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

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Spock said:
And what does it matter if he “felt” that way? Back in those times there was practically no knowledge about the structure of the universe. He probably imagined it as a huge billiard table with many stationary balls, which needed an external “cue-stick” to set everything in motion. Of course we know that this kind of speculation is inaccurate. Einstein’s special relativity proved that linear, non-accelerating motion cannot be told apart from stationary existence. Motion (for example) cannot be separated from STEM. There is no need to assume a “prime mover”. No one thinks that there is a “divine electron-pusher”, who set the electrons in motion, or some “god” who gave a kick-start to the planets to rotate and revolve around the suns. This kind of speculation - which came from ignorance - really should be abandoned, since it is sheer nonsense. I am constantly amazed that those old guys are so revered today. No question, they were very smart people, but they were totally ignorant, too. Their empty speculations are just that - empty.
Click to expand...
I can see you haven’t read Aristotle.
 
Bluegoat said:
I can see you haven’t read Aristotle.
Click to expand...
What is the point? I studied philosophy in college (admittedly a long time ago), and read quite a few books since then. I did not explicitly read Aristotele’s works, but I read synopses of his thoughts. If you take exception to my analogy of the billiard ball and cue-stick, obviously in those times there were no billiard balls. But the analogy still holds. Don’t forget, even in Newton’s times the universe was thought to reside in an “absolute” space, drifting along some “absolute” time - like a giant deterministic clock-work. Any metaphysics that is founded on such concepts is not worth the price of paper it is written upon, and to discuss its ramifications is a vaste of time. 🙂
Bluegoat said:
I am saying that when a scientist says that in a particular model, there is no need for God, he is making a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one.
Click to expand...
That is a true statement. But, remember Laplace when Napoleon asked him why he never mentioned God in his work about the movement of celestial objects. His answer was: “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis”. This hypothesis does not belong to science, for one very good reason: “it can never be substantiated or refuted”, and moreover, it has no explanatory value. 🙂
 
Spock said:
What is the point? I studied philosophy in college (admittedly a long time ago), and read quite a few books since then. I did not explicitly read Aristotele’s works, but I read synopses of his thoughts. If you take exception to my analogy of the billiard ball and cue-stick, obviously in those times there were no billiard balls. But the analogy still holds. Don’t forget, even in Newton’s times the universe was thought to reside in an “absolute” space, drifting along some “absolute” time - like a giant deterministic clock-work. Any metaphysics that is founded on such concepts is not worth the price of paper it is written upon, and to discuss its ramifications is a vaste of time. 🙂
Click to expand...
The ancient pagans did not think that the universe had a beginning in time. Aristotle’s Prime Mover was not, primarily, a temporal Prime Mover, but a logical one, the underpinning or foundation of existence itself. There are good reasons that the ancients thought such a foundation was required and that it was separate from the universe itself, and non-physical.

So, no, the analogy doesn’t hold. Modern ideas about the universe lead to just the same problems that Plato and Aristotle had - perhaps even more so than the cosmologies of people like Newton or the medievals.
 
Spock said:
The word “before” is not applicable for the singularity, just like the expression “to the north” is meaningless at the North Pole. For the atheist’s worldview the Universe simply “exists”, it is the existential primary, it needs no “explanation”. To paraphrase the Biblical expression (“I am who am”): “IT IS WHAT IS”.
Click to expand...
Hi Spock.
I’m confused. How can the Universe “just exist”? How does it not need a cause?
 
starsmurf said:
Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. No space, no time, no energy, no matter. If another universe did exist, it has no bearing because you can’t talk of before the Big Bang, time did not exist, so it’s like asking what is North of the North Pole.
Click to expand...
But you said the Big Bang is an adequate explanation for the origin of the Universe, without the need of God. How did the Big Bang occur, then? Can you explain?

P.S. I have very little understanding in physics AND astronomy for that matter. Just taken APP Chemistry and AP Biology so far 😃
 
So in the atheist view, is the Universe self sufficient, as in, is what theists apply to God about being a “necessary being” applied to the Universe?
 
catholic1seeks said:
So in the atheist view, is the Universe self sufficient, as in, is what theists apply to God about being a “necessary being” applied to the Universe?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s it. Of course, many people don’t think much about it.
 
Bluegoat said:
Yes, that’s it. Of course, many people don’t think much about it.
Click to expand...
hmm…
That’s hard to wrap my mind around, but I guess I must admit that it’s also difficult to understand how God is a “necessary being”–how he has always existed.

But doesn’t the theist view make more sense at this point, because there is no sense of eternity (as applied to God by theists) in atheism? Don’t atheists have to say that either time existed forever, or something like time but not eternity? And ultimately, something contingent or sequential? If any atheists (or whoever knows their view) could elaborate, that would be great.
 
I haven’t read through the entire thread, yet I love to post the question,….where did the first substance come from,….and now name your dimension,…cell, atom, neutron, micron…etc,……where did they come from?

Yet maybe that is a question I, if I were so intelligent, really wouldn’t be one that I would want to answer? 🙂
 
When you get past the “how’s” and “what’s”, you most certainly run into the stumbling block of ontology/aesthetics, etc. Is it a valid theory that the universe formed via the Big Bang? Yes, of course. The Big Bang is a scientifically sound theory. However, you get to the point where you’re splitting hairs.

If “2+2=4” is the Big Bang theory, then “1+3=4” could represent belief in a deity. You run into problems when you break down the logistics. For instance, if you over-simplified the equation, such that:
2+2=4
-2, -2
2=2
1+3=4
-3, -3
1=1
However, 1=/=2, regardless. You end up with different ways to achieve the same product. Based on the fact that existence is not dual in its, well, existence (based on our subjectivity), the solution would be found in the process, and thus only one process would be applicable to said existence.
 
catholic1seeks said:
hmm…
That’s hard to wrap my mind around, but I guess I must admit that it’s also difficult to understand how God is a “necessary being”–how he has always existed.

But doesn’t the theist view make more sense at this point, because there is no sense of eternity (as applied to God by theists) in atheism? Don’t atheists have to say that either time existed forever, or something like time but not eternity? And ultimately, something contingent or sequential? If any atheists (or whoever knows their view) could elaborate, that would be great.
Click to expand...
There could be a sense of eternity in atheism. Although when we talk about eternity, we need to remember that time is part of the universe we are in.

But when people talk about the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe, there are two things to keep in mind. One is that it is actually a pretty new idea in science - for a long time people thought the universe had always been around. The second is that the Big Bang is only the beginning of our universe. There may have been another universe before that. Some people have suggested that eventually the universe will squash back into a singularity and there will be another big bang and a new universe. That could go on eternally, or something else could. There isn’t really any way to know, but there are possible explanations that could mean an eternal material “thing” does exist.

I’m not sure it is really simpler to say “I have faith that this is the kind of “thing” the universe is” or “I think the universe has an immaterial foundational cause” myself. It seems to me at that level one view hasn’t much to offer over another.

Contingency, and change, are problems though for an atheist. The questions that lead philosophers, even those who believe in a real eternal universe, to suggest an immaterial cause, relate to change, contingency, and the possibility of human knowledge.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Hi Spock.
I’m confused. How can the Universe “just exist”? How does it not need a cause?
Click to expand...
Why would it need a “cause”?

Theists say that God simply exists, God, does not need a “cause” for his existence. If you accept this, then you have no problem with “causeless” or “uncaused” existence - in principle. I apply this very same concept to the Universe. The Universe is all there is. Nothing “outside”, nothing “prior” and so on. Look closely to the question “what is to the north from the North Pole?” and you will see that the idea “to the north” is meaningless at the North Pole. Just because the concept of “north” is a meaningful concept everywhere else on Earth, it does not follow that it is also meaningful at the North Pole. Similarly, just because “causation” is meaningful within the Universe, it does not matter that it can be applied to the Universe. By the way, to our best knowledge, supported by innumerable experiments: “causation” is a physical process, the exchange of some elementary particles. There is no causation without some particles (STEM) around. There are philosophers speak of some “abstract causation”, but that is just another nonsensical concept.

According to out best understanding, matter, energy, momentum, etc… cannot be created or destroyed, and that basic principle flatly contradicts to concept of some “external” creator. If the proposed metaphysics is contradicted by real physics, then the metaphysics must be discarded.
 
Spock said:
Why would it need a “cause”?

Theists say that God simply exists, God, does not need a “cause” for his existence. If you accept this, then you have no problem with “causeless” or “uncaused” existence - in principle.
Click to expand...
I agree. They usually respond that God is outside of time. Well so is a blackhole. Stephen Hawking actually answered all of the above questions in an excellently put together tv series last week. I recommend they watch (and everyone because it’s interesting and enlightening): youtube.com/watch?v=BuOxTiotS9Y
 
catholic1seeks said:
So in the atheist view, is the Universe self sufficient, as in, is what theists apply to God about being a “necessary being” applied to the Universe?
Click to expand...
The concept of “necessary” existence is another ill-defined, bogus concept. And the term “being” is also undefined. The ideas of “logically necessary” and “logically contingent” can only be defined in a causative chain. If there is a causative chain of A → B → C, then B is contingent in the relation of A → B, but it is necessary in the relation of B → C. As I said before, “causation” can only be defined within the Universe.

“Necessary” existence is usually defined as something that exists across all the possible worlds, where a “possible world” is a state of affairs, which is different from our actual world in some respect. It is very easy to prove that there is no “necessary being”.
 
Spock said:
Why would it need a “cause”?

Theists say that God simply exists, God, does not need a “cause” for his existence. If you accept this, then you have no problem with “causeless” or “uncaused” existence - in principle. I apply this very same concept to the Universe. The Universe is all there is. Nothing “outside”, nothing “prior” and so on. Look closely to the question “what is to the north from the North Pole?” and you will see that the idea “to the north” is meaningless at the North Pole. Just because the concept of “north” is a meaningful concept everywhere else on Earth, it does not follow that it is also meaningful at the North Pole. Similarly, just because “causation” is meaningful within the Universe, it does not matter that it can be applied to the Universe. By the way, to our best knowledge, supported by innumerable experiments: “causation” is a physical process, the exchange of some elementary particles. There is no causation without some particles (STEM) around. There are philosophers speak of some “abstract causation”, but that is just another nonsensical concept.

According to out best understanding, matter, energy, momentum, etc… cannot be created or destroyed, and that basic principle flatly contradicts to concept of some “external” creator. If the proposed metaphysics is contradicted by real physics, then the metaphysics must be discarded.
Click to expand...
Okay, yeah this makes sense. However, is it not a different sort of self-sufficiency? Like, theists say that God is a necessary being and describe it in terms of eternity and simplicity and the like. But saying the Universe “just is” seems, in my current understanding, a lot different than saying “God is” because the universe is material and physical. Self-sufficient immaterial whatever (e.g., “god”) seems more logical than self-sufficient universe, because we observe the universe as having causation.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Okay, yeah this makes sense. However, is it not a different sort of self-sufficiency? Like, theists say that God is a necessary being and describe it in terms of eternity and simplicity and the like. But saying the Universe “just is” seems, in my current understanding, a lot different than saying “God is” because the universe is material and physical. Self-sufficient immaterial whatever (e.g., “god”) seems more logical than self-sufficient universe, because we observe the universe as having causation.
Click to expand...
When talking about God as “eternal”, “unchanging”, “immovable”, “spaceless”, “timeless”, “simple”, “loving” etc. (there are many more) you introduce concepts which are not really “simple” :). I have never seen a coherent definition of these terms. Moreover, there are serious problems concerning how these attributes relate to each other. When push comes to shove, the apologists always retreat to the defense that these terms are imprecise, they are approximations, they do not reflect God’s “true” nature (whatever it is), because our finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite nature of God. My question is: on what grounds do they say that those expressions are approximations of God’s true natrue, if they do not know (and cannot know) what God’s true nature is? Effectively God remains undefined. That is a serious problem with the God hypothesis.

The other problem is that you introduce another level of “unknowns” and “unknowables”. Just how does an immaterial being interact with the physical? To say that he said “let there be light and there was light” explains nothing. To be precise, since the method of interaction cannot be fathomed, the God concept introduces no explanation at all. So we have an extra “layer” of existence, namely the Universe + God, but the extra layer has no explanatory value.

The atheist’s view is simpler. It assumes no special entities, it is WYSIWYG 😉 (what you see is what you get). The internal structure of the STEM is not simple, but there is no theoretical barrier of our understanding of it. Most probably, eventually we can decipher its workings. At least the track record is encouraging. And in the meantime, the scientific method makes our life better, more enjoyable. It gave us the ability to converse through the internet.

So why do you think that the God hypothesis is “more logical”? It introduces an unknown and unknowable being, and it introduces an unknown and unknowable method of God’s activities (yes, it is “magic” ;)). What chances do we have understanding God? None. We are finite, God is infinite. What chances do we have understanding the way God “operates”? None. What do we gain positing the God hypothesis in terms of knowledge? Nothing.

Before anyone mentiones it, believing in God may give you internal peace, which the atheist view does not give. It gives you hope that there is no closure at the time of death. It gives you the belief of eternal happiness. Of course the atheists do not get those “consolation” prices, but they do not even need them. But these beliefs (which are dubious) are irrelevant for the topic of this thread. I only mentioned them to show that there are some “perceived” advantages of being a beliver.
 
Spock said:
Theists say that God simply exists, God, does not need a “cause” for his existence. If you accept this, then you have no problem with “causeless” or “uncaused” existence - in principle. I apply this very same concept to the Universe. The Universe is all there is. Nothing “outside”, nothing “prior” and so on. Look closely to the question “what is to the north from the North Pole?” and you will see that the idea “to the north” is meaningless at the North Pole. Just because the concept of “north” is a meaningful concept everywhere else on Earth, it does not follow that it is also meaningful at the North Pole.
Click to expand...
And the same could be said of the atheist, why not accept God’s eternal existence. The point is any thinking person does have to recognize that there must be something that has always existed. The alternative is things pop into existence which no serious person advocates and which has no evidence in that in our experience things dont pop into existence.

Given that there must be something eternal the physical world is not a good candidate. The fact that our understanding shows that the universe exploded outward and will continue to until it in some sense breaks apart makes it very unlikely that it was the physical universe that always existed.

Therefore the most likely eternal thing is not the physical world but something metaphysical. This would be God.
Spock said:
According to out best understanding, matter, energy, momentum, etc… cannot be created or destroyed, and that basic principle flatly contradicts to concept of some “external” creator. If the proposed metaphysics is contradicted by real physics, then the metaphysics must be discarded.
Click to expand...
That statement does not make sense. You are axiomatically rejecting the very idea of metaphysics. The whole idea of metaphysics is that it is beyond physics.

I’m sure you dont want to limit the world to merely the physical since that would require you to deny things like morality, beauty, justice etc.
Spock said:
The concept of “necessary” existence is another ill-defined, bogus concept. And the term “being” is also undefined. The ideas of “logically necessary” and “logically contingent” can only be defined in a causative chain. If there is a causative chain of A → B → C, then B is contingent in the relation of A → B, but it is necessary in the relation of B → C. As I said before, “causation” can only be defined within the Universe.

“Necessary” existence is usually defined as something that exists across all the possible worlds, where a “possible world” is a state of affairs, which is different from our actual world in some respect. It is very easy to prove that there is no “necessary being”.
Click to expand...
This does not make sense in light of your post quoted above. There you seem to be agreeing with the idea of something necessarily existing, that for you is the universe. If the universe does not necessarily exist then your choices are something created it (God) or things pop into existence uncaused. I dont think you want to advocate the second option.

I would be interested in your easy proof that there is no necessary being. That seems to be a stretch in order to hold onto atheism given the fact that the best science shows the universe has a starting point and can not exists eternally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top