everything, its the absolute all. There isn't anything relative to the universe to which to compare an existence or non existence with because of what the universe is by definition.

ComestibleVenom · 05-22-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent
You can say a particular thing existed, or will exist, because we have a relative point of view of that particular thing. But you cannot say the universe existed because the universe is everything, its the absolute all. There isn't anything relative to the universe to which to compare an existence or non existence with because of what the universe is by definition.

The argument fails even if we accept their definition. It's irrelevance is, of course, all the more salient when we more explicity reject it's unduly restricted definition of 'universe'.

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
You haven't really engaged what I have said. But let me try this from another angle: If it isn't rational to believe in anything we would define as a 'god,' then atheism is rational. You can't really examine the rationality of atheism 'by itself,' independent of theism, because the term atheism is entirely defined by being a negation of theism (however you want to define that). The only way to examine the rationality of atheism is to examine the rationality of theism. Theism is the positive claim, atheism is only the "I'm not buying into that story" side of it.

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.

point taken. whenever i have said atheism, replace that with naturalism.

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SteveD
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

answer this question for me. if an infinite amount of people had to sit down before i could, when would i sit down?

and, replace the word atheism with naturalism.

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent
I think the main problem with this argument is stating that "the universe existed".

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.

these are interesting assertions about the nature of time. i dont happen to agree with them. can you back them with reasons? they dont seem to be true but i could be wrong.

Unbeliever · 05-22-2003, 10:13 AM

I would like to point out that,

P1- A cause must precede the effect.

P2- There was nothing at all that preceded the universe, since time itself began at the big bang.

P3- Therefore, the universe cannot have had a cause.

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Unbeliever
I would like to point out that,

P1- A cause must precede the effect.

P2- There was nothing at all that preceded the universe, since time itself began at the big bang.

P3- Therefore, the universe cannot have had a cause.

so you believe that the universe began to exist out of nothing?

if p2 is true then the universe does not exist right now. because within "nothing" is the absence of the possibility of anything.

Deke · 05-22-2003, 10:51 AM

Thomaq,

Essentially, your question is the same as asking, �What was going on infinity years ago?� The very nature of the notion of infinity implies that we cannot offer a meaningful answer to this question. Any answer of the form, �Well, XYZ was happening�, is unsatisfactory since you can follow up with, �Well, what happened before that?�

There is no question that �God� resolves infinity paradoxes, but this doesn�t make God any more �real� than imaginary numbers (i), which resolve the paradox: Sqrt(x) = -1.

At some point humans may develop a capacity to understand infinity differently that we do now. But until then, there is no meaningful answer to the question you�re posing. But that doesn�t mean we can�t all be decent, compassionate, thoughtful people eh?

MHO,

Deke

thomaq · 05-22-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deke
Thomaq,

Essentially, your question is the same as asking, �What was going on infinity years ago?� The very nature of the notion of infinity implies that we cannot offer a meaningful answer to this question.

At some point humans may develop a capacity to understand infinity differently that we do now. But until then, there is no meaningful answer to the question you�re posing. But that doesn�t mean we can�t all be decent, compassionate, thoughtful people eh?

MHO,

Deke

are you responding to the question of, if an infinite amount of people have to sit down before i can sit down, when will i sit down? if you are referring to that question then there is a perfectly meaningful answer, which is - never.

to say that someday we might understand it differently is to say that someday we might understand married bachelors differently or square circles,etc.

ComestibleVenom · 05-22-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
so you believe that the universe began to exist out of nothing?

No! Nobody is saying that, stop using that straw man as a baseline paradigm.

Quote:

to say that someday we might understand it differently is to say that someday we might understand married bachelors differently or square circles,etc.

Deke is mistaken, as I have said before. We already DO have powerful concepts that allow us to move beyond this simple causal dillemma, and that involves reconstituting our understanding of the nature of space and time in a broader framework of physics.

Yes, in fact, that involves changing definitions and discarding old, bad theory. That's not fallacious at all, this is a scientific question.

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

05-22-2003, 10:13 AM	#126
Unbeliever Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ca., USA Posts: 283	I would like to point out that, P1- A cause must precede the effect. P2- There was nothing at all that preceded the universe, since time itself began at the big bang. P3- Therefore, the universe cannot have had a cause.

05-22-2003, 10:51 AM	#128
Deke Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: CA, USA Posts: 42	Thomaq, Essentially, your question is the same as asking, �What was going on infinity years ago?� The very nature of the notion of infinity implies that we cannot offer a meaningful answer to this question. Any answer of the form, �Well, XYZ was happening�, is unsatisfactory since you can follow up with, �Well, what happened before that?� There is no question that �God� resolves infinity paradoxes, but this doesn�t make God any more �real� than imaginary numbers (i), which resolve the paradox: Sqrt(x) = -1. At some point humans may develop a capacity to understand infinity differently that we do now. But until then, there is no meaningful answer to the question you�re posing. But that doesn�t mean we can�t all be decent, compassionate, thoughtful people eh? MHO, Deke

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.