2 of 4
2
What caused God to create the Universe?
Posted: 05 July 2017 09:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1464
Joined  2016-12-24
Yogi Yugpurush - 03 June 2017 09:24 AM

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

You know my hippy dippy higher level thought of late, in reaction to the various aspects of christian wavy gravy bandied about here recently.

Consider quantum mechanics - virtual particles are always popping into and out of existence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/  for real.

Add to that my fascination in recognizing fractals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZM45mfJQ40 throughout nature and behavior.
This one was inevitable, don’t know what took so long.

Fractals not just in what we see, but also the broader patterns in life,  folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity cascading down the stream of time..

Our human lives are an echo of that same theme started way back and still going on at a quantum level.

We pop out of nothing, into exist, live our lives, and then pop back out of existence.
At least we humans are remembered for a little while before that too will return to the primal soup.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 04:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  278
Joined  2017-05-04
Yogi Yugpurush - 03 June 2017 09:24 AM

The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is used by theists very frequently to prove God’s existence. It has been modified by different theologians from time to time. The latest one being :

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of existence.

Lot number of papers and articles has been presented by different philosophers in refutation of this argument. I will try to examine this argument from my point of view :

Premise 1 & 2 : Theologians love to quote the Big Bang theory to support Premise 1 & 2. But at the same time, they forget that both cause and effect are function of time and has no meaning outside space-time. As per the theory, Both space and time came into the picture with the big bang. Claiming that God caused the beginning of universe through big bang is totally nonsensical, as, creation is an action, and action itself is a function of time. Therefore, there cannot be an action which is out of time.

Secondly, the universe is 13 billion years old and our earth is only 5 billion years old (approximate data). Now, if dealing with earth and its human beings were the only purpose of creation, what was God waiting for the rest of 8 billion years? What is the reason behind creation of millions of stars, galaxies, solar systems, planets, and other astrophysical entities, which is totally useless and adds no impact to our life? After the earth will die off (with the death of our sun), the universe will still be there. What will God do for rest of the time, until Big Crunch occurs? Are heaven and hell a part of universe? If yes, they will also cease to exist with the universe along with the Big Crunch, and the concept of them existing for eternity would fail. If heaven and hell are not a part of universe, then, quoting Big Bang theory to support the cosmological argument is pointless, as, heaven and hell as places, and there cannot be any place which is not a part of space.

Premise 3 :  Let us, for argument sake, we assume that God caused the big bang. But then the question arise, why? God was there always, since eternity. What suddenly came in his mind that he will to create the universe with, humans, angels, demons, hell, heaven, etc? What was the cause that effected God to break his stability and act (in order to create the universe)?  What “caused” God that became the cause for creation?

God must exist because no scientific model will ever be able to explain where time and space originally came from. These concepts fail philosophically because as no original cause can be shown, all science is founded on the fallacy of cause-and-effect. The only way out of this problem is to conclude that what appears to be a causal universe is really just a series of co-incidences that are somehow pre-programmed to occur. What we see as reality, our universe, our mind and emotions, etc. is really the mind of God.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 04:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 02 July 2017 05:10 AM

  How might such an inquiry be advanced once we’ve swept both reason and faith off the table?

It wouldn’t be much of an inquiry if you swept reason off the table. Oh. I see. That’s your plan. Carry on.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 05:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  278
Joined  2017-05-04
Lausten - 06 July 2017 04:27 AM
Tanny - 02 July 2017 05:10 AM

  How might such an inquiry be advanced once we’ve swept both reason and faith off the table?

It wouldn’t be much of an inquiry if you swept reason off the table. Oh. I see. That’s your plan. Carry on.

Our reason cannot tell us where reality came from. To try to use reason is pointless because it inevitably comes from commonsense and the universe does not necessarily follow commonsense. We must use new ideas based on faith to really allow us to understand.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 06:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 06 July 2017 04:27 AM

It wouldn’t be much of an inquiry if you swept reason off the table. Oh. I see. That’s your plan. Carry on.

More lazy snarky put downs designed to inflate the “incredibly clever” ego of the poster while contributing nothing of any intellectual value.  That is, the forum equivalent of jerking off in public.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 06:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
webplodder - 06 July 2017 05:57 AM

Our reason cannot tell us where reality came from.

It does seem likely that human reason is too small a business to ever fully grasp the nature of reality.

To try to use reason is pointless because it inevitably comes from commonsense and the universe does not necessarily follow commonsense.

Well, using reason is not pointless if in doing so we come to better understand the limits of reason.  I agree the universe does not necessarily comply with the rules of human reason.

webplodder - 06 July 2017 05:57 AM

We must use new ideas based on faith to really allow us to understand.

Hmm…  This seems the equivalent of, we don’t know, so let’s make something up.  How is that “understanding”?

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26

What caused God to create the Universe?

In a word, Probability

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1541
Joined  2012-04-25
webplodder - 06 July 2017 05:57 AM
Lausten - 06 July 2017 04:27 AM
Tanny - 02 July 2017 05:10 AM

  How might such an inquiry be advanced once we’ve swept both reason and faith off the table?

It wouldn’t be much of an inquiry if you swept reason off the table. Oh. I see. That’s your plan. Carry on.

Our reason cannot tell us where reality came from. To try to use reason is pointless because it inevitably comes from commonsense and the universe does not necessarily follow commonsense. We must use new ideas based on faith to really allow us to understand.

Sure it follows commonsense. Commonsense tells us the sun will rise tomorrow and lo and behold, for 4 billion years it’s been right! And when faith was pushed out of the way to make room for reason, scientists figured out why it always comes up.

But you know what, I’ll play along. Yes we should use faith based new ideas. I’ll start: I have complete and total faith that the voice in my head telling me the universe came from a tiny little mustard seed is right. There’s a new idea. Now if you personally believe what you say about faith being a good starting place, private message me your address and I’ll send you an invoice for a faith based project I have in mind to prove my faith based idea is right. And as soon as I receive your money I’ll begin.

Dumb filter sentence here.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 10:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 06 July 2017 06:49 AM
Lausten - 06 July 2017 04:27 AM

It wouldn’t be much of an inquiry if you swept reason off the table. Oh. I see. That’s your plan. Carry on.

More lazy snarky put downs designed to inflate the “incredibly clever” ego of the poster while contributing nothing of any intellectual value.  That is, the forum equivalent of jerking off in public.

Trying to ignore your outburst and contribute to the thread.

Consider DesCartes thought experiment; Are we not what we think we are, but instead being controlled by an evil demon? Or the modern version; do we live in the Matrix?
Either way, you prove your own existence because you can have the thought. You can look at all the input you get and organize it, determine what is predictable and what isn’t and build on the data you acquire. Those are the tools of reason, it’s all we got really. If the demon is so powerful that you aren’t thinking those thoughts yourself and aren’t increasing your understanding through further study, but instead you just think you are, then it doesn’t matter, then you don’t exist as something other than a completely controlled thing and there’s nothing you can do about it. But even if that were the case, there’s no reason to stop trying to determine if that’s true. You are no worse off for your attempt to declare yourself into existence. Regardless of what reasoning can or cannot accomplish, I know of no better tool, or even any other tool.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 05 July 2017 09:43 PM
Yogi Yugpurush - 03 June 2017 09:24 AM

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

You know my hippy dippy higher level thought of late, in reaction to the various aspects of christian wavy gravy bandied about here recently.

Consider quantum mechanics - virtual particles are always popping into and out of existence.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/  for real.

Add to that my fascination in recognizing fractals https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZM45mfJQ40 throughout nature and behavior.
This one was inevitable, don’t know what took so long.

Fractals not just in what we see, but also the broader patterns in life,  folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity cascading down the stream of time..

Our human lives are an echo of that same theme started way back and still going on at a quantum level.

We pop out of nothing, into exist, live our lives, and then pop back out of existence.
At least we humans are remembered for a little while before that too will return to the primal soup.

Most importantly, the fundamental mathematics of the fractal function are very simple, which IMO makes it a candidate as a Universal constant.

[ Edited: 06 July 2017 04:15 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7757
Joined  2009-02-26

This lecture by Benoit Mandelbrot may be of interest;
https://www.ted.com/talks/benoit_mandelbrot_fractals_the_art_of_roughness

The Mandelbrot set based on this simple formula; z —> z^2 + c

All those fantastical shapes and forms can be formed by the application of this simple formula.

[ Edited: 06 July 2017 05:47 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 05:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 06 July 2017 10:49 AM

Trying to ignore your outburst and contribute to the thread.

Ok good, thanks.  Let’s both try to do that, as nobody is interested in our ego or emotions.

Lausten - 06 July 2017 10:49 AM

Regardless of what reasoning can or cannot accomplish, I know of no better tool, or even any other tool.

Assuming this is true, it doesn’t automatically equal reason being qualified to address the very largest of questions, often the scope of religious claims.  If faith is not qualified to arrive at meaningful conclusions at such a scale, and reason isn’t either, then what?

The topic can still be explored in the realm of experience.  As example, see the DMT thread. 

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19374/

A big obstacle in the inquiry is that both theists and atheists seem to agree that the point of the inquiry should be to develop knowledge, symbolic constructions which represent reality as accurately as possible.  That foundational assumption is not a law of nature, but is better described as wishful thinking.  That’s clearly a useful methodology for many inquiries, but it doesn’t automatically follow it is for this one too.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 06:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4074
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 06 July 2017 05:58 PM
Lausten - 06 July 2017 10:49 AM

Trying to ignore your outburst and contribute to the thread.

Ok good, thanks.  Let’s both try to do that, as nobody is interested in our ego or emotions.

Lausten - 06 July 2017 10:49 AM

Regardless of what reasoning can or cannot accomplish, I know of no better tool, or even any other tool.

Assuming this is true, it doesn’t automatically equal reason being qualified to address the very largest of questions, often the scope of religious claims.  If faith is not qualified to arrive at meaningful conclusions at such a scale, and reason isn’t either, then what?

The topic can still be explored in the realm of experience.  As example, see the DMT thread. 

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19374/

A big obstacle in the inquiry is that both theists and atheists seem to agree that the point of the inquiry should be to develop knowledge, symbolic constructions which represent reality as accurately as possible.  That foundational assumption is not a law of nature, but is better described as wishful thinking.  That’s clearly a useful methodology for many inquiries, but it doesn’t automatically follow it is for this one too.

Explaining why it is probable that we are approaching an accurate representation of reality takes a little more time, not sure I’ll finish this one. To respond to the above, I don’t think I made a claim that human ability to reason is up to the task. I only said I know of nothing better. In answer to “then what?”, all I have is, “be human”. Altering your mind, knowingly distorting your ability to perceive, is not the answer.

Building on DesCartes, but recognizing his limitations, we are faced with an assertion that we exist. If we don’t, it’s a strange virtual reality indeed, where ideas are stored as thoughts of ancient philosopher and left on clay tablets for others to discover, others that may not exist for all I know, except as stories books or on the radio. It’s just too complex of a construction for me to consider it being NOT real, so I’ve abandoned that. So I start by accepting that there is some sort of physical reality and it has a high degree of cohesiveness, that is, the laws that govern it are the same everywhere and through time, starting after the Big Bang and allowing for Relativity. In that, it makes sense that for beings like me to operate, they need to perceive that reality well enough to get what they need from it. So we may not see the full light spectrum or see super tiny things or fully comprehend time, but we are experiencing whatever it is that is there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 10:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  278
Joined  2017-05-04
Tanny - 06 July 2017 06:53 AM
webplodder - 06 July 2017 05:57 AM

Our reason cannot tell us where reality came from.

It does seem likely that human reason is too small a business to ever fully grasp the nature of reality.

To try to use reason is pointless because it inevitably comes from commonsense and the universe does not necessarily follow commonsense.

Well, using reason is not pointless if in doing so we come to better understand the limits of reason.  I agree the universe does not necessarily comply with the rules of human reason.

webplodder - 06 July 2017 05:57 AM

We must use new ideas based on faith to really allow us to understand.

Hmm…  This seems the equivalent of, we don’t know, so let’s make something up.  How is that “understanding”?

Well, even if we progress over the years and become incredibly knowledgeable, scientifically speaking, we will still essentially be in the same position as we are today inasmuch as not being able to answer where the universe originally came from. I’m not talking here about our spacetime universe that we are all familiar with but the universe in its widest sense, encompassing all the previous incarnations of the universe and, indeed, all the future possible ones. The point I’m making, I suppose, is that whenever we manage to answer one question we are presented with a whole bunch of others, so we never get to finally answer the question. In the end all we can do is hold a faith that somehow this has all been created by an unknowable force and leave it at that. Science is great but has limits.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2017 10:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  278
Joined  2017-05-04
Lausten - 06 July 2017 06:28 PM
Tanny - 06 July 2017 05:58 PM
Lausten - 06 July 2017 10:49 AM

Trying to ignore your outburst and contribute to the thread.

Ok good, thanks.  Let’s both try to do that, as nobody is interested in our ego or emotions.

Lausten - 06 July 2017 10:49 AM

Regardless of what reasoning can or cannot accomplish, I know of no better tool, or even any other tool.

Assuming this is true, it doesn’t automatically equal reason being qualified to address the very largest of questions, often the scope of religious claims.  If faith is not qualified to arrive at meaningful conclusions at such a scale, and reason isn’t either, then what?

The topic can still be explored in the realm of experience.  As example, see the DMT thread. 

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19374/

A big obstacle in the inquiry is that both theists and atheists seem to agree that the point of the inquiry should be to develop knowledge, symbolic constructions which represent reality as accurately as possible.  That foundational assumption is not a law of nature, but is better described as wishful thinking.  That’s clearly a useful methodology for many inquiries, but it doesn’t automatically follow it is for this one too.

Explaining why it is probable that we are approaching an accurate representation of reality takes a little more time, not sure I’ll finish this one. To respond to the above, I don’t think I made a claim that human ability to reason is up to the task. I only said I know of nothing better. In answer to “then what?”, all I have is, “be human”. Altering your mind, knowingly distorting your ability to perceive, is not the answer.

Building on DesCartes, but recognizing his limitations, we are faced with an assertion that we exist. If we don’t, it’s a strange virtual reality indeed, where ideas are stored as thoughts of ancient philosopher and left on clay tablets for others to discover, others that may not exist for all I know, except as stories books or on the radio. It’s just too complex of a construction for me to consider it being NOT real, so I’ve abandoned that. So I start by accepting that there is some sort of physical reality and it has a high degree of cohesiveness, that is, the laws that govern it are the same everywhere and through time, starting after the Big Bang and allowing for Relativity. In that, it makes sense that for beings like me to operate, they need to perceive that reality well enough to get what they need from it. So we may not see the full light spectrum or see super tiny things or fully comprehend time, but we are experiencing whatever it is that is there.

Well, we have to remember that whatever we see, hear, touch, taste, etc., it needs to pass through our ‘perceptual filters, which means whatever causes such perceptions ends up being ‘processed’ by our biology and presents itself to us as ‘reality.’ Take a sound. The sound starts out as pressure waves but for us to actually perceive it as a ‘sound’ the waves need to pass though our complex of audio structures and eventually gets to stimulate some area in the brain to become a ‘sound.’ So, this means we can never really know what the original source of the sound was, at least not directly, therefore, we may conclude that what we term ‘reality’ is actually kind of ‘subjective’ because we always have to experience it via our ‘antenna.’ Maybe other lifeforms on others planets possess completely different antenna and perceive their environment in a completely different way to the way we do, making their ‘reality’ very different from ours. It all depends on the environment a lifeform evolves in. The demands of some environments may be such that a lifeform develops senses that are attuned to surviving in that particular set of conditions, which may be very different from ours, thus necessitating a radically different perception of reality from ours.

[ Edited: 06 July 2017 10:59 PM by webplodder ]
Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2