The Universe is NOT eternal

1. 60

   A.Villarasaposted 10 years ago

   That the universe is NOT eternal has been codified by scientific  evidence (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics; the radiation echo of the Big Bang; Einstein theory of Relativity) that  it had a beginning. The Law of Cause and Effect  as applied to the universe speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause.
   
   So how could atheists explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless and amoral universe accidentally created beings (humans) who are full of personal intentions, and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals?
   
   The laws that sorround

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The Laws that surround causation is succinctly summed up in this: "Only MIND can create mind", and that the only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one responsible for reality as we know it.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         "Only mind can create mind" that's like saying only poop can create poop.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The simple-midedness of some folk just stuns me beyond belief.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Explain how it is different.  Because just asserting something loudly does not make it true.  And those statements are indeed equally ridiculous from some points of view.  They really are.
               
               I can imagine the universe being created by God.  I can understand why people might believe that. I can even see the appeal of it to some extent. Can you do the reverse--honestly, do you think you could do that?  Because that is a necessary starting point for a real discussion.
               
               If we are here to understand each other, that is achievable.  If we are here to win the argument that is just a huge waste of time. We all know what we believe and we all believe those things for very good reasons that will not change just because we read something on the internet.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  @Psychskinner:
                  
                  The Internet is of course not the source of all knowledge... arguments could be bolstered by what one reads one way or the other, but that can only go so much. You obviously have basic belief systems that you have accumulated through the years of experiential/instinctual  mingling of knowledgeable imagination and  intuition.
                  
                  I am involved in this discussion, not to win any debate or argument but to  express those belief systems that I hold strongly and passionately.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     So you are just here to promote what you think.  Not to understand what other people think.
                     
                     You only want to tell me what to think, not to understand what I think.
                     
                     I would call that the exact definition of a pointless conversation designed only to irritate and estrange people.
                     
                     Thus I fee my original assessment was correct.  You ask the same questions over and over because you are not even slightly interested in the answers.  You just use it as a stealth method to call atheists stupid, when it is actually you demonstrating a active and deliberate refusal to learn anything.

                     replyreport
   2. 0

      Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The number of possible humans genetically speaking is massive. The changes of us being hear is like winning the lottery. Yet here we are, all those ancestors meeting and creating new ancestors has eventually lead to us. We are here against all odds. Perhaps the universe is no different. Every week or day new people win lotteries, go shake their hands and tell them they don't exist.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      Titen-Sxullposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This current iteration of the Universe is not eternal however there is no consensus within the scientific community as to what happened "before" the big bang and for how long all the "stuff" that made up that singularity which expanded existed "before".
      
      Quite simply I'm not a physicist so its pointless to speculate, however I know there ARE physicists who do believe the Universe is eternal in some form, that it simply changes forms in a constant endless cycle. The Big Crunch - Big Bang cycle is not a new idea.
      
      "who are full of personal intentions, and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals?"
      
      Personal intentions and desires often stem from societal obligations or motivations or, on their base level, instincts.
      
      The more intelligent an animal the wider the range of behaviors it can undertake, "free will" as we know it may simply be an illusion based on the sheer range of choices our brain has the capacity to imagine and weigh the hypothetical consequences of.
      
      As for an obsession with meaning, I think that's understandable given our position in the cosmos. Whether or not there IS a grand meaning many would want there to be one, such a meaning would comfort us in the face of our own mortality and seeming insignificance in the face of the cosmos around us. It would tell us that our lives have meaning BEYOND the meanings we attach to them already, some kind of cosmic destiny might be imagined. Keep in mind that mankind could neither read or write for a hundred thousand years AT LEAST, most of our own formative years lie during that time. Being born under the blanket of the stars, having to learn its mysteries to survive, forging myths and gods, this likely goes back far longer than any religion that was eventually written down.
      
      Morals are the obvious one. To thrive as a social species a basic instinctual moral framework is necessary, human beings have that in our natural capacity for empathy. Empathy and a natural desire to protect our kin (those we deem are like us or part of our group) do not require anything supernatural, they are fairly obvious and are the result of natural evolution.
      
      It cheapens the mystery to just say it was magic or divine command. God did it, is not satisfying for those of us who want the REAL answer revealed. Humanity is in its infancy, and clinging to ancient ideas, often unfalsifiable ones at that, that for many simply serve as empty comforts in the face of reality, doesn't do us any favors.
      
      Mystery can exist and be appreciated without superstition and IF and when we find the real answers they will be the right ones, not the ones that makes us feel good about ourselves and our position in the Universe and not the lazy ones we place in the gaps in our understanding.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Because it just did?
      
      Why does it have to have a meaning? It is far more likely that there is no reason for life to exist in the grand scheme of things, and the only reason we persist is because our DNA tells us we must, and that's good enough for us (largely because we're based off that same DNA).

      replyreport
2. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   Given that we have corrected the straw man aspect of your questions (e.g. there are more options than 1) God and 2) accident) many many times I can only conclude you have no real interest in hearing the real answer. to this question.
   
   So I give up. Yes, atheism is the moronic belief that the entire world happened by accident. We believe it because we are evil and/or stupid.
   
   That should save everyone a lot of time.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @Psych: I would be very interested to know what other options you have in mind and what the real answer is to this question. I have conversed  with you so many times, but I somehow managed to miss your elucidation on the topic at hand. Unless of course I'm so thick-skulled that I am beyond being redeemed  even by your intellectual perspicacity.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Okay lets try it one more time. Can you, as a thought experiment, accept that there may be orderly processes that create complex patterns that are not caused by God and are also not based on pure chance (accidental)? Because if this is unimaginable to you, there is no way to explain.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Is that a no?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               @Psycheskinner: Give me examples of  what you consider "orderly processes that create complex patterns that are not caused by God and are also not based on pure chance".
               
               From my perspective life or the creation of life is NOT accidental, and is therefore intentional  purposeful, and  meaningful. Now from the atheistic perspective, since the creation of life was NOT intentional, then it is purposeless and meaningless.... something that is so stunningly nihilistic,  thus incomprehensible.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  and I might add, irrational and illogical.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     This is the results of someone not using reason and using wishful thinking to understand the world. Why again is it irrational and illogical to understand why we are here? You want a purpose for humanity in the universe so you invent one without reason or thought. If we follow your thought "we need mind to create mind" then we would find everything in the universe needs to be created by itself. Since that's not the case your logic is flawed.

                     replyreport
               2. 77

                  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not asking if you think it is true, I am asking if you could imagine it as a thought experiment under any conditions whatsoever.  Like imagine you are thinking of an alternative universe or a fictional world. Not the details of how I see a godless universe--but any conception of a godless universe at all even for the sake of a 'walking in another persons shoes' exercise.
                  
                  If you literally cannot even imagine it under any circumstances whatsoever, no amount of detail is going to be productive in getting to a point where we mutually and respectfully  accept the validity of each others' points of view as sincere and rational.
                  
                  In which case I am not sure what threads like this are for except to cause conflict.

                  replyreport
               3. 60

                  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  @Psycheskinner:
                  Here is a formulation that you might want to sink your teeth into... chew, then hopefully not regurgitate like a wasted piece of crud:
                  
                  " (1) Something exists, (2) You do not get something from nothing, (3) Therefore a necessary and eternal "something" exists, (4) The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator, (5) Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe, (6) Therefore, an eternal Creator exists."

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     (2) is a false premise.  (3) is a false logical trail, without true premise OR logical steps to the conclusion.  (4) is also false, as is (5).  (6) is again a false logical trail without a true premise or logic.
                     
                     Try again?

                     replyreport
                  2. 0

                     Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     As far as I know science doesn't say matter came from nothing. The singularity contained all matter, but in a different form that it appears now and that same matter will eventually take another form. Much like our bodies. Let's say the universe is currently in a state as our bodies are when alive. Before we were alive and after our death the atoms were still present but taking on different forms.
                     
                     So even though (2)(3)(4)(5) are false, you are still left not being able to prove the universe is not eternal.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Subatomic particles pop into existence.  Perhaps out of energy, perhaps not - as far as I know no one has managed to measure the energy concentration in the area of such a particle.  Certainly the first mass came out of nothing but energy; "nothing" in terms of matter or anything like what we are made of.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           If mass came from energy then it didn't come out of nothing. I'm not saying things like virtual particles don't come from nothing, I'm just saying matter didn't come from nothing. It may have always been there in a different form.

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              You misunderstand - to the cosmology/physics challenged energy is nothing.  They can't hold it so it isn't there, much like the singularity that was the predecessor to the big bang.

                              replyreport
                  3. 54

                     OpenFreeLearningposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Did the eternal Creator create the universe from something or from nothing? If nothing, doesn't that negate #2?
                     
                     If the universe was created from something, what was that something?

                     replyreport
               4. 89

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  "orderly processes that create complex patterns that are not caused by God and are also not based on pure chance"
                  
                  You might start with evolution, followed by the results of gravity.  Then add in chemical reactions (crystals) where the attractions between atoms and molecules result in extremely orderly patters, such as a benzene ring or DNA.

                  replyreport