"Atheism trumps Christianity" claim countered

[Tiggs]

Okay, I'll go with that. But what about time and space at the level of a singularity?

What happens there?

Depends if it's the first singularity or not. Time and Space seem to exist quite happily with lot's of black holes which are allegedly singularities whizzing around the Universe.

Spacetime is meaningless at the point of the first singularity, as it's measured relatively (See Einstein) and there is no other frame of reference.

Unless, of course - you do have a second frame of reference - such as a creator.

[Beckys_Mom]

No I don't believe that God came from the singularity. I believe God created everything, including the singularity. And again, that is my belief. I believe that God had no beginning and has no end...because that itself also denotes a "time".

That is a dictated belief held by Christians, Muslims and Jews... But not one that I hold... I do not see the sense in believing a being like God coming from nothing or always just being there.. God to me had to have come or formed from something... I believe that applies to anything that lives ...

Correct time in linear but outside the universe, it may not be... If time is not linear outside the universe.. and IF there is a place called heaven for the afterlife.. then everyone that has ever died, all arrive to the same place when they die at the same time ...

Edited September 15, 2011 by Beckys_Mom

[MedicTJ]

That is a dictated belief held by Christians, Muslims and Jews... But not one that I hold... I do not see the sense in believing a being like God coming from nothing or always just being there.. God to me had to have come or formed from something... I believe that applies to anything that lives ...

Correct time in linear but outside the universe, it may not be... If time is not linear outside the universe.. and IF there is a place called heaven for the afterlife.. then everyone that has ever died, all arrive to the same place when they die at the same time ...

Ok I'll repost my question because I don't think anyone saw it.

You have 2 choices, and there are only 2 because there can't be any others.

1. The universe was created out of nothing.

2. The universe was created out of something which has always been there.

It has to be one of the two choices. No other choice would make any sense.

[Tiggs]

Better yet, let's whittle this whole thing down to a choice.

Here are the two choices....and you can only pick one of them because there is absolutely no way there can be a 3rd choice. It would be an impossibility.

1. The universe was created out of nothing.

2. The universe was created out of something which always existed.

Well. Nothing is impossible, and I meant that quite literally, in this case, as a state of pure nothingness has never been observed. So option 1 is out.

As for option 2 - Infinite history doesn't mandate a creator, as infinite means "without beginning". Unless, of course, you want to revisit the whole "Who created God" argument again.

That said - I personally prefer option 3 (impossible as you think it apparently is).

3: The SpaceTime history of the Universe loops back on itself. Kind of like the "Can a time-traveller go back in history and sleep with his own great-great-great-great grandmother?" paradox, but on a cosmic scale.

[MedicTJ]

Well. Nothing is impossible, and I meant that quite literally, in this case, as a state of pure nothingness has never been observed. So option 1 is out.

As for option 2 - Infinite history doesn't mandate a creator, as infinite means "without beginning". Unless, of course, you want to revisit the whole "Who created God" argument again.

That said - I personally prefer option 3 (impossible as you think it apparently is).

3: The SpaceTime history of the Universe loops back on itself. Kind of like the "Can a time-traveller go back in history and sleep with his own great-great-great-great grandmother?" paradox, but on a cosmic scale.

Actually, 3 doesn't work because matter, time, and space are finite. Not infinite.

[Tiggs]

Actually, 3 doesn't work because matter, time, and space are finite. Not infinite.

Why does 3 imply that matter, time and space are infinite?

Also - how do you know that all three of those are finite?

[MedicTJ]

Why does 3 imply that matter, time and space are infinite?

Also - how do you know that all three of those are finite?

3 implies that matter, time, and space are infinite because even if space loops back onto itself...as you suggested, then you would keep lumping matter on matter, space on space, time on time and by now we surely wouldn't be here....but I can tell ya it would be the densest clump of stuff ever thought of.

And what about dark matter? What happens to that in the loop? Because at the rate things are going right now, with galaxies accelerating and not slowing down, eventually that leads to dark matter winning out over all and ripping the very atoms apart that make up matter, space, and time itself.

There are only two logical choices here. Either the universe came from nothing, or something had to always be here, without beginning.

[Beckys_Mom]

Ok I'll repost my question because I don't think anyone saw it.

You have 2 choices, and there are only 2 because there can't be any others.

1. The universe was created out of nothing.

2. The universe was created out of something which has always been there.

It has to be one of the two choices. No other choice would make any sense.

When people say - God was always there... that is a cop out answer given by those who have no idea how to look at it with an open mind...

In answer to your questions - You cannot know...

[Tiggs]

3 implies that matter, time, and space are infinite because even if space loops back onto itself...as you suggested, then you would keep lumping matter on matter, space on space, time on time and by now we surely wouldn't be here....but I can tell ya it would be the densest clump of stuff ever thought of.

Interesting, but not exactly what I had in mind. Think more along the lines of a really big animated Gif, where the end segues into the beginning perfectly. Or a circle, if that's easier to picture.

And what about dark matter? What happens to that in the loop? Because at the rate things are going right now, with galaxies accelerating and not slowing down, eventually that leads to dark matter winning out over all and ripping the very atoms apart that make up matter, space, and time itself.

LQG predicts a big crunch, followed by a big bang, followed by a big crunch etc.

There are only two logical choices here. Either the universe came from nothing, or something had to always be here, without beginning.

As I've already stated - option 2 is preferable to option 1, given that option 1 requires something that's never been shown to exist, whilst option 2 technically has no need for a creator, given that infinite history has no beginning.

My personal opinion, however, if we're talking logic - is option 3 - that at some point down the chain, in order for infinite regression to end, something, somwehere has to be in a self-creating infinite Time loop.

[MedicTJ]

When people say - God was always there... that is a cop out answer given by those who have no idea how to look at it with an open mind...

In answer to your questions - You cannot know...

It's not really a cop out answer. It's a belief system. Our very nature is to gain knowledge and we ask questions every single day.

But I didn't pose two questions. I posed two options. And they are logically the only two options available.

Either the universe came into being out of nothing, or the laws of nature, or God, or (insert whichever here) that existed outside of time had to begin it and had to have always been.

And I'll explain how the concept of "outside of time" works here.

Matter, space, and time are finite. That means they had a beginning, and will eventually come to an end. So whatever force, or law, or being that created those three things HAD to exist outside of them and before them.

I'm not asking people to believe in God. I'm asking people to take a look at the very basic level of all of this and come to a conclusion. Rather than keep jumbling the same things over and over, it really does come down to those two things.

[+HerNibs]

It's not really a cop out answer. It's a belief system. Our very nature is to gain knowledge and we ask questions every single day.

But I didn't pose two questions. I posed two options. And they are logically the only two options available.

Either the universe came into being out of nothing, or the laws of nature, or God, or (insert whichever here) that existed outside of time had to begin it and had to have always been.

And I'll explain how the concept of "outside of time" works here.

Matter, space, and time are finite. That means they had a beginning, and will eventually come to an end. So whatever force, or law, or being that created those three things HAD to exist outside of them and before them.

I'm not asking people to believe in God. I'm asking people to take a look at the very basic level of all of this and come to a conclusion. Rather than keep jumbling the same things over and over, it really does come down to those two things.

Why can't the universe have "always been" and is in a cyclical mode?

Nibs

[MedicTJ]

Interesting, but not exactly what I had in mind. Think more along the lines of a really big animated Gif, where the end segues into the beginning perfectly. Or a circle, if that's easier to picture.

LQG predicts a big crunch, followed by a big bang, followed by a big crunch etc.

As I've already stated - option 2 is preferable to option 1, given that option 1 requires something that's never been shown to exist, whilst option 2 technically has no need for a creator, given that infinite history has no beginning.

My personal opinion, however, if we're talking logic - is option 3 - that at some point down the chain, in order for infinite regression to end, something, somwehere has to be in a self-creating infinite Time loop.

Okay I call Uncle!

:w00t:

So we'll keep three in then.

But tell me, what created the self-creating time loop? It either came out of nothing, or something which was always there had to have created it.

(see how I weaved that back into giving you only 2 options....the only 2 options there are?)

[MedicTJ]

Why can't the universe have "always been" and is in a cyclical mode?

Nibs

That is a great question. To have a universe that has always been suggests that matter, space, and time are infinite. And if time is infinite then I wouldn't be typing this.....because there would be an infinity of time between each chicken-pecked letter.

If space is infinite then that would have to mean time is infinite....because the two are inter-connected.

If matter is infinite, then we wouldn't be here. It would be just one huge ball of...stuff.

[+HerNibs]

That is a great question. To have a universe that has always been suggests that matter, space, and time are infinite. And if time is infinite then I wouldn't be typing this.....because there would be an infinity of time between each chicken-pecked letter.

If space is infinite then that would have to mean time is infinite....because the two are inter-connected.

If matter is infinite, then we wouldn't be here. It would be just one huge ball of...stuff.

If it's cyclical it isn't infinite. It compresses, it expands, it compresses, it expands.

I also don't understand why you say it's all infinite.

Nibs

[MedicTJ]

If it's cyclical it isn't infinite. It compresses, it expands, it compresses, it expands.

I also don't understand why you say it's all infinite.

Nibs

Maybe you misunderstood me. I might have worded it wrong. I'm saying that matter, space, and time are finite things, not infinite.

And if something is cyclical, and not infinite......what started the initial cycle?

Again, it either had to come from nothing, or something that exists outside of time had to always have been there to create it.

That still comes back to the same 2 options.

[MedicTJ]

I think we're kinda at a stalemate on this, and that's okay. So I'll hit one last post (well...maybe one er..two..) about why it doesn't seem too crazy to me to hold the beliefs that I do.

The New Yorker published an article on the origins of the universe dealing with the Many-Worlds Theory. The cover of the issue featured a bunch of monkeys sitting with typewriters, and it showed that one of the monkeys had written a Beethoven piece or something. The basic gist of it was that even with enough dumb monkeys, chance allowed that one of them would accidentally write a Beethoven piece.

They said the origin of the universe began in the same way. That we just got lucky.

I think this followed a Scientific-American article on MW Theory in which the journal actually admitted that the universe was so finely tuned that if even one photon 1/trillionth of a trillionth of a second were out of place, the universe would be chaos and there would have been no way for us to exist.

But instead, here we are! Against all odds it seems.

We're on a pale blue dot around an average not-so-spectacular star, and we're at just the right place circling around it so that:

A) Our planet spins and receives equal heat.

B ) Our planet's axis is tilted just right to power the ocean currents, jet stream, and produce the seasons.

C) We have a beautiful moon that..without it...life would not have evolved.

D) By an even more astronomical chance, our moon eclipses our sun EXACTLY, even though it has only done so during our half-a-second time on the geologic scale over 4 billion years. Kinda strange how that only happens now..when intelligent life forms can view in wonder at it. But...it didn't happen during the dinosaurs. The moon eclipsed the sun...by a bunch...but ya didn't get no diamond ring beauty if you were a dino. Nope! We hit the lottery on that one! Eventually, the moon will continue it's slow path further away from the Earth and there will be no more total eclipses..and the way we're going, we won't be around for that either. Perfect!

E) We have a few awesome shields to "catch" most of the baddies that fly in from the outer solar system and elsewhere. Thanks to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune on that one.

Those are just a few of the blessings I can think of at the moment.

And to think.....all this happened by sheer chance and luck.

Thanks to the monkeys on their typewriters!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I get called crazy because I believe in God, and it's not crazy to believe that all this added up is by a chance so slim that according to statistics should have never happened.

I wonder if any of those other universes might have a purple unicorn in 'em or two.

[Tiggs]

Okay I call Uncle!

:w00t:

So we'll keep three in then.

But tell me, what created the self-creating time loop? It either came out of nothing, or something which was always there had to have created it.

(see how I weaved that back into giving you only 2 options....the only 2 options there are?)

It's always existed & it's all that's ever been.

A fully-formed looped four dimensional Universe, in which we, as three dimensional creatures, only observe a single slice at a time. As Time.

The only reason option 2 looks problematic, is if you also believe that Time is emergent. Once it's contained within the system as a fouth dimension - then not so much.

[Tiggs]

I think we're kinda at a stalemate on this, and that's okay. So I'll hit one last post (well...maybe one er..two..) about why it doesn't seem too crazy to me to hold the beliefs that I do.

The New Yorker published an article on the origins of the universe dealing with the Many-Worlds Theory. The cover of the issue featured a bunch of monkeys sitting with typewriters, and it showed that one of the monkeys had written a Beethoven piece or something. The basic gist of it was that even with enough dumb monkeys, chance allowed that one of them would accidentally write a Beethoven piece.

They said the origin of the universe began in the same way. That we just got lucky.

I think this followed a Scientific-American article on MW Theory in which the journal actually admitted that the universe was so finely tuned that if even one photon 1/trillionth of a trillionth of a second were out of place, the universe would be chaos and there would have been no way for us to exist.

Yep. That's Big Bang Theory for you, where the probability of inflation occurring is astonomical.

As opposed to, say, Loop Quantum Gravity, where it's very, very, very close to 1.

I've mentioned Loop Quantum Gravity before, right?

But instead, here we are! Against all odds it seems.

We're on a pale blue dot around an average not-so-spectacular star, and we're at just the right place circling around it so that:

A) Our planet spins and receives equal heat.

B ) Our planet's axis is tilted just right to power the ocean currents, jet stream, and produce the seasons.

C) We have a beautiful moon that..without it...life would not have evolved.

D) By an even more astronomical chance, our moon eclipses our sun EXACTLY, even though it has only done so during our half-a-second time on the geologic scale over 4 billion years. Kinda strange how that only happens now..when intelligent life forms can view in wonder at it. But...it didn't happen during the dinosaurs. The moon eclipsed the sun...by a bunch...but ya didn't get no diamond ring beauty if you were a dino. Nope! We hit the lottery on that one! Eventually, the moon will continue it's slow path further away from the Earth and there will be no more total eclipses..and the way we're going, we won't be around for that either. Perfect!

E) We have a few awesome shields to "catch" most of the baddies that fly in from the outer solar system and elsewhere. Thanks to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune on that one.

Those are just a few of the blessings I can think of at the moment.

And to think.....all this happened by sheer chance and luck.

Thanks to the monkeys on their typewriters!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I get called crazy because I believe in God, and it's not crazy to believe that all this added up is by a chance so slim that according to statistics should have never happened.

I wonder if any of those other universes might have a purple unicorn in 'em or two.

Why do you think it's shocking that a particular kind of Lifeform would arise in an environment that's absolutely perfect for that Lifeform to arise in?

Teleological argument. Kind of been done to death, to be honest.

[Habitat]

Where is the satisfaction in these discussions ? All the candidate 'solutions' are equally incomprehensible. Maybe the smart people accept that the limits of the reckoning of our 'instrument' are exceeded, and that manifests itself as bafflement. Unless you still think it can be 'cracked', somehow. That answer though, is unimaginable.

[Tiggs]

Where is the satisfaction in these discussions ? All the candidate 'solutions' are equally incomprehensible. Maybe the smart people accept that the limits of the reckoning of our 'instrument' are exceeded, and that manifests itself as bafflement. Unless you still think it can be 'cracked', somehow. That answer though, is unimaginable.

I personally think that Einstein "cracked" it with the General Theory of Relativity, to be honest, and that all we've been doing ever since is working out the consequences.

For example, the existence of Causal loops - (option 3 in the discussion above) - are predicted by General Relativity and have been known and discussed by the Scientific Community since 1949.

Loop Quantum Gravity (which I'm sure I've mentioned a few times now) is actually a canonical model of General Relativity, at the quantum level.

Time as a 4th Dimension - also comes from Einstein's General Relativity.

No-one has the full picture yet. We're just colouring in the canvas the best we can with the crayons we've got to play with.

[Habitat]

The full picture ? Who's to say when the full picture comes into view ? I don't see the necessity of what science can observe or theorise about, being the "all". It will always be just what we know about from a scientific standpoint, not necessarily what totally is.

[Tiggs]

The full picture ? Who's to say when the full picture comes into view ? I don't see the necessity of what science can observe or theorise about, being the "all". It will always be just what we know about from a scientific standpoint, not necessarily what totally is.

The thing about scientifically unobservable things is that they're generally unfalsifiable, pretty much by definition. As such, they need to be proved, rather than disproved.

This particular discussion has been yet another re-run of the 800 year old argument "Causa Prima", which was first proposed by Thomas Aquinas as being:

"In the world of sensible things, we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known ... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go to infinity, because . . . the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause . . . therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name god."

It's kind of sad that this argument from design is still considered to be the best opening gambit in the Theist arsenal, regardless of it being falsified years ago by General Relativity, as I've illustrated.

More recently, the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) have tried to tape the argument from design back together again with a pretence of Science.

However, IDM was quickly ruled in the courts to be both a non-science and a religious belief. Currently, less than 0.1% of all Biologists believe in it, and of those, quite a few are fundamentalist Christians, some of whom took a Biology degree in order to try and gain some legitimacy on the subject for their prior viewpoints.

In short - in order to make a case for something which is scientifically unobservable, you need to have a really compelling argument.

As far as I can see - the Theist's don't have one.

[Habitat]

Wot ? No guy "upstairs" ? Pretty much what I thought, or more likely I wasn't leaning one way or the other, till some very odd stuff started happening to me, and is still happening. I don't think the truth is cut and dried, or likely to be, by strictly scientific reasoning.