DrZoidberg
Contributor
My favourite theist quipy name for atheism is: futilitarianism
Creation or transition. As you indicated " it is believed there was a transition of its state". There are two beliefs.Creation or transition? There is no evidence the universe was ever created. It is believed there was a transition of its state, but there is no creation of the universe. If you have evidence for that, a Nobel is awaiting you.Creation, the physical universe only came about when there was the intention by the designer, like that of humans... a reflection, when they created machines.
Only one of those two things has been observed.No surprise to get that response from an atheist. One moment the atheist talks in hypothetical mode discussing what would "natural" mean, relating to god's or God but then... the atheist slips out of the mode, and the dialogue morphs into a different angle of conversation. " Yeah god's would follow the same laws if natural .... Yeah God isn't real".Yeah, nothing like the fake hypothetical from a theist. Well, if God was eternal... then that solves all of the arbitrary issues I created regarding our existence.If God is eternal,...Alas, wouldn't a natural phenomena generally be expected to be repeatable?
As you're in hypothetical mode here..But if it were natural, that would imply some set of rules exist in which the god is bound to.God always existing could be seen as 'ultimately' natural.
... It does seem a little limiting compared to the God of the bible, "being bound to.." describes instead the lesser god entities... Sure we can include miracles, like healing diseases, raising the dead, or walking on water, under natural phenomena, which requires at least.. paradoxically, not being bound to rules so much.
(The use of 'natural' in the current context, 'wasn't' my hypothetical BTW... it originated from other peoples posts, I am just engaging in it )
Like many conversations. You say universe, we say God.At no point in time, has the universe not existed. At no point in time will the universe stop existing.'Always existing' would mean, to always be 'expected to be repeatable", in a manner of speaking.
You are trying to equate a state of mind that is similar regarding the big bang and a god. Calling those two beliefs is much like calling a playboy magazine and A Tale of Two Cities literature.Creation or transition. As you indicated " it is believed there was a transition of its state". There are two beliefs.Creation or transition? There is no evidence the universe was ever created. It is believed there was a transition of its state, but there is no creation of the universe. If you have evidence for that, a Nobel is awaiting you.Creation, the physical universe only came about when there was the intention by the designer, like that of humans... a reflection, when they created machines.
Did you notice bilby's mention of billions for a starting point.Why bother with a God?If God is eternal, this would be an interesting perspective...
God always existing could be seen as 'ultimately' natural.
If the universe is eternal, no creator is necessary.
If nothing can be eternal, then God is just as much in need of a creator as the universe is. More so, given that we can see how life, and subsequently intelligence, can arise from a very simple starting point, given billions of years.
The sophisticated theologian answer is essentially that only God can be eternal, not the Material Universe. Special pleading.
Context to this regards a non materialistic entity.Of course we are also told by these same sophisticated theologians that God is outside of time. For God all is an eternal now.
For God, the past, present, and future are all one thing. So God's creation of the material Universe is eternally happening from God's perspective. So the Universe is eternal. And has no real begining. Pointing this out to sophisticated theists who tells us a material Universe is impossible is quite jolly fun.
Theists today we're born in the times of a technologically advanced world, who would also understand infinity.Aristotle thought that the Universe was infinite. But also taught that there cannot be infinite things in this Universe. Or there would be no place to put infinite things. Aristotle did not understand the concept of infinity.
Georges Lamaitre a Catholic priest, didn't do too bad with his reasoning, becoming known as the father of the big bang idea.But for some theologians, that is why infinite regression of material things must be impossible. And so the Universe must be created by an intelligent, Unmoved Prime Mover. Above nature as it were. Supernaturalism, though Aristotle did not use that term. Yes, it makes no sense. But for sophisticated Catholic theists, it is hard to make them reason.
Did you notice bilby's mention of billions for a starting point.
Science has given the universe an age. A 15 billion year age estimation.
And I pointed out to you, that scientists has given an age to universe. Are they wrong there's and age for the universe?
Are you suggesting you are fine with taking astrophysicists out of context?And I pointed out to you, that scientists has given an age to universe. Are they wrong there's and age for the universe?
I’m not a cosmologist but I think the current consensus is that there is a density singularity at t equals zero in our current cosmology. Singularities are mathematical indications of an incomplete physical theory. Until we have an improved physical theory it is pure speculation to extrapolate into that singularity.
But, last time that happened, last time a theist insisted that science now believes that the big bang was the ultimate beginning, I went on campus and found a cosmologist, and put the question to him: What is the current scientific consensus as to what happened before the big bang?
He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."
That's my latest information on the subject. If you have new information that conflicts, I'd like to hear about it.
To me, no, to show if a god exist we have to look at what we are calling god. What traits are you calling God. Limiting the definition is what religion-ist type thinkers do. I saw the term fundamental think types used. Atheist or theist, these types are dangerous to the rest us.In order to show that gods exist, one must first prove the supernatural exist. Correct?
exactly ... I would change one thing in your view tho. We are a machine that thinks its "alive".Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.
We started out as bacteria, which thanks to evolution, create hominids who later evolved big brains enough to design CPUs and AI. Eventually AI wil design and creates CPUS etc. The Universe was created to be home to intelligent machines. We are mere intermediates steps to that end.
My favourite theist quipy name for atheism is: futilitarianism
Sure. I am a human; I have an age too. But that I am 53 years old doesn't imply that humanity is 53 years old.Did you notice bilby's mention of billions for a starting point.
Science has given the universe an age. A 15 billion year age estimation.
We think we are alive, a new perspective.exactly ... I would change one thing in your view tho. We are a machine that thinks its "alive".Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.
We started out as bacteria, which thanks to evolution, create hominids who later evolved big brains enough to design CPUs and AI. Eventually AI wil design and creates CPUS etc. The Universe was created to be home to intelligent machines. We are mere intermediates steps to that end.
The biosphere created us like a mother creates a baby. The universe ...
As an atheist, I think so. God can be as natural as anything else. Like you and your body are one ... the universe (although I see no need to go that large)and god are one. No supernatural needed. Empirical evidence.If God is eternal, this would be an interesting perspective...Alas, wouldn't a natural phenomena generally be expected to be repeatable?
God always existing could be seen as 'ultimately' natural. 'Always existing' would mean, to always be 'expected to be repeatable", in a manner of speaking. Creation, the physical universe only came about when there was the intention by the designer, like that of humans... a reflection, when they created machines.
lol, no, I am no where near that cleaver. Ultimately, how do we describe objects? I think, in large part, its based on how volumes of space-time interact with the system around that volume. I think, and I could be off base, that the internal workings are just the internal structure.We think we are alive, a new perspective.exactly ... I would change one thing in your view tho. We are a machine that thinks its "alive".Machines helping design machines. This is wonderfully natural, if that's the language we go by. But the 'first cause' to these machines was an 'intention', a creation 'purposely' designed by human 'intellect'.
We started out as bacteria, which thanks to evolution, create hominids who later evolved big brains enough to design CPUs and AI. Eventually AI wil design and creates CPUS etc. The Universe was created to be home to intelligent machines. We are mere intermediates steps to that end.
The biosphere created us like a mother creates a baby. The universe ...
Thanks CC, I see in context where you're coming from. This universe was what I meant.The age of our little Islan Universe is 13.75 billion years. But the Multiverse we are part of is infinite in size and age.
Except that a dude dying, rising three days later and flying away is exceedingly more likely than a flat earth.
To the theist side. I have no idea why they don't see that believing in flat earth is the same as believing in a dude died, woke up three days later, then flew away.
I have never been a real fan of the BB concept
although I am probably out of date.
Okay, so the Big Bang is "good in theory", but you've never been a fan of the concept, though admittedly you "out of date" whatever that means, which is a cute way to spin "utterly uneducated on, and not willing to even look into, the subject".The concept is good in theory
I have no idea, so to speak, what in the heck you are trying to get across.but already there was for me, a spanner in the works with the idea, so to speak... not so different to posters pointing out 'know one knows' what was BEFORE the BB etc..
What you believe and what has been repeatedly supported by all sorts of evidence, including the CMB, don't need to be in sync. You are allowed to be completely wrong if you want to ignore the huge mountain of evidence.I believe in a beginning, but not from a 'central point' for example, the physical universe (+ distant galaxies) all appeared 'at the same time'!