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

[Learner]

I could be one of those, but the great unknown beyond, outside the observable earth... I'm not that savvy enough.

Modern observation certainly complicates things for creationists.

I'm not so sure that's mainly the case, imo, in regards to theists who are also born in the modern technical world. Their outlook alongside their faith is not the same as those believers of the past, learning and aquiring the same knowledge. Differences will vary, like the view of the bible that everyone has access to, being down to the individuals interpretation of the information/data.

An early cosmology saw the universe as a shell with holes in it where we saw stars. Earth centric.

Sure, but thats not the biblical concept.

Now we know Earth is not at the center, if there is a center at all which theory says no.,

As I currently understand it - no one knows or has proven where the centre of the universe is. Therefore I wouldn't be able to prove the Earth was at the centre of the universe, especially by limited means.

You have a choice. God created part of the unversed and exists within reality not its making _____ or god is reality creating all things seen and unseen.

It would be the latter. Example: As it's written - God made the sun and the moon and the stars.

Finding active microbial life or evidence of it on Mars could cause serious problems for creationists.

I suppose it depends, I've seen some intresting povs of outerspace ideas/ notions from theists. I just happen to see another theists talking about angels in their heavenly states above the earth. Technically they could be called ET's or aliens, not of the earth

If you truly have faith then it does not matter.

You can still have faith; as the bible says: test all things (regardless). Those early scientists who contributed to science still explored, studying nature whilst being religious, marvelling in awe, at what seemed to them to be God's handywork. Just as there are still scientists who are theists today.

 

[DBT]

Microbes on Mars does cause serious problems for Special Creationism, such as described in Genesis....

 

[bilby]

I don't know of any Christians that became believers in the first place by theorizing HOW the universe began!! No claims made direct by this, let alone an argument from such an unlikely claim.

Then it's probably a good thing that nobody has suggested any such thing.

I am not sure why you think that this very obvious fact has anything to do with what I posted, much less serves as a response to it

Theists obviously believe by the Bible and take the cue from Genesis;

Indeed. And that's obviously not an effective way to determine truth from fiction, leaving them stuck in a position of either having to discard their beliefs, or be wrong forever.

naturally of course to give reason to believe God made the universe; a fair enough reason for you debate.

That's not written in comprehensible English, so I have no idea what it means.

But believing something for no reason other that that it is written in a book is an utterly shithouse epistemology, and leads to the belief in pretty much any nonsense imaginable.

I wonder by your post, if it is actually known that a conscious intelligence can't really be forever? As long as there are No physical-body 'expiry dates' attached etc..

It's irrelevant to my post whether it's possible.

But it certainly doesn't seem plausible; Every intelligence we know of is the result of a vastly complex pattern of material interactions. To suggest that intelligence could exist without matter is an extraordinary idea, and as such requires extraordinary evidence of its plausibility if we are to reasonably entertain it.

No evidence worthy of any purpose other than as toilet paper exists, so entertaining the idea would be dumb, and basing any other philosophical or scientific hypothesis on the assumption of its truth would be literally insane.

God as creator is a self refuting argument; If god existed forever, or began to exist, then why couldn't the universe have done the same?

And if everything that exists needs a creator, then either god needs a creator, or god doesn't exist.

I suppose you could take a philosophical approach and say the above is like the chicken or egg scenario (other than the bible POV). Both can be forever, but which came first?

I suppose you could read, consider, and respond to the statements I made. But apparently not.

 

[Treedbear]

...

I wonder by your post, if it is actually known that a conscious intelligence can't really be forever? As long as there are No physical-body 'expiry dates' attached etc..

It's irrelevant to my post whether it's possible.

But it certainly doesn't seem plausible; Every intelligence we know of is the result of a vastly complex pattern of material interactions. To suggest that intelligence could exist without matter is an extraordinary idea, and as such requires extraordinary evidence of its plausibility if we are to reasonably entertain it.
...

And why would a tri-omni creator being need intelligence in the first place? Or to employ design techniques for that matter. It already knows everything so doesn't need to figure things out ahead of time. The concept is dripping with anthropocentrism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But believing something for no reason other that that it is written in a book is an utterly shithouse epistemology, and leads to the belief in pretty much any nonsense imaginable.

People believe such writing because it fits their feelings, which is precisely why someone first invented the idea and it eventually became something written. It's like a person discovering their feelings already written down for them. Their response, largely subconscious is "Aha! It must be true!" It is as if their identity and thoughts have been discovered. Great literature can be that. Whether that literature is woo or not is another matter entirely.

The larger issue is that many of us never get beyond that point, beyond the belief in woo. Precisely how that happens is different for each of us although there are broad similarities within members of our species. We all look for confirmation and acceptance of an instinctive, personal identity, that which makes me Me. Scientific knowledge does that for many of us and woo also performs the same service. For all of us it's undeniably a combination.

It is revealing and instructive that even the most ardent devotees of woo are able to assimilate and accept scientific knowledge. It is just as revealing that the most ardent devotees of scientific knowledge can still find great pleasure in experiencing woo. Those who lean toward woo do not accept and assimilate all the scientific knowledge that they encounter, rejecting the scientific knowledge that does not agree with their personal wishes and identity. This might seem odd until we realize that all human behavior exists within an environment that is constantly selecting for and against an organism's survival. It should be obvious that a certain level of woo behavior doesn't significantly threaten survival for many of us, which is precisely why it still happens. If I have too strong an attachment to woo my very survival is threatened, possibly ended depending on local conditions. I may love my woo but natural selection has long ago dictated that I need to be malleable when it comes to the degree. Obviously, too much of a belief in woo is a death sentence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't know of any Christians that became believers in the first place by theorizing HOW the universe began!! No claims made direct by this, let alone an argument from such an unlikely claim. Theists obviously believe by the Bible and take the cue from Genesis; naturally of course to give reason to believe God made the universe; a fair enough reason for you debate.

Cue from Genesis? There are two stories of creation in Genesis. One is poetry lifted from the Gilgamesh Epic and the other is allegory. Neither speaks towards the literal creation of Earth or the Universe, which explains why the Jewish don't take much literal sense from the stories of creation.

 

[atrib]

I wonder by your post, if it is actually known that a conscious intelligence can't really be forever? As long as there are No physical-body 'expiry dates' attached etc..

Consciousness and intelligence in our universe is always associated with complex neural networks. They are emergent phenomena that arise from complex arrangements of matter/energy interacting in complex ways. There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness and intelligence can exist without such an underlying material platform. And, such networks naturally decay over time. Therefore,
(1) an immaterial god would not have the ability to think (whatever immaterial supposedly means in this context, since you haven't defined it), and
(2) a material god could not exist forever.

So much for the first cause/kalam cosmological argument.

God as creator is a self refuting argument; If god existed forever, or began to exist, then why couldn't the universe have done the same?

And if everything that exists needs a creator, then either god needs a creator, or god doesn't exist.

I suppose you could take a philosophical approach and say the above is like the chicken or egg scenario (other than the bible POV). Both can be forever, but which came first?

Neither came first. They have both existed forever, remember? You just stated that as a premise, for fuck's sake. Do you really not understand this?

 

[Swammerdami]

I am shown as the OP of this thread, but that is highly misleading: I appear as OP only because of some confusion after a thread was split in two. (If I were to start a thread on religion, it would be about Julian Jaynes' explanation for Neolithic religions, or perhaps the puzzles about the origin of Judaism.)

But since I'm shown as OP, I may as well contribute my two cents.

First, I would separate fundamental questions of cosmology from the creation myths of organized religions. Many smart people 2500 years ago probably understood that the first chapters of Genesis were just a fable with pedagogic value. I do realize some modern-day Americans don't understand that, but few if any of them post at TFT, no?

It is meaningless to ask Does God exist? If I were to say that the universe was somehow "created" by mathematics; and that therefore God exists and is equal to mathematics, would you call me a theist? Or just agree that, for anyone sensible enough to reject the idea of a personal Abrahamic God, the very word 'God' is too nebulous to debate?

Many old thinkers rejected most of Christianity, or revelatory religion more generally. This includes some of America's Founding Fathers, e.g. the 3rd President:

All people, Thomas Jefferson asserts, should follow the example of the Quakers: live without priests, be guided by their internal monitor of right and wrong, and eschew matters inaccessible to common sense, for belief can only rightly be shaped by “the assent of the mind to an intelligible proposition” (TJ to John Adams, 22 Aug. 1813).

The true principles of morality are the “mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy” (TJ to Gerry Elbridge, 29 Mar. 1801)—the principles common to all right-intended religions.

Jefferson writes to Thomas Leiper (21 Jan. 1809):

My religious reading has long been confined to the moral branch of religion, which is the same in all religions; while in that branch which consists of dogmas, all differ, all have a different set. The former instructs us how to live well and worthily in society; the latter are made to interest our minds in the support of the teachers who inculcate them.​

Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Isaac Newton, etc. did retain some belief in an Organizing Intelligence, if only to explain the sheer complexity of Creation. Darwin's Theory of Evolution has made some of that complexity more explicable without recourse to a Designer. I personally think retrocausality may be a necessary part of any full explanation of life's complexity.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If I were to say that the universe was somehow "created" by mathematics; and that therefore God exists and is equal to mathematics, would you call me a theist? Or just agree that, for anyone sensible enough to reject the idea of a personal Abrahamic God, the very word 'God' is too nebulous to debate?

Without further precision, it's too nebulous to debate. However, at least in the philosophy of religion (which Lion IRC mentioned before; he hasn't posted in this thread, though) different concepts of 'God' seem to be close enough to have a discussion:

If an agent is God, it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect ('omnimax' for short).

Now I use "agent" broadly here, so it encompasses a substance that is not a being (whatever that means, but that's for the Aristotelian-Thomists; still, they might object to the characterization if the want to nitpick) or a being (which may be said to be the greatest conceivable, etc.). Now, as to whether omniscience, omnipotence and moral perfection suffice for an agent to be God, some philosophers give different definitions, but I think their use of the word 'God' probably would accept any omnimax agent as God.

While that concept of God is usually defended by believers in the Abrahamic religions, it is independent of them. Of course, many self-identified theists (including some philosophers) sometimes shift from one concept to another in their argumentation. I recommend narrowing down the concept before engaging in a discussion; omnimax agents are narrow enough, even if one could discuss what it is to be omnipotent, etc.

 

[TSwizzle]

Why did our universe begin?

I can't remember who it was but I read somewhere that is was "because nothing is too unstable" or something along those lines. It was years ago that I read the article. Sort of made sense at the time.

 

[steve_bank]

The bible generally says 'the heavens above' where people imagined god and company resides. It is why people look up when referring to god and prrray.

In the 18th century when Ben Franklin showed lightning to be a natural electrical phenomena and came up up with lightning rods to protect buildings it caused a theological crisis. God was above therefore lightning was sent down by god. If it hit your home it was a sign. Lightning rods were an abomination against god.

for over a thousand years starting with the RCC there has been a continuous spinning of theology as things change.

The Vatican has a cadre ofPHD theologicins who produce a comsystent logical theology.

hatever scince reveals Christianity will spin it and shoehorn it into the bible.

A Jewish rabbi Moses Memonomedes(sp?) circa 16th century wrote a book a Guide For The Perplexed. He was known for trying to reconcile Greek philosophy and all religions. It may be free on the Gutenberg Project.

He wrote when science and interpretation of scripture conflict, interpretation of scripture must change. Science vs religion is a very old question.


Belief in god does not require logic or scientific evidence. If there were objective and testable scientific evidence then it would be science and not faith.

 

[WAB]

There is a reason that faith is considered a virtue in the biblical texts. People of religious faiths who try to "prove" the existence of God are on the wrong path. You cannot justify faith except by faith. Any attempt to justify faith by reason or evidence is wrong headed, and necessarily doomed to fail.

 

[Swammerdami]

If an agent is God, it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect ('omnimax' for short).

So perhaps mathematics does qualify!

 

[excreationist]

Microbes on Mars does cause serious problems for Special Creationism, such as described in Genesis....

Some YECs are prepared for that possibility....
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/life-mars-last/

If a probe ever does find life on another planet, the first question will be whether the readings are the result of microbial contamination from earth. However, scientists sterilize spacecraft before launch specifically to remove that possibility. But even if conclusive evidence of indigenous bacteria were found on Mars, we would know they didn’t evolve but the Creator put them there when he made the heavens and the earth “and all that is in them” in six days (EXODUS 20:11). So this discovery wouldn’t prove anything about evolution or its likelihood to occur.​

 

[DBT]

A poor rationale. Microbes, if found on otherwise barren planets does not suggest special creation or a young earth. More like evolution and adaption over billions of years.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If an agent is God, it is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect ('omnimax' for short).

So perhaps mathematics does qualify!

What do you mean by "mathematics"?

The reason I didn't say 'person' is to avoid issues with a proposed trinity (though I could have said 'personal agent'), but while agency does not require personhood (a chimp is an agent), combined with ominimaxity, it seems it follows it would be a person (the 3 persons stuff makes no sense to me, but I would not want to rule it out by definition, if it can be put in some coherent manner).

 

[Keith&Co.]

So this discovery wouldn’t prove anything about evolution or its likelihood to occur.

Likelihood? Evolution?
So, still pretending
1) That the odds for/against a past event are anything but 1:1
2) That evolution includes the start of life

Also, lying that Genesis describes creation of planets as we understand them today, rather than much smaller lights rolling around inside the solid sky.

 

[steve_bank]

In the 90s the Pope made a rather stunning derclaration for the RCC, thyat evolution may be part of god's plan.

I checked web sites of major protestant groups and found similar.

 

[DBT]

In no way could the Genesis account of creation be interpreted as evolution.

 

[skepticalbip]

So this discovery wouldn’t prove anything about evolution or its likelihood to occur.

Likelihood? Evolution?
So, still pretending
1) That the odds for/against a past event are anything but 1:1
2) That evolution includes the start of life

Also, lying that Genesis describes creation of planets as we understand them today, rather than much smaller lights rolling around inside the solid sky.

An interesting thing about religious beliefs is that they are subject to evolution over time. The old beliefs can't survive the advance of scientific knowledge so die out to be replaced with mutated beliefs being selected for that can endure for a while to then be outcompeted by later mutated beliefs because of scientific advance, etc. etc.... Darwin could appreciate the philosophical similarities.

Just as in the theory of evolution for life, religion's mutation and selection (evolution) is only sufficient for religion to continue to survive, not a move toward perfection.