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

[skepticalbip]

Pride in ignorance is shameful.
Admitting ignorance is noble.

Agreed. The OP title isn't a question, it's a statement.

Exactly. It is an assertion posed as a question. "Why did the universe begin" is the same sort of statement posed as a question as, "Are you still beating your wife". Until the subject of the 'question' is established as true, it is only a baseless assertion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

WUT?
Miracles are not a violation of logic.
Your lack of understanding of a thing doesn't make that thing illogical.

Ah yes. The fundie can simply say "it wuz a miracle" to get out of the logical conundrums miracles entail. No thought involved whatsoever.

Isn't everything magical to your basic believer, fundie or otherwise? Isn't that how they derive comfort and closure by making everything ultimately miraculous? Isn't this what he is claiming?

The claim that everything is miraculous is both premise and conclusion using their "logic." Stating that a universe requires magic isn't any different than stating a chap waved his hand and fed five thousand other chaps. It's all the same thing, there's nothing to learn, our ignorance is the best knowledge we have about how things work. It's a world of woo so just believe. Everything "natural" is merely evidence that everything is ultimately supernatural, miraculous.

 

[abaddon]

Isn't everything magical to your basic believer, fundie or otherwise? Isn't that how they derive comfort and closure by making everything ultimately miraculous?

No. If this is what they were doing, I'd have FAR less to disagree with in theism (almost nothing at all). The "merely" natural is the great bugaboo in supernaturalism, matter is that which is 'fallen' and pains them. The salvation they seek is a vertical transcendence that goes up and out and AWAY from material nature. That's why atheism is such a threat. If the world goes atheist then there's nothing left but materialism, hedonism, nihilism, and the general awfulness that happens when there's no infusion of the miraculous from outside of nature into nature.

... Stating that a universe requires magic...

The universe wouldn't require supernatural magic if it, in and of itself, were magical. That it's a result of magic means that it is not, itself, magical. The rabbit that the magician pulls from the hat is not a magical rabbit, it's a mere result of a magical act. The rabbit is inconsequential compared to the magician and his powers. And, same with nature/the universe. Anything beautiful in nature is beautiful only "thanks to God", not thanks to itself.

 

[Bomb#20]

Lion: "I believe Jesus is both his Father and his Son. Also I believe Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish! I am quite the expert in logic, yes."

WUT?
Miracles are not a violation of logic.
Your lack of understanding of a thing doesn't make that thing illogical.

Got to call this one a 1-1 tie. Assuming you believe the dogmas GN mocked you as believing, you're perfectly correct that there's nothing logically impossible about the hypothesis that Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. (But then, that one's not even physically impossible -- you just break the loaves and fish into 5000 pieces and hand them out, one crumb or flakelet per customer. )

On the other hand, for Jesus to be his own father and his own son is logically impossible. A church elder by the name of Arius pointed this out very early on in the evolution of your dogma. The reason you believe it is logically possible for Jesus to be his own father and his own son is because in 325 AD, Arius lost a vote, he was exiled, his writings were burned, the death penalty was enacted by Emperor Constantine for anyone who concealed a copy of his writings, and, reportedly, Santa Claus punched him in the face.

 

[excreationist]

I think the main reasons why the universe could have been created as a simulation is for entertainment or personal growth...

 

[DBT]

I think the main reasons why the universe could have been created as a simulation is for entertainment or personal growth...

In what universe?

 

[excreationist]

I think the main reasons why the universe could have been created as a simulation is for entertainment or personal growth...

In what universe?

A simulation like our universe within a universe that might have similar physics.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think the main reasons why the universe could have been created as a simulation is for entertainment or personal growth...

In what universe?

A simulation like our universe within a universe that might have similar physics.

Why similar physics? A universe where c was not a limit or any of the other physical limits of our universe didn't exist would solve all the problems of your simulated universe. Our universe could be a teaching tool for them to show how many problems must be overcome in a universe with limits.

If it is assumed that we are in a simulation then anything can be assumed about the universe that created us.

ETA:
Theists imagine just such a universe for their creator. He can be everywhere at once, poof anything he desires with no effort, knows everything, etc. He lives in a universe with no speed of light limitation, where entropy does not apply, no conservation laws for energy or mass, no quantum uncertainty, etc. Why not a similar universe for the creator of the simulation we live in that you imagine?

 

[Bomb#20]

A simulation like our universe within a universe that might have similar physics.

Why similar physics?

Because the simulation programmers have to have been copying a natural phenomenon -- physics in our universe is so psychotic no rational beings could have invented it.

 

[steve_bank]

All the 'why' questions are unanswerable by science. Science proper provides predictive models, some of which can be extreme extrapolations.

Questions as to why are for religion, metaphysics, and philosophy. Until modern model based scince it was Natuarl Philosophy, which became unable to provide adequate responses.

There is no possible proof of any theory as to cosmic origins. Some take BB Theory as gospel, I do not. It is a good extrapolation back in time, and does not go back to time zero. It does not explain what created the initial conditions.

I like to say science, religion, and philosophy converge 0n cosmology.

In our modern liberal democracies we are free to believe what we choose that satisfies us. Plenty to choose from.

Along with major religions are a number of long time tradition like Theosophy.

I ascribe to naturalism. The universe is what it is without any creating or guiding force or intelligence. It always and always will be varying in form over time.

 

[skepticalbip]

All the 'why' questions are unanswerable by science. Science proper provides predictive models, some of which can be extreme extrapolations.

But that 'why question' was about excreationist's reasoning, not about the physics. People generally have a reason for imagining some specific scenario. A question about their reasoning is a 'why question'.

 

[Elixir]

Our universe was created as a test bed for the process of evolution.
The experiment has obviously gone terribly awry.

 

[steve_bank]

All the 'why' questions are unanswerable by science. Science proper provides predictive models, some of which can be extreme extrapolations.

But that 'why question' was about excreationist's reasoning, not about the physics. People generally have a reason for imagining some specific scenario. Inquiring as to that reasoning is a 'why question'.

Why ask why?????

The question goes back to the early recoded thinkers. As of today no answer. It is one of those so called 'perennial questions' like 'why am I hear?', 'why does bad things happen to good people?'

Religion has always provided answers. I worked with a competent rational engineer who was also Christian. He told me without religion he would be plagued with questions in his head during the day. Religion does serve a purpose.

excrearionist is always nsearching for some guiding spirit in his threads.

 

[steve_bank]

All the 'why' questions are unanswerable by science. Science proper provides predictive models, some of which can be extreme extrapolations.

But that 'why question' was about excreationist's reasoning, not about the physics. People generally have a reason for imagining some specific scenario. Inquiring as to that reasoning is a 'why question'.

Why ask why????? Because humans have a vast imagination which can create questions and fears. I as a human can build a spear, therefore someone must have built the Earth.

The question goes back to the early recoded thinkers. As of today no answer. It is one of those so called 'perennial questions' like 'why am I hear?', 'why does bad things happen to good people?'

Religion has always provided answers. I worked with a competent rational engineer who was also Christian. He told me without religion he would be plagued with questions in his head during the day. Religion does serve a purpose.

excrearionist is always searching for some guiding spirit in his threads.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A simulation like our universe within a universe that might have similar physics.

Why similar physics?

Because the simulation programmers have to have been copying a natural phenomenon -- physics in our universe is so psychotic no rational beings could have invented it.

When you say rational.....


"Okay, okay, okay. "They live on these....balls, see. And the balls spin around."
"And throw them off! LMFAO!"
"No, no! (Takes a hit) They stick to the balls." (Passes toke)
"Sticky balls?" (Takes a hit)
"Kinda. But it's..." (waves vaguely)
"It's an intangible stickiness. Because the balls are just so big."
"Oh, wow....."

 

[excreationist]

A simulation like our universe within a universe that might have similar physics.

Why similar physics?

Either they have similar physics or they invented it... (or a combination). I have doubts that they'd invent the physics that allow quantum computers because they might only be able to simulate them with quantum computers of their own - or use some kind of AI...

A universe where c was not a limit or any of the other physical limits of our universe didn't exist would solve all the problems of your simulated universe.

A universe without a cosmic speed limit would be much less practical to simulate....

e.g. (post #149)
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...speed-of-light&p=855918&viewfull=1#post855918

Say our civilization had spread across the galaxy. A simulation which takes 100,000 years to send messages across the galaxy would be easier and cheaper to simulate than one that took a second or less....

Our universe could be a teaching tool for them to show how many problems must be overcome in a universe with limits.

Like I said I think the purpose might be for entertainment or personal growth.... the problems in a universe with limits mainly relate to things like space colonization.

If it is assumed that we are in a simulation then anything can be assumed about the universe that created us.

I think the outside universe would have more complexity and information than the simulation.... though the simulation could have apparent complexity using simple algorithms like the Mandelbrot Set. ("procedural generation" like how a Minecraft world is based on a single seed)

ETA:
Theists imagine just such a universe for their creator. He can be everywhere at once, poof anything he desires with no effort, knows everything, etc. He lives in a universe with no speed of light limitation, where entropy does not apply, no conservation laws for energy or mass, no quantum uncertainty, etc. Why not a similar universe for the creator of the simulation we live in that you imagine?

Christians usually believe in a limited speed of light (or at least shortly after the universe was created for YECs). One of the only incompatibilities with theism and a simulation is that a literal eternity can't exist.... which isn't such a bad thing if their God created a hell....

 

[bilby]

All the 'why' questions are unanswerable by science. Science proper provides predictive models, some of which can be extreme extrapolations.

But that 'why question' was about excreationist's reasoning, not about the physics. People generally have a reason for imagining some specific scenario. A question about their reasoning is a 'why question'.

Why?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Proof that the best answer to a why question is, "Because why."

 

[WAB]

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.

Lion: "I believe Jesus is both his Father and his Son. Also I believe Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish! I am quite the expert in logic, yes."

WUT?
Miracles are not a violation of logic.
Your lack of understanding of a thing doesn't make that thing illogical.

Lion, you are a sweet person and my friend. Help me untangle a bit of cognitive dissonance?

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ prays to God (Abba, Father), and asks that the cup be passed to another. Jesus is clearly afraid of the unconscionably horrible suffering He will have to endure. Also, on the cross, He says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

I wrote a villanelle called "Palms" which speculates that perhaps Christ's human side was suffering so much pain that He had literally forgotten for a moment what was going on...

When I posted the poem for critique at Eratosphere, I received a lot of compliments, but also some heavy critique from people, Trinitarians, who would never entertain such a radical and heretical notion.

I wish I could point you to the poem, but it is not on my blog. I removed it in a moment of regret, along with a villanelle about the Annunciation.

Later gator...

 

[steve_bank]

How does a simulation programmer know if he is actually a construct of the simulation?

Joe the programmer says 'I program therefore I am'.