Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

[ronburgundy]

'Why' questions are not anti-intellectual. They aren't at odds with rational thinking.

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears lalalalala...and close your eyes and believe on faith that nothing is deliberately caused, so as to avoid 'why' questions, that seems pretty lazy/gutless.

View attachment 31843

I don't believe nothing is deliberately caused. I ask why questions that assume deliberation after I have strong evidence that a mind exists capable of deliberation (something all evidence suggest requires a brain), and has the mechanisms (a body connected to that brain than can manipulate matter) by which to execute that will onto the physical universe. I just don't do what you do, which is assume on irrational faith that an immaterial mind exists not housed in a brain that precedes and causes matter. Only after you make that baseless assumption does asking why? have any meaning when asked about anything other than the behavior of specific biological organisms. Outside of animal behavior, asking "why?" is not a sign of bravery or curiosity. It is a sign that the person asks "why" because it forces them presume ahead of time the existence of a god-like mind that could have a motive, b/c the person is too cowardly and dogmatic to live in world where such supreme authority isn't in charge.

BTW, your little meme provides zero support for your nonsense, nor does your other one from Sagan that you grossly misconstrue. Neither presume teleology or any "why?" type notion that there is any deliberate goal or purpose in the Universe beyond animals that have their own goals. Humans are in fact made of and from the matter of the universe more generally and are conscious of themselves and of the parts of the universe that lack consciousness. That first quote is saying nothing more than that, while noting the subjective beauty and poetry in it. Similarly, Sagan was referring to "spirituality" as emotional joy and wonder that can result of rational understanding of the Universe. Science is a source of understanding and thus can trigger those emotions. But that doesn't assume and if anything is the opposite of religious notions of "spirituality" where joy and wonder are manufactured by self-deceit required to believe in miracles rather than the far more amazing regularities of nature that make miracles impossible, and seeking emotional comfort in childish "daddy did it" theology rather that far more interesting answers to how the universe arose if you don't blindly presume a creator which doesn't in fact answer anything but just replaces "universe" with "god" in the question "how did the universe come to be what it is?" The theist simply says "There is no answer b/c god just is." So, "god" is a way of stopping the questions and the open minded seeking of answers. God is accepted as an answer only by frightened non-curious minds that value the comfort of certain belief that silences questions over true understanding that is always uncertain and thus the search for answers never ends.

 

[Swammerdami]

It's easy to imagine computer programs that can beat ALL humans; and (at least back in the 20th century) there were games where all human experts could best the best computer program.

But the story of  Marion Tinsley is unique; I like it because it shows that a human can be singularly exceptional.

Marion Tinsley was the greatest checkers player who ever lived; he could go a decade without ever losing even a single game. Twice he retired as world champion: What was the point of playing? He was invincible.

In 1990 the University of Alberta developed the Chinook Checkers Program, which was able to defeat every human checkers player in the world ... except Marion Tinsley.

 

[atrib]

...Lee was stunned to lose the first three games. In one game Alpha Go shocked the world by playing a shoulder hit on the fifth row, a play no professional would ever make. By the fourth game, with Alpha Go ahead 3-0 and certain to win the match, humans were almost in tears...

In other breaking news...
Usain Bolt comes second in sprint race with a Porche 911 GT3. Spectators in tears as it becomes obvious that a machine has finally become superior to humans.

You are missing the point, which is that we observe relatively simple rules giving rise to all kinds of complex systems in the natural world.

I disagree. Systems can exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them. Therefore there need not be foreseen design intended to explain apparent design.

Do you have some examples of such systems?

 

[atrib]

'Why' questions are not anti-intellectual. They aren't at odds with rational thinking.

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears lalalalala...and close your eyes and believe on faith that nothing is deliberately caused, so as to avoid 'why' questions, that seems pretty lazy/gutless.

Why should we assume that the universe has a purpose and was deliberately caused? What is this purpose, and how can I test your claim that the universe was deliberately caused to serve this purpose? You have been asked this question before and you have never responded.

I think I know why you think the universe was deliberately caused. You heard a story about a god that created the universe, and you desperately want this story to be true. Am I right? Well, some of us don't believe that this god exists, and for good reason. In order to convince us that this story is true you are going to have to do better than hints and allegations, and sly accusations. When are you going to grow a spine and actually participate in this discussion?

 

[Lion IRC]

'Why' questions are not anti-intellectual. They aren't at odds with rational thinking.

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears lalalalala...and close your eyes and believe on faith that nothing is deliberately caused, so as to avoid 'why' questions, that seems pretty lazy/gutless.

Why should we assume that the universe has a purpose and was deliberately caused? What is this purpose, and how can I test your claim that the universe was deliberately caused to serve this purpose? You have been asked this question before and you have never responded.

I think I know why you think the universe was deliberately caused. You heard a story about a god that created the universe, and you desperately want this story to be true. Am I right? Well, some of us don't believe that this god exists, and for good reason. In order to convince us that this story is true you are going to have to do better than hints and allegations, and sly accusations. When are you going to grow a spine and actually participate in this discussion?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Atheists have their beliefs too, don't they.

 

[bilby]

'Why' questions are not anti-intellectual. They aren't at odds with rational thinking.

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears lalalalala...and close your eyes and believe on faith that nothing is deliberately caused, so as to avoid 'why' questions, that seems pretty lazy/gutless.

Why should we assume that the universe has a purpose and was deliberately caused? What is this purpose, and how can I test your claim that the universe was deliberately caused to serve this purpose? You have been asked this question before and you have never responded.

I think I know why you think the universe was deliberately caused. You heard a story about a god that created the universe, and you desperately want this story to be true. Am I right? Well, some of us don't believe that this god exists, and for good reason. In order to convince us that this story is true you are going to have to do better than hints and allegations, and sly accusations. When are you going to grow a spine and actually participate in this discussion?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Atheists have their beliefs too, don't they.

Nothing has ever been observed to be created or destroyed (First Law of Thermodynamics), so the second example you give is more of an observation than an assumption, and stands as a good enough working hypothesis for me, until and unless some other evidence is found.

But as far as I am aware, few atheists believe either of the assumptions you detail. They recognise and accept that they don't know, and therefore shouldn't and can't assume anything.

"I don't know" isn't a belief.

There are three hypotheses on the table:

1) Everything spontaneously began to exist
2) Everything has always existed
3) Something has always existed, and that something caused everything else to exist.

You believe number 3, the least parsimonious option. You believe this without any observational evidence, on the basis of anecdotal claims that assert, even less plausibly, that the something that can make everything else is self aware, intelligent, and a moral agent - characteristics that we only observe in biological systems. The eternal existence of a biological system, in the absence of matter, is so far fetched as to be absurd. Every biological system we have ever observed is made from and depends on matter.

I lean towards number 2, for the reason given, but have no belief either way. Number 1 is also possible. But number 3 is not, and nor are many of the hypotheses not yet considered in this thread (though there are some not yet considered possibilities). Not knowing the right answer to a question doesn't imply an inability to recognise a wrong answer.

Your Tu Quoque is ridiculous; You believe things, and you appear to understand that belief without evidence is insane. Yet rather than accept that you don't know, or even accept that others understand that they don't know, you make the crazy claim that your opponents have beliefs too.

They don't. Belief is unnecessary and counterproductive. I for one would discard my working hypothesis of an eternal universe in an instant, if any evidence that it were false was to be found.

 

[Lion IRC]

Bilby, your disbelief in alternative number 3 is still a form of belief.

So is your 'leaning towards' option number 2.

Yeah, its a tu quoque. And its valid to point out that atheists who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at people who think the (13.9 billion year old) universe didn't always exist and that it didn't mysteriously, accidentally pop into existence without prior, deliberate cause.

If you want to believe in quantum spookiness, uncertainty principles, dark energy, multiverses... the atheist equivalents of god of the gaps, that's your business but you don't get to special plead your own beliefs.

 

[skepticalbip]

'Why' questions are not anti-intellectual. They aren't at odds with rational thinking.

But if you want to stick your fingers in your ears lalalalala...and close your eyes and believe on faith that nothing is deliberately caused, so as to avoid 'why' questions, that seems pretty lazy/gutless.

Why should we assume that the universe has a purpose and was deliberately caused? What is this purpose, and how can I test your claim that the universe was deliberately caused to serve this purpose? You have been asked this question before and you have never responded.

I think I know why you think the universe was deliberately caused. You heard a story about a god that created the universe, and you desperately want this story to be true. Am I right? Well, some of us don't believe that this god exists, and for good reason. In order to convince us that this story is true you are going to have to do better than hints and allegations, and sly accusations. When are you going to grow a spine and actually participate in this discussion?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Atheists have their beliefs too, don't they.

WTF? We shouldn't believe either or that there was an eternal critter that "poofed" the universe. Thinking people should freely acknowledge that it is unknown. But the nature of thinking people is to consider possibilities and reasons that each of the possibilities may or may not be the way reality is.

Your questions pretty much amount to a strawman implying that atheists "believe" such nonsense.

ETA:
Never mind.... I see that Bilby in the next post after the one I was responding to covered this and did a much more thorough job.

 

[bilby]

Bilby, your disbelief in alternative number 3 is still a form of belief.

So is your 'leaning towards' option number 2.

Not unless you want to add an equivocation fallacy to your tally. But then, you probably don't give a shit that your logic is fallacious; You seem almost proud of your inability to think rationally.

Yeah, its a tu quoque.

And therefore valueless as an argument.

And its valid to point out that atheists who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at people who think the (13.9 billion year old) universe didn't always exist and that it didn't mysteriously, accidentally pop into existence without prior, deliberate cause.

No, it's really not.

If you want to believe in quantum spookiness, uncertainty principles, dark energy, multiverses... the atheist equivalents of god of the gaps, that's your business but you don't get to special plead your own beliefs.

I don't want to, nor do I, believe in any of those things. And your claim that I do is both unfounded and absurd.

You desperately need to learn how thinking works, because what you are doing isn't it. Even though I assume it really really feels to you as though it is.

 

[bilby]

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Atheists have their beliefs too, don't they.

WTF? We shouldn't believe either or that there was an eternal critter that "poofed" the universe. Thinking people should freely acknowledge that it is unknown. But the nature of thinking people is to consider possibilities and reasons that each of the possibilities may or may not be the way reality is.

Your questions pretty much amount to a strawman implying that atheists "believe" such nonsense.

ETA:
Never mind.... I see that Bilby in the next post after the one I was responding to covered this and did a much more thorough job.

Thorough I may have been, but apparently I am wasting my time playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[fromderinside]

If you trained the pidgin to play chess and it, in turn, trained another pidgin , then no your time is well spent.

- Darwin.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

This is a straw man that you keep shamelessly repeating because you don't want to deal with actual arguments. Same as your baseless "do scientists wait 3 days to determine brain death" straw man.

 

[abaddon]

Funny. The thread started with showing the answers are likely to go beyond what most people can imagine. A genius has offered a real possibility for what's going on. Then a theist tries to piss on the wonder of it all by dredging up the most provincial and silly answer: God.

The accusation "you people are believers too!" is in contradiction to all the evidence - that atheists often talk about various possibilities and don't insist there's a conclusive answer.

From wondering at possibilities, to a theist dismissing them and making people's curiosity into a personal problem, pretending atheists are the incurious ones.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Atheists have their beliefs too, don't they.

WTF? We shouldn't believe either or that there was an eternal critter that "poofed" the universe. Thinking people should freely acknowledge that it is unknown. But the nature of thinking people is to consider possibilities and reasons that each of the possibilities may or may not be the way reality is.

Your questions pretty much amount to a strawman implying that atheists "believe" such nonsense.

ETA:
Never mind.... I see that Bilby in the next post after the one I was responding to covered this and did a much more thorough job.

Thorough I may have been, but apparently I am wasting my time playing chess with a pigeon.

You call your vacuous response 'chess' moves?

Me : disbelief is a form of belief.

...your logic is fallacious;

Me : you're using the phrase "leaning towards" as a proxy for the word you really mean - belief.

You seem almost proud of your inability to think rationally.

Me : see bilby second option - atheists have beliefs too. #callout #tuquoque

And therefore valueless as an argument.

Me : hypocrites who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones is a reasonable & valid point.

No, it's really not.

Me : IF you want to believe in quantum spookiness, IF you want to believe in uncertainty principles, IF you want to believe in dark energy, IF you want to believe in multiverses... IF you want to believe in the atheist equivalents of god of the gaps, that's your business.

bilby : wahhh...tantrum mode...stop accusing me of believing in stuff.

[The claim Lion IRC never made] is both unfounded and absurd.

Me : atheists special plead their beliefs - the stuff they 'lean towards'.

You desperately need to learn how thinking works.

 

[abaddon]

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Atheists have their beliefs too, don't they.

Me : ...IF you want to believe in quantum spookiness, IF you want to believe in uncertainty principles, IF you want to believe in dark energy, IF you want to believe in multiverses... IF you want to believe in the atheist equivalents of god of the gaps, that's your business.

....

Me : atheists special plead their beliefs - the stuff they 'lean towards'.

Ok So is God as much an unjustifiable belief as those alleged "atheist equivalents of god of the gaps"? Or a more justifiable belief?

 

[Lion IRC]

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe spontaneously popped into existence without any cause?

Why should we assume (believe) that the universe has always existed?

Atheists have their beliefs too, don't they.

Me : ...IF you want to believe in quantum spookiness, IF you want to believe in uncertainty principles, IF you want to believe in dark energy, IF you want to believe in multiverses... IF you want to believe in the atheist equivalents of god of the gaps, that's your business.

....

Me : atheists special plead their beliefs - the stuff they 'lean towards'.

Ok So is God as much an unjustifiable belief as those alleged "atheist equivalents of god of the gaps"? Or a more justifiable belief?

Well, I don't know if atheist beliefs are grounded in the Witness of the Holy Spirit. Or whether they meet the criteria of a properly basic belief. Or whether your epistemology allows you to gainsay another person's sensory experience of God. Or whether you assert that the non-existence of God is the default premise which is true unless/until disproven.

In order to be properly basic, a belief must be grounded in certain circumstances. For example, in the circumstances of having visual and auditory experiences of other people about me, I form the basic belief that there are other persons besides myself.

Your (bilby's) DISbelief in option #3 amounts to a belief that option #3 is untrue. But is your belief that my belief is false warranted or unwarranted?

If your atheistic belief that God/gods isnt/aren't real is based solely on your lack of sensory experience (evidence) then you must accept that another person's theistic position would be justified if they HAD experienced the evidence which you had not.

If I, and several hundred billion other human beings, all have experienced evidence leading us to think that God/gods (divinity) is just as true and real as the claim that yesterday really happened - despite a lack of repeatable/falsifiable/empirical evidence - then I find this to be a properly basic belief.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Me : disbelief is a form of belief.

This is akin to saying logic is a form of non-logic.

 

[Lion IRC]

No.
Illogical is the opposite of logical.
Disbelief in "A" is the same as belief in something non-A. (Law of excluded middle)

 

[bilby]

Jesus fucking christ. The person who thinks logically fallacious reasoning leads to truth is now trying to teach logic to others.

To paraphrase a well known quote from Jaws (1975) - We're gonna need a bigger facepalm emoji.

 

[abaddon]

Well, I don't know if atheist beliefs are grounded in the Witness of the Holy Spirit. Or whether they meet the criteria of a properly basic belief. Or whether your epistemology allows you to gainsay another person's sensory experience of God. Or whether you assert that the non-existence of God is the default premise which is true unless/until disproven.

Or none of the above.

is your belief that my belief is false warranted or unwarranted?

Can your belief be evidenced to people other than yourself? You are mistaken to keep making it an issue of whether others can "gainsay" how strongly you believe your belief.

If your atheistic belief that God/gods isnt/aren't real is based solely on your lack of sensory experience (evidence) then you must accept that another person's theistic position would be justified if they HAD experienced the evidence which you had not.

It's not, so by your argument I don't have to accept that.

One important reason I don't believe in your god is that theists like yourself cannot follow up the claim that God is a being who exists objectively and externally to people's private beliefs with any evidence. Instead you assert he's most evident before time and within people's hearts (where allegedly he can be sensed by an internal God Detector, the "sensus divinitatus" that's part of Platinga's game with the "properly basic belief" stuff).

It's how personal it is that makes the concept totally irrelevant to a scientific question like how the universe began.

If I, and several hundred billion other human beings, all have experienced evidence leading us to think that God/gods (divinity) is just as true and real as the claim that yesterday really happened despite a lack of repeatable/falsifiable/empirical evidence - then I find this to be a properly basic belief.

Yesterday has stupendous evidence and isn't really in question whereas God perpetually is, so they're not similar claims at all.


Notice that you went from the whole universe as the physical evidence for God, to an inability to produce any evidence that's external to the believer's heart. Humans have a propensity to believe (so they God Detectors in their hearts that registers Yes for many of them) and that's supposed to establish god-belief as basic to understanding the world. Though really it only establishes that, in the absence of knowledge, for a long time many humans got by with a placeholder for an explanation - God.