If there's no God, how did the Universe form?

[Luke_K]

Fourth remark: “it all started with the senses”. Those ancients might have contemplated “how do we tell the difference between rock and a tree?”. The answer is “look at them, touch them, lick them, feel them…”. Use your senses. As before, there is no a-priori argument that our senses correctly reflect reality. There is no need for such an argument. The only reason we trust our senses, is that they work. The verification is a-posteriori. If someone would discard their own sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, they would die very quickly, and with their death their incorrect worldview would be “Darwin’d out” .

Yes, if our senses and brains didn’t accurately reflect how the world actually is, there’s no doubt none of us would have survived. Imagine if we sensed all objects as falling upwards when they actually fall downwards.:whacky:

 

[Al_Moritz]

Indeed it is. Along with all metaphysics.

Not quite. In metaphysics certain things follow logically, whereas an oscillating universe does not. It is one possibility among others, but it does not follow logically from what we observe.

 

[Spock]

Yes, if our senses and brains didn’t accurately reflect how the world actually is, there’s no doubt none of us would have survived. Imagine if we sensed all objects as falling upwards when they actually fall downwards.:whacky:

Exactly. It is funny that the argument about the “unreliability” of our senses comes up periodically. I keep wondering, on what gounds do people say that our senses do not reflect the reality accurately? How do they “know” what reality IS, if not through their senses? Boggles the mind.

 

[Spock]

Not quite. In metaphysics certain things follow logically, whereas an oscillating universe does not. It is one possibility among others, but it does not follow logically from what we observe.

Logic, in and by itself is useless, if the premises are unsound.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Logic, in and by itself is useless, if the premises are unsound.

What premises?

 

[Bluegoat]

Exactly. It is funny that the argument about the “unreliability” of our senses comes up periodically. I keep wondering, on what gounds do people say that our senses do not reflect the reality accurately? How do they “know” what reality IS, if not through their senses? Boggles the mind.

The point would be that we may not know anything at all.

 

[Spock]

The point would be that we may not know anything at all.

How is that possible? The actual physical reality forces us to act. We must maintain our existence. For example we must breathe, it is not a voluntary action, but an instinctive one. That action presupposes that the air will maintain our existence - and we know it does, by the virtue that we keep on living.

It is impossible to deny our knowledge. Cogito, ergo sum - said Descartes. And our knowledge comes via our senses. My point was that some people try to discredit the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut on some gounds. What gounds? They use “other” sensory (name removed by moderator)ut to discredit one (mirage in the desert comes to mind), which is the ultimate self-contradiction. Obviously they must trust one of their sensory (name removed by moderator)ut to try and discredit the other one.

By the way, did you happen to see my post to you, in which I elaborated on the different kinds of knowledge, and tried to substantiate why the empirical / materialist worldview is able to explain itself and its epistemology? It was post number 80: here…

 

[MaxRosen]

From New Scientist magazine (Subscription required):

The limits of knowledge: Things we’ll never understand

YOU might not expect the UK’s Astronomer Royal to make too many pronouncements about what chimpanzees think, but that is one of Martin Rees’s favourite topics. He reckons we can learn a lesson from what they understand about the world - or, rather, what they don’t. “A chimpanzee can’t understand quantum mechanics,” Rees points out.

That might sound like a statement of the obvious. After all, as Richard Feynman famously said, nobody understands quantum mechanics. The point, though, is that chimps don’t even know what they don’t understand. “It’s not that a chimpanzee is struggling to understand quantum mechanics,” Rees says. “It’s not even aware of it.” The question that intrigues Rees is whether there are facets of the universe to which we humans are similarly oblivious. “There is no reason to believe that our brains are matched to understanding every level of reality,” he says.

Just so.

I cannot improve on Martin Rees’ analogy. Maybe there are some things our brains will never imagine just as chimps cannot imagine quantum mechanics.

BTW here is the Richard Feynman quote alluded to above:

Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, “But how can it be like that?” because you will get “down the drain,” into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

 

[babylonsfalling]

What do atheists usually say?

Something else to address:
Is it even possible for the Universe to have always existed?

They don’t really have a “usual” answer, you get lots of different answers from different atheists.
They cannot trace the universe back to a provable origin that is without God, so ultimately they rely on faith…
Many of them have not come that realization yet, or cannot be intellectually honest about it. They just keep trying to think of causes that go further and further back in time. Each time you ask what brought about their latest cause, they have to think up something new.
When it comes to something coming out of nothing, I’ve heard from one that it was a “vacuous fluctuation”. That’s about as far back as they’ve gotten in my experience but again, they always end up at “I don’t know” which ultimately means (if they could be intellectually honest) that they don’t rule out God, which in turn means they aren’t really a genuine atheist.
At that point they usually start arguing about the “true” meaning of the word atheist……and it becomes clear that they’re more dedicated to the word “atheist” than they are to the intellectually honest truth about themselves.

 

[exnihilo]

No, that question does not arise, just like the question “what is to the north from the North Pole?” does not arise. Of course, the words can be put together (after all the paper or the electrons are rather “forgiving” and do not start a “revolution” when something nonsensical is placed unto them - more is the pity!) but the questions will be without merit. I could ask you all day long: “when did you stop beating your wife?” and you would be correct to ignore this question, on the ground that it is a nonsensical string of words, without meaning. The question of “what happened before the hypothetical beginning of the universe?” is equally inane, and merits no reply.

Al Moritz adequately answers this.

‘When did I stop beating my wife’ is not nonsensical. I understand the meaning of it. That is a ‘loaded question’. It is a rhetorical trick. But the words make sense.

If what happened before the universe is nonsensical then it seems Stephen Hawkin is being nonsensical. In his latest book I believe he suggests before the Big Bang, and thus before time, some sort of vacuum existed which produced the universe and I assume time. I may be incorrect about the details but I think he has to explain this supposedly nonsensical concept of something existing prior to the Big Bang and use words like before.

 

[Spock]

‘When did I stop beating my wife’ is not nonsensical. I understand the meaning of it. That is a ‘loaded question’. It is a rhetorical trick. But the words make sense.

Actually, if you never did beat your wife, then the asking of “when” makes the question impossible to answer. It is not loaded, its is simply nonsense.

If what happened before the universe is nonsensical then it seems Stephen Hawkin is being nonsensical. In his latest book I believe he suggests before the Big Bang, and thus before time, some sort of vacuum existed which produced the universe and I assume time. I may be incorrect about the details but I think he has to explain this supposedly nonsensical concept of something existing prior to the Big Bang and use words like before.

Maybe so. I did not read his book, ans neither did you. So we cannot conduct a valid conversation about a book which neither of us read…

 

[exnihilo]

Actually, if you never did beat your wife, then the asking of “when” makes the question impossible to answer. It is not loaded, its is simply nonsense.

I think you are equivocating on nonsense. Nonsense would be a sentence that does not make any sense. I can understand that question. There is an answer to it. The answer is problematic because of what can be implied. If I never beat my wife then I could answer never, since I never did beat her.

Loaded Question

Maybe so. I did not read his book, ans neither did you. So we cannot conduct a valid conversation about a book which neither of us read…

True enough! But if anyone does speculate about something that occurred or existed prior to the Big Bang we would run into this ‘time’ problem. Hopefully no materialist has so speculated since it would be a problem, for them.

 

[Spock]

I think you are equivocating on nonsense. Nonsense would be a sentence that does not make any sense. I can understand that question. There is an answer to it. The answer is problematic because of what can be implied. If I never beat my wife then I could answer never, since I never did beat her.

Maybe we did not use the word in the same way. The question of “is the taste of the middle-C red or cold?” is composed of perfectly good words, yet the question is indeed nonsensical. Would you agree?

True enough! But if anyone does speculate about something that occurred or existed prior to the Big Bang we would run into this ‘time’ problem. Hopefully no materialist has so speculated since it would be a problem, for them.

I cannot speak of other materialists, only for myself. I do not contemplate that “question”, or the one “what exists outside the universe?”, or anything along those lines.

 

[Bluegoat]

How is that possible? The actual physical reality forces us to act. We must maintain our existence. For example we must breathe, it is not a voluntary action, but an instinctive one. That action presupposes that the air will maintain our existence - and we know it does, by the virtue that we keep on living.

It is impossible to deny our knowledge. Cogito, ergo sum - said Descartes. And our knowledge comes via our senses. My point was that some people try to discredit the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut on some gounds. What gounds? They use “other” sensory (name removed by moderator)ut to discredit one (mirage in the desert comes to mind), which is the ultimate self-contradiction. Obviously they must trust one of their sensory (name removed by moderator)ut to try and discredit the other one.

By the way, did you happen to see my post to you, in which I elaborated on the different kinds of knowledge, and tried to substantiate why the empirical / materialist worldview is able to explain itself and its epistemology? It was post number 80: here…

Hmm, I did write a response to your post, but I don’t see it here. I’m not sure what happened to it, but I may have buggered it up somehow - sometimes I get distracted. I need to go to bed now, but I’ll try to reproduce it tomorrow.

I of course do think the world exists, but it is certianly possible to imagine that it doesn’t - it could be some sort of illusion, or a dream, or a trick by a nasy god, or a stream of data fed into our brains by hostile aliens… our own bodies could even be an illusion.

I agree that we can’t really deny our own existence, as a mind, in any given moment, as Descartes pointed out. That we are conscious, now, in the moment that we are aware of ourselves. I’m surprised though that you would accept the reasoning that allows Descartes to move from that bare minimum he felt he could affirm, to a body, to continuity in time, and to the world beyond his body? It wouldn’t, I would think, be acceptable to an atheist nor a materialist (unless I have got the wrong end of the stick with regards to your own POV?)

 

[Spock]

Hmm, I did write a response to your post, but I don’t see it here. I’m not sure what happened to it, but I may have buggered it up somehow - sometimes I get distracted. I need to go to bed now, but I’ll try to reproduce it tomorrow.

Whenever you have time, it will be fine.

I of course do think the world exists, but it is certianly possible to imagine that it doesn’t - it could be some sort of illusion, or a dream, or a trick by a nasy god, or a stream of data fed into our brains by hostile aliens… our own bodies could even be an illusion.

Oh, yes, the good old Matrix concept. But, you see, it is again not relevant. We can only gain knowledge about the external reality through our senses. By definition, whatever our senses report to us, IS the actual reality. To assume otherwise does not lead anywhere.

This whole “doubt” of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut comes from a simple problem. We can incorrectly interpret the reporting of our eyes. Mind you, our eyes report the reality correctly, but under certain circumstances we can interpret the “raw data” improperly (mirage). Our other senses are usually “fine” - unless one is under the influence of some serious drug. No one mistakes the smell or a rose and believe that he just smelled a rotting carcass. Or hear a quiet whisper and think that it was a thunder. Or mistake a beating for a caress.

The solution is simple again. If in doubt about the interpretation of our senses, apply more of it. If you have doubt about the “lake” in the distance, get closer to it, immerse in it, drink some of it. To say: “well I see this lake, I swim in it, I can taste it, I can hear the water slapping - but maybe I am mistaken, and I may really be in a desert, about to die from dehydration” - is nonsense. To deny the reports of our senses effectively says: “we cannot see because we eyes (and our eyes may distort ‘reality’) and we cannot hear because we have ears (and our ears may distort ‘reality’), etc…”.

The question of “but what is the true nature of reality?” can only be asked by a philosopher (I am using my most denigrating tone when saying that word).

I agree that we can’t really deny our own existence, as a mind, in any given moment, as Descartes pointed out. That we are conscious, now, in the moment that we are aware of ourselves. I’m surprised though that you would accept the reasoning that allows Descartes to move from that bare minimum he felt he could affirm, to a body, to continuity in time, and to the world beyond his body? It wouldn’t, I would think, be acceptable to an atheist nor a materialist (unless I have got the wrong end of the stick with regards to your own POV?)

Why do you think so? We are all aware of our own mind’s existence. There is one thing we are unable to accept: that we are insane. Not even the clinically insane believes that he or she is insane. As such, whatever I percieve as reality, I accept as reality - because there is no other way. In order to deny our senses we must affirm them. Just like the law of non-contradiction. There is no way to deny that, because to deny it one must accept it. By sheer logic, we must accept that our senses are fine - and before someone tries to say “we accept them on faith” - no we do not. By the way, we are not limited to our actual 5 senses, we are able to extend them via artifical means. Our eyes cannot “see” the X-rays, or the radio waves - directly - but we can create instruments to extend our capabilities. I hope this explains the materialist / empiricist view.

 

[Bluegoat]

Whenever you have time, it will be fine.

Oh, yes, the good old Matrix concept. But, you see, it is again not relevant. We can only gain knowledge about the external reality through our senses. By definition, whatever our senses report to us, IS the actual reality. To assume otherwise does not lead anywhere.

This whole “doubt” of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut comes from a simple problem. We can incorrectly interpret the reporting of our eyes. Mind you, our eyes report the reality correctly, but under certain circumstances we can interpret the “raw data” improperly (mirage). Our other senses are usually “fine” - unless one is under the influence of some serious drug. No one mistakes the smell or a rose and believe that he just smelled a rotting carcass. Or hear a quiet whisper and think that it was a thunder. Or mistake a beating for a caress.

The solution is simple again. If in doubt about the interpretation of our senses, apply more of it. If you have doubt about the “lake” in the distance, get closer to it, immerse in it, drink some of it. To say: “well I see this lake, I swim in it, I can taste it, I can hear the water slapping - but maybe I am mistaken, and I may really be in a desert, about to die from dehydration” - is nonsense. To deny the reports of our senses effectively says: “we cannot see because we eyes (and our eyes may distort ‘reality’) and we cannot hear because we have ears (and our ears may distort ‘reality’), etc…”.

The question of “but what is the true nature of reality?” can only be asked by a philosopher (I am using my most denigrating tone when saying that word).

Why do you think so? We are all aware of our own mind’s existence. There is one thing we are unable to accept: that we are insane. Not even the clinically insane believes that he or she is insane. As such, whatever I percieve as reality, I accept as reality - because there is no other way. In order to deny our senses we must affirm them. Just like the law of non-contradiction. There is no way to deny that, because to deny it one must accept it. By sheer logic, we must accept that our senses are fine - and before someone tries to say “we accept them on faith” - no we do not. By the way, we are not limited to our actual 5 senses, we are able to extend them via artifical means. Our eyes cannot “see” the X-rays, or the radio waves - directly - but we can create instruments to extend our capabilities. I hope this explains the materialist / empiricist view.

Unfortunately, from an empirical point of view, I strongly disagree with your view on the senses here.

For one thing, I don’t see why you are arguing that we cannot doubt that our sense even exist. On what grounds do you make such an assertion? How do you really know that you have a body, or that there is a physical world? It seems to me that you are simply accepting that the information your senses give you is correct, which is not obvious in the same way that the existence of our consciousness in a given moment is. This is not, at all, Descartes argument.

It is entirely possible to flummox the senses, or give them false information. We see this happen all the time, even without recreational drugs. People with limbs removed still feel them. People with epilepsy smell burnt toast. People with particular brain injuries have all kinds of weird experiences with their senses, or their brains really, giving them false information. If you electrically stimulate someone’s brain, you can give them a strong sensation of experiencing visual, tactile, visual, aural, or olfactory stimulation.

Why do you think that we need to “lead anywhere” with what we believe about the as we perceive it? Questioning the obvious has often lead to very interesting places in human history.

And a totally different point - it isn’t true that the insane never know that they are insane. Sometimes they do and just can’t do anything about it, or they know, that something is really wrong with them but they can’t figure out what.

As far as the earlier post, I’ll summarize, because I think I keep coming up to the same difficulty with your assertions - for example with regard to philosophers. Your views on the non-empirical seem always to be nothing more than a simple assertion of personal preference on your part. You don’t think philosophy is valid because you don’t accept non-scientific evidence. Why not? Because you don’t think non-scientific arguments are valid. It is a circle that rests only on your particular preference for the concrete.

This is what I was trying to point out with the reference to mathematics - not that it is a science. I will say though, that your particular assertion about the nature of math is just one view, and I don’t think even the most common among mathematicians. Many do think that numbers and number systems do correspond to an immaterial reality.

But the thing is, if you wish to argue that the “logic” of a mathematical system or formal logical system is simply created and has no reality, you are stuck with the same assertion for science which also uses reason to explain things. Remove that and all you have are a string of sense perceptions. Any logical structure, as long as the premises and conclusions are true, would be correct - the validity of the argument would become immaterial.

OTOH if you want to accept that there is a kind of reason to sense experience, how can you restrict use of that reason to sense objects alone, without arbitrarily saying that only sense objects are real?

 

[Spock]

For one thing, I don’t see why you are arguing that we cannot doubt that our sense even exist. On what grounds do you make such an assertion? How do you really know that you have a body, or that there is a physical world? It seems to me that you are simply accepting that the information your senses give you is correct, which is not obvious in the same way that the existence of our consciousness in a given moment is.

Of course I accept it. I have no choice in the matter. By the same token you could ask me, “on what grounds do I accept the law of non-contradiction?”. Because to deny it would entail its acceptance. The same principle applies.

Let me ask you a question: show me what kind of thought-process can you think of, which would indicate that our senses “deceive” us? Don’t just say that they “might” transmit incorrect data. As usual, the devil is in the details. Be specific.

It is entirely possible to flummox the senses, or give them false information.

We are back at the Matrix. If all of our senses are fed some information, then that is the reality. The question is “how to find out if we are in a simulated, virtual reality”? There is no way. Therefore the only solution is to accept that whatever we percieve is the actual reality. If you think otherwise, give me a process, by which we can tell the two apart.

Why do you think that we need to “lead anywhere” with what we believe about the as we perceive it?

If you think that drinking acid is good sustenance, then reality will prove you wrong.

Your views on the non-empirical seem always to be nothing more than a simple assertion of personal preference on your part. You don’t think philosophy is valid because you don’t accept non-scientific evidence. Why not? Because you don’t think non-scientific arguments are valid. It is a circle that rests only on your particular preference for the concrete.

First, I need to point out that our basic assumptions all come out from empiricism. Second, I have to point out (again) that true propositions in a deductive, axiomatic system are NOT arrived in an empirical fashion. Third, show me an alternative to the empirical method in the frame of physical reality. What kind of non-scientific “evidence” do you have in mind? As before, get down into details. I am really interested.

This is what I was trying to point out with the reference to mathematics - not that it is a science. I will say though, that your particular assertion about the nature of math is just one view, and I don’t think even the most common among mathematicians. Many do think that numbers and number systems do correspond to an immaterial reality.

It depends what that “immaterial reality” means. Of course I understand that physical objects have attributes, which are not “physical” (“size” or “temperature”, for example). Also that between physical objects there are relationships, which are not “physical” (“distance”, or “in front of”, for example). These are all abstractions. But abstractions are NOT ontological objects. They are contingent upon some conscious observer, to make those abstractions. There is no proposition like “the moon is in front of the sun when viewed from the planet” - unless there is someone to perceive these planets, moons and suns. Yes, I am aware that there are some philosophers who argue for the existence of “abstract objects”, like numbers, letters, etc… I don’t accept their ideas, and have very good reason to reject them.

If you leave a CD player in the forest to turn on automatically, and then leave, when the player switches on, there will be noise (vibrations of the air) but there will be no music. Or, to “borrow” from Klick and Klack (the Tappet brothers): “if a male says something in a forest, and there is no woman around, is he still wrong?”.

The axioms (or postulates) geomerty were chosen because they created a system which was applicable to reality. But the famous fifth postulate turned out to be replacable and we found two more wonderful, abstract systems, which are applicable on the surface of a sphere and a pseudo-sphere (negative curvature). Any axiomatic system is “valid”, as long as the axioms are not self-contradictory and not mutually exculsive. They do not have to reflect reality.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I have always found Hawking’s answers extremely lacking on the matter, to the point of ridiculousness, he may be able to calculate integrals in his head that would make some professional mathematicians embarassingly claim not to be able to solve, but when it comes to forming a cogent argument he freqently says something severely lacking that a child could find loopholes all over it.

“The Law of Gravity” supposedly shows how the Universe creates itself from nothing supposedly, and as many people have rightly pointed out, where did this gravity come from? More so, how was such a standard maintained so as to conform to some kind of uniform design so that physicists can theorize and eventually ascribe a “law” around it?

The Big Bang is slowly starting to become outdated now according to some physicists, now some are theorizing “The Big Bounce”, where The Big Bang has consistently been happening infinitely, reduces to a point of singularity and starts all over again. However, this “infinity” answers seems to be a convenient way of trying to evade the problem for many.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I explictly said that the scientific method is only applicable to discern truths pertaining to physical reality - and that implictly excludes mathematics and the other “abstract sciences”.

Considering that the scientific method has mathematics underlying it, it would not explicitly or implicitly exclude mathematics in anyway shape or form. The basic axioms defined in mathematics to construct models to interpret physical realities is through the scientific method, therefore it’s innately a part of the scientific method and therefore a part of how we interpret the reality present before us. Therefore your statement is erroneous.

Third remark: you say that science cannot answer the question “how do we gain knowledge?”. In this question the “how” is ambiguous. If it asks: “what neural processes are involved in gaining knowledge about reality?” then this question is very much a sicentific question, belonging to biology and neurophysics - about which the “ancients” had absolutely no idea. If the “how” means, “how is it possible to gain knowledge about physical reality?” - then we use a few, basic, unprovable assumptions (and all basic assumptions are unprovable).

Absolutely!

It’s probably more appropriate to concern ourselves with whether the science is the appropriate tool to answer such a question, and whether it might not be a categorical error to seek the answer solely from science, because this question seemingly dips also in to philosophy.

So, contrary to what you say, I do not accept “only” what I can see and touch. I know that science is also founded on a few basic, unprovable principles - among them is that the universe is “knowable”, the universe is “consistent”, that there are “laws of nature”. Now, contrary to what you imply, these basic principles did not come from some empty musings of some philosophers contemplating their belly-buttons in the seclusion of their ivory-towers. The are distilled from innumerable observations of innumerable “experiments” by innumerable humans.

What unprovable principles are these?

Again, contrary what you seem to believe: materialists / empiricists do not believe that “only the empirically verifyable propositions can be considered true”. (Unfortunately there are a few idiots on the board who keep on quacking this incorrect idea - no matter how many times their nose is rubbed into their excrement. Don’t be one of them. ) Propositions are considered true under 4 circumstances:

1. if the are basic principles of physical reality (selected during innumerable observations),
2. if they are some arbitrarily selected axioms for a formal system,
3. if they correctly reflect the physical reality,
4. if they are the logical corollary of a set of axioms.

Fifth remark: None of these cover the so-called supernatural realm. But as a materialist, I see no need for that hypothesis. All I wanted to show here that the materialist / empiricist stance is perfectly adequate in explaining itself and the physical reality.

This is rather vague and could also be fallacious depending on how one interprets these statements.

1. Innumerable observations do not imply a truth or a basic principle. I’m not even too sure what you mean by “basic principle” - what I instantly thought of here was the black swan argument, whereby all swans a few centuries ago were thought to be white because a black swan had never been seen, therefore the reality of the situation by innumerable observation was that there were no black swans, which is of course incorrect. As far as abstraction goes, all you need is one counter-example to disprove a supposed generality for a scenario, so your first statement is either incomplete or completely incorrect
2. Axioms are not “arbitrarily” selected for a system, if they are selected it’s by necessity to validate something.
3. This is similar to your first point, and is ambiguous.
4. The problem with this of course is axioms are for a given system, therefore if the axioms no longer apply to something, then it’s likely that whatever the corollaries imply don’t either, not always, but likely.

Furthermore, perceptions of reality is one thing, but to make propositions based on innumerable observations in a scientific way requires one to adopt a system which is formalized, for which we have formed axioms and corollaries to do so, therefore your first point is actually a subset of your first and seemingly redundant.

 

[razredge]

Is this the only active thread debating the cosmological argument/origin of the universe on here?
The problem with CAF is that there are too many threads on the same topic open at any one time.