Where did everything come from?
-
An argument founded on invalid principles. The Rational Proofs for the Existence of Allah The following are established facts and principles that all rational people agree upon: 1. The invalidity of determination without a determining factor. 2. The invalidity of an infinite sequence. 3. The invalidity of the vicious circle. 4. The law of causality. None of the mentioned are either established facts or "something all rational people agree on" The argument for the first is specious at best, since it makes the addition presumption that the universe "came into existance" and ignores the posibility that there was no equivalent to a "beginning". The second is absurd. There are many examples of infinite sequences. Proving that something is finite is more difficult. Again flawed by the assumption that there is something analogous to "the beginning' of reality. the third makes the same error as the first, and makes the additional presumption that having assumed a "beginning" that there must be 'divine causality'. the fourth: The determination of things and the order that exists in the universe both indicate that there was a cause for – and wisdom behind – that determination and order. is at best an outrtageous assumption. Quantum mechanics strongly suggests that things are fundementally indeterminate, not determinate, and the assumption - again - that determinism requires an intelligent actor ("the same argument used by Christian fundamentalists who call it "intelligent design") is without foundation. Utterly unconvincing. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: The Rational Proofs for the Existence of Allah bah. Tomas proved that God can't exist (or at least can't be almighty, but that's pretty much by definition). Assumption: God is almighty. Following this assumption, s/he can create mountain too high that even s/he can't climb it. But that is in contradiction with assumption. QED. ;P David Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -
The first problem with this question is the assumtion that things "came from" anywhere. It ignores the possibility that there is nothing analogous to a 'beginning', and that 'things' simply have always been. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: It ignores the possibility that there is nothing analogous to a 'beginning', and that 'things' simply have always been. It ignored that premis because it is unsustainable. The universe is not static and there are many experiments that demonstate this fact. The existance of time , entropy, expansion etc.. all point to a "beginning". Richard In a world of pollution, profanity, adolescence, zits, broccoli, racism, ozone depletion, sexism, stupid guys, and PMS, why the hell do people still tell me to have a nice day? --Unknown
-
Stan Shannon wrote: the point is that "cause and effect" cannot be traced to a primal cause. It is a classic chicken or egg problem, which came first In the beginning - before the big bang - "first" had no meaning. There was no such thing as time. Consider for a moment that causality could be construed as a simplistic way of looking at entropy. Stan Shannon wrote: There must be some way to have an effect that does not have a cause Why ? Can you perform some type of "work" without changing the energy level in the system ? Remember that there is a signifigent difference between the philosophical definition of "cause and effect" or causality and the the definition that a physicist would use ( any review of the state of quantum physics would demonstrate that ) . Richard In a world of pollution, profanity, adolescence, zits, broccoli, racism, ozone depletion, sexism, stupid guys, and PMS, why the hell do people still tell me to have a nice day? --Unknown
But all of your questions assume a quantum universe - a universe that obeys a set of physical principles which we have managed to grasp intellectually. What universe caused that universe? Even if you argue that guantum physics allows something to come from nothing, where did that principle come from? (I've studied Quantum physics as far as three semesters of calculus will allow me to go, so I'm not going to pretend that I can go beyond a very limited appreciation of the subject - but I can say that I cannot help but feel that quantum physics will prove to be scientifically invalid during the course of this century.) "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Your response shows me that either[or a combination] a) you won't be convinced even if it was convincing b) you didnt read the article well and think about it c) you went in with the idea whatever this is must be wrong. Now in terms of of the specifics you mention, in regards to 1) all I give you is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Universe[^] Oh by the way this is addressed in so many places but thats not the point. 2-3) I don't get it are you trying to say that we shouldnt assume the universe has a beginning? In terms of 4) What does your response of Quantum mechanics have to do with it? You might as well just said Darwinisim or some other thing like that. Quran Translation Islam Basics Islamic lectures
A.A. wrote: a) you won't be convinced even if it was convincing b) you didnt read the article well and think about it c) you went in with the idea whatever this is must be wrong. None of the above. It was simply a very flawed argumnet. 1: from your cite:Calculating the age of the universe is only accurate if the assumptions built into the models being used are also accurate. Translation: The age of the universe is a "best guess" based on our present model of its construction. A fundamental assumption not mentioned is that "age" is a meaningful concept when applied here. Basically, 'age" is only an analogy for the time required for light to reach us from from a point that our current understanding says is a singularity. A.A. wrote: 2-3) I don't get it are you trying to say that we shouldnt assume the universe has a beginning? Exactly. Our brains are hard-wired to presume that things must have a beginning and end (as we do). It is just as reasonable to assume that the concept of a beginning is just as inappropriate here as discussing the 'beginning' of a circle. Without that assumption, most, if not all, arguments for devine creation fall apart. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Ok I'm looking for somewhat real answers here. I'm a christian and of course I know where the Bible says everything comes from but what about all the other religions out there? Where do they say everything comes from? -Richard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Stories#Creation_within_various_belief_systems[^] While it's not mentioned in the article, a lot of the old, extinct religions said that the earth/universe was created out of the corpse of the slain enemy of a god. The Native American creation stories tended to involve animals (e.g. a turtle went down into the ocean, picked up a bit of soil, brought it back to the surface where he and other animals formed dry ground). ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Ok I'm looking for somewhat real answers here. I'm a christian and of course I know where the Bible says everything comes from but what about all the other religions out there? Where do they say everything comes from? -Richard
You might want to check out the Man/Universe links here[^] for some basics. Some more info can be read on http://www.comparative-religion.com/[^] Not sure these sites will delve too deeply into answering your question, but they might show you where to look. BW
I want pancakes! God, do you people understand every language except English?
Yo quiero pancakes. Donnez moi pancakes. Click click, bloody click pancakes!
-- Stewie Griffin -
I think it is obvious that at some point our intuitive sense of "cause and effect" breaks down when trying to understand where everything comes from in a rational way. I doubt that science will ever be able to provide a truly satisfactory answer to that, and, whether you are religious or not, you have to accept that something outside of, and independent of, the "cause and effect" universe we find ourselves inhabiting had to "act" to start the process the led to the big bang which led to us. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: whether you are religious or not, you have to accept that something outside of, and independent of, the "cause and effect" universe we find ourselves inhabiting had to "act" to start the process That is precisely the assumption I disagree with. It may be a correct one, or it may not, but it cannot, by itself, support your argument. It is only an assumption that has at least one clear alternative (its inverse). At the quantum level, "cause and effect" becomes pretty suspect, and the assumption that there had to be a "start" could well be flawed. What's on the 'other side' of the singularity (big bang)? Just because we can't measure past it (beyond it?) in no way proves that nothing exists past the limit of measurement. IMO, introducing a requirement for an intelligent actor only confuses the issue, introducing the need to explain the origin of that intelligent actor. If you arue that the actor simply always existed, then I can argue with equal justification that the universe simply always existed, and eliminate any need for that actor. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
"God" is a rather naive attempt at explaining something far more complex than you or I are capable of understanding in our lifetimes. In short, God (and consequently religion) is a simplistic cop-out. That is all I will discuss in regard to this thread because should I continue, I will rile up the religions types and they will accuse me of spreading hatred of religion. Instead, I'll mellow myself out with several of these: :beer: :beer: You may now release the 1 vote hounds...
Well, at least one 1 hound found you anyway. :beer: Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Rob Graham wrote: It ignores the possibility that there is nothing analogous to a 'beginning', and that 'things' simply have always been. It ignored that premis because it is unsustainable. The universe is not static and there are many experiments that demonstate this fact. The existance of time , entropy, expansion etc.. all point to a "beginning". Richard In a world of pollution, profanity, adolescence, zits, broccoli, racism, ozone depletion, sexism, stupid guys, and PMS, why the hell do people still tell me to have a nice day? --Unknown
Richard Stringer wrote: The universe is not static and there are many experiments that demonstate this fact. The existance of time , entropy, expansion etc.. The observation that the universe is dynamic in no way relates to any requirement for endpoints (begininning or end). All of the above are equally at home in a cyclic universe. Furthermore, all of the above begin to break down as the state of the universe approaches the big bang. The introduction of an intelligent actor to "start" things only introuces the need to explain what "started" that actor, and so on ad infinitum. Since that approach leads to infinite recursion, I find it more suspect. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Wal-Mart.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flickrDie Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen
-
A.A. wrote: a) you won't be convinced even if it was convincing b) you didnt read the article well and think about it c) you went in with the idea whatever this is must be wrong. None of the above. It was simply a very flawed argumnet. 1: from your cite:Calculating the age of the universe is only accurate if the assumptions built into the models being used are also accurate. Translation: The age of the universe is a "best guess" based on our present model of its construction. A fundamental assumption not mentioned is that "age" is a meaningful concept when applied here. Basically, 'age" is only an analogy for the time required for light to reach us from from a point that our current understanding says is a singularity. A.A. wrote: 2-3) I don't get it are you trying to say that we shouldnt assume the universe has a beginning? Exactly. Our brains are hard-wired to presume that things must have a beginning and end (as we do). It is just as reasonable to assume that the concept of a beginning is just as inappropriate here as discussing the 'beginning' of a circle. Without that assumption, most, if not all, arguments for devine creation fall apart. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: None of the above. It was simply a very flawed argumnet. Dont be so quick to dismiss it. Contemplate it and think of what is being said here. Regardless the article does mention the possiblity you raised, more below. Rob Graham wrote: Translation: The age of the universe is a "best guess" based on our present model of its construction. Basically, 'age" is only an analogy for the time required for light to reach us from from a point that our current understanding says is a singularity. The talk of models is about how to best estimate it. Rob Graham wrote: Exactly. Our brains are hard-wired to presume that things must have a beginning and end (as we do). It is just as reasonable to assume that the concept of a beginning is just as inappropriate here as discussing the 'beginning' of a circle. Without that assumption, most, if not all, arguments for devine creation fall apart. There goes the Big Bang theory, not that much of this would change without it. Oh well. I am not sure how appropriate the circle analogy is, unless you are talking about, when the circle came about or something along those lines. Anyway from the article under the title "Its existence is necessary." The first of these possibilities is false, because that would imply that the universe could never cease to exist. We can witness created things being born and dying, coming into existence and disappearing. Thus, there is no reason why the whole universe cannot perish. Basically the idea is that nothing in nature has the characterisitics of lasting forever. Quran Translation Islam Basics Islamic lectures
-
Ok I'm looking for somewhat real answers here. I'm a christian and of course I know where the Bible says everything comes from but what about all the other religions out there? Where do they say everything comes from? -Richard
http://www.indigenouspeople.net/legend.htm[^] for your change of pace. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
"God" is a rather naive attempt at explaining something far more complex than you or I are capable of understanding in our lifetimes. In short, God (and consequently religion) is a simplistic cop-out. That is all I will discuss in regard to this thread because should I continue, I will rile up the religions types and they will accuse me of spreading hatred of religion. Instead, I'll mellow myself out with several of these: :beer: :beer: You may now release the 1 vote hounds...
John Theal wrote: You may now release the 1 vote hounds... Naw. Down-voting is an exceptionally lame way of indicating you're too lazy to think up anything else to post. And *my* lazy pointless posts need no backup, thankyouverymuch... ;)
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
-
Ok I'm looking for somewhat real answers here. I'm a christian and of course I know where the Bible says everything comes from but what about all the other religions out there? Where do they say everything comes from? -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote: I'm a christian and of course I know where the Bible says everything comes from Actually it doesn't. It says that God created all, but it fails to explain where God comes from :-) Our past religion, says that at first, there was the void, Ginnung-Gab, and from the void caame the cow Aud-humla. From Aud-humla came the first creature Buri. Well, it's a bit more complicated, because nothing exact is written, in other scripts it was Humal who was the first creature coming from Gapt, which is the Antropomorphic Ginnung-Gab. A lot of creatures came from Aud-humla, including Ymer, who was fed by the milk of Aud-humla. From Ymers body grew the first humans. And Ymer is the earth. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Wal-Mart.
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flickrDie Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen
Cheap shot - i.e. you beat me to it ;P The tigress is here :-D
-
Stan Shannon wrote: whether you are religious or not, you have to accept that something outside of, and independent of, the "cause and effect" universe we find ourselves inhabiting had to "act" to start the process That is precisely the assumption I disagree with. It may be a correct one, or it may not, but it cannot, by itself, support your argument. It is only an assumption that has at least one clear alternative (its inverse). At the quantum level, "cause and effect" becomes pretty suspect, and the assumption that there had to be a "start" could well be flawed. What's on the 'other side' of the singularity (big bang)? Just because we can't measure past it (beyond it?) in no way proves that nothing exists past the limit of measurement. IMO, introducing a requirement for an intelligent actor only confuses the issue, introducing the need to explain the origin of that intelligent actor. If you arue that the actor simply always existed, then I can argue with equal justification that the universe simply always existed, and eliminate any need for that actor. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: IMO, introducing a requirement for an intelligent actor only confuses the issue, introducing the need to explain the origin of that intelligent actor. If you arue that the actor simply always existed, then I can argue with equal justification that the universe simply always existed, and eliminate any need for that actor. please don't infer that I'm trying to articulate an "intelligent design" argument. I'm not. If the universe we inhabit was created by an intelligent being, than that being must have a deep and abiding faith in the power of statistical probability. However, I stand by my statement that there must be something external to our cause and effect universe. But, again, I'm not a huge fan of quantum physics which I think over the next several decades will be shown to be based on a mistaken perspective of the underlieing nature of matter. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Richard Stringer wrote: The universe is not static and there are many experiments that demonstate this fact. The existance of time , entropy, expansion etc.. The observation that the universe is dynamic in no way relates to any requirement for endpoints (begininning or end). All of the above are equally at home in a cyclic universe. Furthermore, all of the above begin to break down as the state of the universe approaches the big bang. The introduction of an intelligent actor to "start" things only introuces the need to explain what "started" that actor, and so on ad infinitum. Since that approach leads to infinite recursion, I find it more suspect. Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: The introduction of an intelligent actor to "start" things only introuces the need to explain what "started" that actor, and so on ad infinitum. Since that approach leads to infinite recursion, I find it more suspect. Unless that "actor" inhabited a universe which did not follow the same cause and effect laws that govern our universe. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Rob Graham wrote: None of the above. It was simply a very flawed argumnet. Dont be so quick to dismiss it. Contemplate it and think of what is being said here. Regardless the article does mention the possiblity you raised, more below. Rob Graham wrote: Translation: The age of the universe is a "best guess" based on our present model of its construction. Basically, 'age" is only an analogy for the time required for light to reach us from from a point that our current understanding says is a singularity. The talk of models is about how to best estimate it. Rob Graham wrote: Exactly. Our brains are hard-wired to presume that things must have a beginning and end (as we do). It is just as reasonable to assume that the concept of a beginning is just as inappropriate here as discussing the 'beginning' of a circle. Without that assumption, most, if not all, arguments for devine creation fall apart. There goes the Big Bang theory, not that much of this would change without it. Oh well. I am not sure how appropriate the circle analogy is, unless you are talking about, when the circle came about or something along those lines. Anyway from the article under the title "Its existence is necessary." The first of these possibilities is false, because that would imply that the universe could never cease to exist. We can witness created things being born and dying, coming into existence and disappearing. Thus, there is no reason why the whole universe cannot perish. Basically the idea is that nothing in nature has the characterisitics of lasting forever. Quran Translation Islam Basics Islamic lectures
A.A. wrote: Basically the idea is that nothing in nature has the characterisitics of lasting forever. Oh, you're right!, well, except from energy of course, hmm... A.A. wrote: There goes the Big Bang theory, not that much of this would change without it. Oh well. Not really, nothing in that theory says that our universe is the beginning of All, or the ending for that matter. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Stan Shannon wrote: whether you are religious or not, you have to accept that something outside of, and independent of, the "cause and effect" universe we find ourselves inhabiting had to "act" to start the process the led to the big bang which led to us. No I don't. Religion is simply an organized method of saying "I don't know" - to be gentle. 500 years ago almost everything that we take for granted in our everyday existance today would fall under the term "miracle". I don't and won't start a religious vs science war because neither side would/could be convinced of anything. Richard In a world of pollution, profanity, adolescence, zits, broccoli, racism, ozone depletion, sexism, stupid guys, and PMS, why the hell do people still tell me to have a nice day? --Unknown
Technically religion is a way of saying "I do know" And as for the religion vs science war, religion always wins because "true" science always backs up religion the Bible. Anytime science has contradicted the Bible science has always been wrong and thus changed views. Can scientist so easily say that they are absolutely correct in everything they believe happen knowing that science has made horrific blunders in the past such as assuming the world was flat? :) -Richard
-
Technically religion is a way of saying "I do know" And as for the religion vs science war, religion always wins because "true" science always backs up religion the Bible. Anytime science has contradicted the Bible science has always been wrong and thus changed views. Can scientist so easily say that they are absolutely correct in everything they believe happen knowing that science has made horrific blunders in the past such as assuming the world was flat? :) -Richard
Richard Parsons wrote: Anytime science has contradicted the Bible science has always been wrong and thus changed views. Can you cite an instance of that? EDIT - The mere fact that religion has turned to the methodologies of science in a rediculous effort defend itself is evidence enough of its own validity. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."