The Atheist Perspective On The Creation Of The Universe

My only thought. By the evidence I have, I cannot prove conclusively that there is anything outside of this room, or even that there is anything behind me.

But then, I don't think that helps the conversation any, it was just bugging me.

Unfortunately, that leads to the Boltzmann brain problem.

Legally Free Content

The success of the proposition "Things keep existing even when I can't see them" is evidence.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

No, you can't prove that stuff is there beyond any doubt, but you can prove that they are there beyond a reasonable doubt. Basically, you can be sure that things are there because you have seen them. This does not, however, work for a deity. (If you have seen a deity before I would advise you see a psychiatrist and/or lay off the acid.)

edited 27th Feb '12 6:16:21 PM by setnakhte

"Roll for whores."

I have, I'm schizotypal.

You are right. Sorry.

edited 27th Feb '12 9:03:10 PM by TheDeadMansLife

Please.

I dunno, but it's off topic.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

By this, I suppose, you mean that in such an universe, the kind of fluctuation generating widespread low-entropy states such as the one we are in right now would be extremely rare?

Well, that may be a valid point; but by the same token, in the "heat death" model of the universe, it seems to me that the kind of instant of time which is close enough to the Big Bang to present low entropy structures is infinitesimally rare compared to an eternity of absence of such structures. And still, here we are.

I never gave much thought to these issues, to be honest; but how is rejecting anthropic reasoning in the first case any different from rejecting it in the second one?

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

@Joesolo: If you're challenged to elaborate on the logic of your statements, calling them obvious and everyone else idiots is hardly a constructive way to advance the conversation, and drawing conclusions about you similar to the ones you've made about others is hardly unreasonable.

In other words, when you call people idiots while arguing poorly yourself, you invite them to call yourself an idiot and you've provided them an argument to support that claim, which is more than you had to go on when you started calling people names.

That said, I'm not willing to conclude that you are an idiot based on your behaviour so far, but I would advice you to stick to behaviour that doesn't harm your message.

If you are willing to set a very low standard for the discussion, you open the gates to very low attacks on your own position, and this is not something I would encourage, especially as the rest of us seem willing to discuss this on a level that isn't based on calling each other names or simply listing off positions we find evident without backing them up at all.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Best Of

What I was trying to ask was: is it possible that even if the universe we have observed so far was from our Bang that there would have been, or will be in the future, other Bangs within our universe. The stuff from those Bangs would have the same rules of physics and after enough time will reach us, but just hasn't done so yet.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I have a feeling that I've read somewhere that that's not possible, but for the life of me I can't remember who said it wasn't and why. It probably was Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss, or maybe even Michio Kaku...

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Things existing for a purpose? That's tautological thinking and no explaining anything. Plus, you haven't addressed the problem that "God" is not really an explanation, because that merely shifts the problem: Where then does this "God" come from?

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Also, why is god more plausible than the universe?

edited 28th Feb '12 5:08:58 AM by Clarste

The only reasons I've seen so far for the higher plausibility of God compared to the universe are emotional: "without God, there's no purpose," or "without God, there are no objective standards to our values" or "without God, the origins of our values are psychological instead of metaphysical."

Of course, none of those are supported by logic or evidence.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

And of course all of them can be right. In fact, I would even say they are right. I mean, unlike Dawkins or many other atheists I do think the concept of there existing no God, and no afterlife or anything of that sort is damn frightening. It's bad. But that doesn't mean it can't be the truth. As it appears, the world just is that terrible.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Their being right or wrong seems very subjective, to me. (Personally, I don't think that a universe with a God or with many gods would be preferrable to one that has none.)

This is just a side remark.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

From what I gather from Bible and those who claim to understand God, God seems be afraid of humans.

First he creates universe, but finds that nothing in it represents him. So he creates humans.

Humans do first defiance of against God, even if tricked(Why was the tree there in the first place?). They are Exiled.

Time goes by, Tower of Babel. Humans start to reach heavens. God goes and screw up that plan.

If you look at it, you can pretty much read the Bible as God attempting to bring humans back under control.

Also, to me if God exist, it takes certain fascination out of the universe. Let's assume we all agree that Mona Lisa is a masterpiece of art. Now, it was created by a man. How more awesome it would have been, it would have been natural creation?

To me, all scenic beauties of the world are beautiful because they are not created by someone. To me, idea that nothing beautiful can't be created without outside interference is more depressing than the idea that such things can exist without need of outside force. Universe can be fascinating and beautiful place without God to set it up. Otherwise it's just someone trying to proof something.

edited 28th Feb '12 5:33:25 AM by Mandemo

This

My objection towards the suggestion of universal creation being theistically guided : If there is a sentient that's capable of creation, how could it also willed for destruction such as black holes so naturally? Black holes are all consuming and is the ultimate negative force in the universe. I think the way the universe is set up (Bursting, Expansion, Consumption, Compression, Gravitation) is like a lottery in itself to the point that it's not a work of a sentient being

A god has to be sentient otherwise there'd be nothing to relate one's qualities with mortals to preach for.

The way the universe was shaped to be, was just like a random occurence in itself. It's just like evolution on our very own planet : random chances to produce random species

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

The problem with the first one is not just that it's rare; if it was, then it would indeed be analogous to the second one. It's that it's rare AND there is a much simpler, much more probable explanation - that the chaos eventually rearranged itself into a brain which is hallucinating this moment, rather than unscrambling itself enough to create an entire universe. And yet none of us walk around expecting reality to dissolve spontaneously in the next half a second.

No, don't call it whatever you want. A lot of people who make the first cause argument end up call the first cause "God", and, immediately thereafter, start to imbue it with all the characteristics the God of their particular denomination happens to posses. Humans go funny in the head over language like that.

Actually, I remember reading the opposite once. Some guy who claimed whatever started the universe was God, and if the big bang singularity was what had started the universe, then the singularity was God. Someone replied that that just made the word "God" meaningless, and that you might as well say that a piece of toast was God.

Legally Free Content