Empitness.

[atheistgirl]

Boiled down, the question is: Would an eternal existence be desirable and joyful if it were constituted by anything short of a perfectly-satisfactory, attained-then-guaranteed happiness? (And I can offer helpful (but ultimately imperfect) illustrations as to just how long “forever” actually is, if necessary.)

I’d be very interested to hear these illustriations.

Sarah x

 

[In_Spiration]

I’d be very interested to hear these illustriations.

Sarah x

OK, well… first, think of how old you are. Then consider how long it seemed for you – in your subjective consciousness – to take to reach this present moment of your limited lifespan. Now, having done so, take that very subjective experience which you’ve just recalled, of a quite finite quantity of time, and mentally multiply it by two, then yet again by much more, by twenty, say, and then further still, by any real number you can conceive (the greatest integer that is less than infinity, for example). Finally, ponder the fact that any period of time you just tried to mentally entertain is not even a fraction of an infinite span of eternal life.

Or… imagine how long it would take to erode Mt. Everest with only your fingernails and subsequently pile it back up again with your palms. Afterward, once adequately, albeit vaguely, grasped in your mind, understand that this in fact does not make up even a tiny fraction of the amount of time it would take to actually traverse an eternity.

That’s all for now. But, pretty much, the basic formula I’m using is: (1) take any quantity of time x; (2) ruminate upon an actual/hypothetical subjective experience of life that lasts for x; (3) …times infinity.

 

[mgoforth]

I’d be very interested to hear these illustriations.

Sarah x

IMO, one of the most enlightening illustrations of eternity - as it applies to Hell - comes from the 1976 film The Devil’s Playground:

Imagine a sphere of metal - vast as the Sun.

Imagine that once every 10,000 years a sparrow should visit it and brush it with its wings.

When that ball had been worn to nothing, we would still be in Hell. We would still be the howling damned, who do not see God’s face.

 

[atheistgirl]

OK, well… first, think of how old you are. Then consider how long it seemed for you – in your subjective consciousness – to take to reach this present moment of your limited lifespan. Now, having done so, take that very subjective experience which you’ve just recalled, of a quite finite quantity of time, and mentally multiply it by two, then yet again by much more, by twenty, say, and then further still, by any real number you can conceive (the greatest integer that is less than infinity, for example). Finally, ponder the fact that any period of time you just tried to mentally entertain is not even a fraction of an infinite span of eternal life.

Or… imagine how long it would take to erode Mt. Everest with only your fingernails and subsequently pile it back up again with your palms. Afterward, once adequately, albeit vaguely, grasped in your mind, understand that this in fact does not make up even a tiny fraction of the amount of time it would take to actually traverse an eternity.

That’s all for now. But, pretty much, the basic formula I’m using is: (1) take any quantity of time x; (2) ruminate upon an actual/hypothetical subjective experience of life that lasts for x; (3) …times infinity.

IMO, one of the most enlightening illustrations of eternity - as it applies to Hell - comes from the 1976 film The Devil’s Playground:

Thank you guys.

It’s interesting how people imagine something like infinity.

My image is nothing more complicated than the carbon/nitrogen cycle

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

Thank you guys.

It’s interesting how people imagine something like infinity.

My image is nothing more complicated than the carbon/nitrogen cycle

Sarah x

Well, that will certainly go on for a long time, but not forever since our planet will eventually be consumed by the Sun.

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, that will certainly go on for a long time, but not forever since our planet will eventually be consumed by the Sun.

Sure, but then I’ll just be absorbed by the material of the new universal development at that time.



So I reckon that buys me another 678,867,943,134,656,345,987,654.364,677,123,086,346,789,489 trillion years as a bit of space rock somewhere, before the universe becomes a singularity again, the big bang happens again, and my constituent bits in 15 billion years from then become Atheistgirl II

And on we go again

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

Sure, but then I’ll just be absorbed by the material of the new universal development at that time.



So I reckon that buys me another 678,867,943,134,656,345,987,654.364,677,123,086,346,789,489 trillion years as a bit of space rock somewhere, before the universe becomes a singularity again, the big bang happens again, and my constituent bits in 15 billion years from then become Atheistgirl II

And on we go again

Sarah x

So what version of atheistgirl are you now? If existence works the way you described above, then surely we’ve already gone through this loop before…so where did the loop begin?

 

[mgoforth]

So what version of atheistgirl are you now? If existence works the way you described above, then surely we’ve already gone through this loop before…so where did the loop begin?

I can give you a hint if you need…

 

[atheistgirl]

So what version of atheistgirl are you now?

The one that thought Oh yeah, sure, loads of kids, why not, it’ll be lovely, after all, I share 90% of my DNA with a rabbit!!!

And the one that’s desperately trying to remember what it was like to be a teenager, to stop her from pulling her eldest’s tongue out

If existence works the way you described above, then surely we’ve already gone through this loop before…so where did the loop begin?

Why do you assume it began?

I can give you a hint if you need…

No hint required. Since we know nothing can bring forth nothing, there never was a time when there was nothing, there was always something, a quantum quarky quark quack quack if you like.

My phd in Cosmology will be available online on the Disney site, as soon as Donald Duck has finished uploading it

Sarah x

 

[Qoeleth]

Sure. I had (have) a feeling of total emptiness.
This world- a passing shadow
Love- an endless agony
Life- a betrayal, a game played by children
Hope- a mirage, a deception, a lie

But this is where religion helps. It provides a meaning for this meaninglessness. If no-one loves you, Jesus loves you. Everything passes, the world and the vanities thereof, and then all will be well.

 

[mgoforth]

The one that thought Oh yeah, sure, loads of kids, why not, it’ll be lovely, after all, I share 90% of my DNA with a rabbit!!!

And the one that’s desperately trying to remember what it was like to be a teenager, to stop her from pulling her eldest’s tongue out



Why do you assume it began?

No hint required. Since we know nothing can bring forth nothing, there never was a time when there was nothing, there was always something, a quantum quarky quark quack quack if you like.

My phd in Cosmology will be available online on the Disney site, as soon as Donald Duck has finished uploading it

Sarah x

Sorry, I assumed you wanted to have a serious discussion.

 

[atheistgirl]

Sorry, I assumed you wanted to have a serious discussion.

Whatever

I asked you a serious question, why do you assume the universe ‘‘began’’ and if nothing can come from nothing, that means there never was nothing to begin with, or the universe wouldn’t have happened.

I’m not going to apologize for having a sense of humor.

So, move along if you like, I really don’t mind either way

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

Whatever

I asked you a serious question, why do you assume the universe ‘‘began’’ and if nothing can come from nothing, that means there never was nothing to begin with, or the universe wouldn’t have happened.

I’m not going to apologize for having a sense of humor.

So, move along if you like, I really don’t mind either way

Sarah x

I’m not offended, it just seems like you use your sense of humor to downplay the significance of any challenges to your ideas and to deflect. Honestly it was hard to tell if your question was serious or not.

You’re correct, nothing can come from nothing. But an infinite regress of causes is logically impossible. Your scenario assumes an infinite series of Big Bangs causing an infinite series of universes. That defies logic.

This segues nicely into the Argument from Necessity by St Thomas Aquinas:

The Argument from Necessity:

• Since objects in the universe come into being and pass away, it is possible for those objects to exist or for those objects not to exist at any given time.
• Since objects are countable, the objects in the universe are finite in number.
• If, for all existent objects, they do not exist at some time, then, given infinite time, there would be nothing in existence. (Nothing can come from nothing—there is no creation ex nihilo) for individual existent objects.
• But, in fact, many objects exist in the universe.
• Therefore, a Necessary Being (i.e., a Being of which it is impossible that it should not exist) exists.

Do you disagree with one or more of those axioms? If so, please explain.

 

[mgoforth]

Also the Argument from Efficient Cause:

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

• There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
• It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
• To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
• If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
• Therefore, a First Cause exists.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m not offended, it just seems like you use your sense of humor to downplay the significance of any challenges to your ideas and to deflect.

I’m glad, but no, I don’t use humor to deflect, I’ve got stuck in to all the stuff thrown at me here (I don’t mean in a bad way, I mean all the questions and challenges, but honestly, when you’ve explained like 1000 times where your morality comes from, and still someone asks you, like it’s an earth shattering question, where does your morality come from, it get’s a little bit repetative.).

Honestly it was hard to tell if your question was serious or not.

I guess so. Never mind, let’s move on.

That defies logic.

Maybe, but it’s no more illogical to me, than assuming the existence of an all powerful eternal being, that had no begining, has no end, and has existed for all eternity That’s just completely illogical to me, and unbelievable.

While the scientific explanations are no where near complete, or comprehensive, or agreed, they’re at least logical within the realms of reality.

This segues nicely into the Argument from Necessity by St Thomas Aquinas:

I’ve read tons of Aquinas and don’t find him in the least bit convincing.

There are some exellent expositions of the flaws in his arguments online if you care to find them.

Sarah x

 

[mgoforth]

I’m glad, but no, I don’t use humor to deflect, I’ve got stuck in to all the stuff thrown at me here (I don’t mean in a bad way, I mean all the questions and challenges, but honestly, when you’ve explained like 1000 times where your morality comes from, and still someone asks you, like it’s an earth shattering question, where does your morality come from, it get’s a little bit repetative.).

Hmmm…I don’t believe I asked where your morality comes from…? What I experienced was trying to pose logical counter-arguments about the beginning of existence, engaging you in a real conversation, and only getting something back about Donald Duck. Disappointing, but not offensive.

While the scientific explanations are no where near complete, or comprehensive, or agreed, they’re at least logical within the realms of reality.

Except, no…they’re not…not at all. An infinite regress of causes and effects is not logical. Please explain to me how it possibly can be. There must be a first cause, and whether you call the first cause God or not is another discussion. I’m just making the point that the first cause must exist.

Also, I don’t believe science actually suggests this infinite regress that you’re claiming anyway. The prevailing theory says that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down. Therefore eventually all particles will someday be ripped apart by this expansion and space will expand to such a degree that the ambient heat (and activity level) of the universe will approach absolute zero. Not a Big Crunch resulting in another Big Bang, but simply a Big Freeze that lasts forever.

So the premise that got us started on this tangent doesn’t appear to be supported by the facts. The universe will probably only exist once, and so the Carbon-Nitrogen cycle (like all other things of this world) will eventually end.

Also, if the universe only exists once, then once again it means there must have been a first cause.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m just making the point that the first cause must exist.

If it does, it’ll be a perfectly natural first cause, subject to the laws of the universe, one we don’t yet understand perhaps.

I’m not a cosmologist or theoretical astro physicist, but I have no reason whatever to posit a supernatural Deity where there’s gaps in our understanding.

So the premise that got us started on this tangent doesn’t appear to be supported by the facts.

Waaaaay to early to make any conculsive claims.

The universe will probably only exist once, and so the Carbon-Nitrogen cycle (like all other things of this world) will eventually end.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Also, if the universe only exists once, then once again it means there must have been a first cause.

If.

Sarah x

 

[Perplexity]

mgoforth: It seems to me like you’re trying to deduce the existence of a first cause from the impossibility of an infinite regression. But, what if you’re just as confident that a first cause doesn’t exist as you are that an infinite regression is impossible?

You’d just suspend belief. You would not deduce a first cause from the impossibility of an infinite regression. So, your reasoning is assuming a decent level of confidence in a first cause.

But, I don’t share this. Not only do I not see how an infinite regression is impossible (and yes, I’m well aware of the objections to them ranging from Zeno’s and the Grim Reaper paradox to Hilbert’s Hotel, etc.), but have excellent reason to think the universe never came into being (even if it had a first state) and that it had no cause.

 

[Bill_7154]

It’s quite simple Bill. Without the transcendent, …

By this do you mean believing in God and Jesus Christ and our purpose as Catholics?

Thanks,
Bill

 

[mgoforth]

If it does, it’ll be a perfectly natural first cause, subject to the laws of the universe, one we don’t yet understand perhaps.

Something that is it’s own cause, with no need for anything else to cause it, is by its very definition not natural. The laws of the universe say that everything must have a cause, so such a thing couldn’t be subject to those laws. The only thing I agree with is that we will never understand “it” fully, because “it” is beyond our understanding. But “it” is clearly not a natural object.

I’m not a cosmologist or theoretical astro physicist, but I have no reason whatever to posit a supernatural Deity where there’s gaps in our understanding.

This isn’t just a gap in our understanding, though. It’s a question of logical possibilities and impossibilities. It’s a question of axioms that fit together and axioms that don’t. A perfectly natural “something”, subject to the laws of physics, that caused itself along with all of time and space and all other matter and energy…is a set of axioms that don’t go together. It doesn’t make any sense.

Waaaaay to early to make any conculsive claims.

Saying “doesn’t appear to be supported by the facts” is not making a conclusive claim. But the accelerating expansion of the universe is an observable fact which does imply the heat death of the universe. Your theory of endless cycles of creation and destruction “doesn’t appear to be supported by the facts”. I don’t know any other way to phrase it.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Science says probably. I’m trying to speak your language, which is science and what’s provable, or at least theoretically plausible based on observations. But when the observations don’t fit your desired world-view, suddenly science is not so trustworthy??

You ask for evidence to support the Christian position, and when evidence is presented you say “maybe, maybe not”. It all suggests that you just don’t want to believe for emotional, rather than practical reasons…that you’re desperately trying to avoid going down that road, even when facts and logic do support “it”.

If.

More of the same thing.