WHERE DID WE (THE UNIVERSE) COME FROM?

[VerbosityCat]

1 minute ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, I agree that random chance cannot create consciousness, but IMO the consciousness that we know of is derived from a long series of evolution, basically animal evolution unless one considers that plants have a type of consciousness or believes in something supernatural. An eternal consciousness would be supernatural, yes? Outside of nature? un-testable? un-provable? seemingly not scientifically testable --like a spirit of god.

 

 

No, an eternal consciousness is not supernatural. No more than an eternal universe is. Do you really not see the hypocrisy of this argument? If the universe can be eternal, a consciousness can be eternal. And no consciousness is not supernatural. I have a consciousness. You have a consciousness. Are you saying you and I are "supernatural". Supernatural is a nonsense word that doesn't mean anything. If something exists it exists. Claiming something is "supernatural" and then by definition it doesn't exist because Supernatural is the magic word that makes something imaginary is just some weird "word magic" materialists do. It doesn't work on me.

 

And yes, I accept evolution happened. What I don't accept is that it happened just "Randomly". Where did all the new information come from? Like we have mutations and natural selection but in order for a thing to mutate there has to be A THING to mutate. If you say every mutation is an addition of totally new information and greater complexity that didn't exist before... where did it come from? I just don't think this works without consciousness. I know that's not what materialists want to hear.

 

Also, no, an eternal consciousness would not be "outside of nature" it would be simply "part of what exists". Is YOUR consciousness outside of nature? 

 

If you only accept as possible the things you can CURRENTLY test, then you aren't really interested in the truth. You're interested in the truth tiny peon humans are capable of knowing. Plus scientists are already positing and trying to find ways to test a conscious universe.

 

AND string theory, bubble theory, multiverses, parallel universes, extra dimensions and all the other crazy shit of quantum physics is 100 percent unprovable and unfalsifiable. And yet that's not "supernatural".

 

Funny double standards here.

[VerbosityCat]

10 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, I agree that random chance cannot create consciousness, but IMO the consciousness that we know of is derived from a long series of evolution, basically animal evolution unless one considers that plants have a type of consciousness or believes in something supernatural. An eternal consciousness would be supernatural, yes? Outside of nature? un-testable? un-provable? seemingly not scientifically testable --like a spirit of god.

 

Sorry, caught one other thing "I agree that random chance cannot create consciousness, but IMO the consciousness that we know of is derived from a long series of evolution." So what you're saying is... something that isn't possible randomly, somehow BECOMES possible randomly, if enough random shit accumulates together over a really long period of time that we can't actually prove or quantify in any other way except that we just don't like the implications of other theories?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

You can go on with this if you want, but I am out of here.  Have a good evening.

On 10/24/2018 at 9:27 PM, TruthSeeker0 said:

Live with the mystery, embrace it. 

 

[midniterider]

On 10/24/2018 at 6:05 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Rubbish it came from my invisible transcendent pink unicorn.

 

We know it to be invisible because we can't see it.

[Joshpantera]

 

7 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

Also, no, an eternal consciousness would not be "outside of nature" it would be simply "part of what exists". Is YOUR consciousness outside of nature? 

 

It would have to be both "immanent and transcendent." That would make it, "omnipresent."  Out there and in here. 

 

That's what Brahman would be. The Nicean creed attributes this to YHWH. So keep in mind a few things. First, this is a debate zone. Second, the argument here involves dynamics that could be viewed as favoring the existence of YHWH. People will be looking at the argument that way. If there's distinctions that you think do not favor the existence of YHWH, what do you propose that they are? 

[pantheory]

On 10/25/2018 at 9:23 PM, VerbosityCat said:

 

Sorry, caught one other thing "I agree that random chance cannot create consciousness, but IMO the consciousness that we know of is derived from a long series of evolution." So what you're saying is... something that isn't possible randomly, somehow BECOMES possible randomly, if enough random shit accumulates together over a really long period of time that we can't actually prove or quantify in any other way except that we just don't like the implications of other theories?

 

The primary driving force of evolution is not random, it is called natural selection. It is not a complicated theory and is relatively easy to understand. Those individuals that have the characteristics that enable them to survive and reproduce will have their genes carried on to the next generation. Those that do not have the right combination of these characteristics can parish (die) before their own reproduction takes place and if so their specific combination of genes will not then be passed on to future generations.

 

In the long run only the genes of many generations of successful individuals will survive to form a prevailing population gene pool. If and when conditions of survival change, the environment will then select different characteristics that best suit the survival and reproduction of a particular species. By this process the appearance and characteristics of a population and species will change over time.

[VerbosityCat]

7 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

We know it to be invisible because we can't see it.

 

Indeed.

[VerbosityCat]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

It would have to be both "immanent and transcendent." That would make it, "omnipresent."  Out there and in here. 

 

That's what Brahman would be. The Nicean creed attributes this to YHWH. So keep in mind a few things. First, this is a debate zone. Second, the argument here involves dynamics that could be viewed as favoring the existence of YHWH. People will be looking at the argument that way. If there's distinctions that you think do not favor the existence of YHWH, what do you propose that they are? 

 

Re: this being a "debate zone", this somehow implies that people are obligated to argue shit to the bitter end, endlessly. And they aren't free to simply "disengage" if they find somebody tiresome. I'm not really that concerned with "changing people's minds". People can believe whatever dumb shit they want. And I DO think "the material is all that exists" is dumb shit. I don't have to "defend" this view unless I want to try to get other people to agree with me. Ultimately I don't really care. These kinds of discussions for me are more a proxy to allow people on the journey out of Christianity who come here for support to free themselves of THAT box to not become slaves in another box. Materialists who are super happy with their worldview, FINE, but the dogmatism that insists "WE ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE STUPID" is just another box. It's just another form of mental enslavement and quite frankly I don't see how it really fucking matters if you think unbelievers go to hell or if you think everybody just ceases existing because "I say so and used some math and handwaving to intimidate you into agreeing with me".

 

Like why is one of these slave boxes more free than the other? It isn't. For free thinkers a lot of people here REALLY want to make everyone think exactly like them. I'm happy to allow materialists their space to exist. I'm not necessarily happy to let them enslave everybody around them into this sort of closed-loop way of thinking on penalty of intellectual and social ostracism. But in my "not being happy to just let that state of affairs be" I end up enslaving myself to ludicrous discussions with close-minded people and *I* become mentally enslaved. So in the end analysis, I'm not sure this site really is a place to "be free". This can be another form of slavery if you get too sucked in to certain modes of thinking.

 

Either way, I'm wrapping up a few comments in a few threads, then I'm taking about a week away from this place to re-evaluate my own behavior because this "arguing endlessly over stupid shit" is not productive for me. 

[VerbosityCat]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

The primary driving force of evolution is not random, it is called natural selection. It is not a complicated theory and is relatively easy to understand. Those individuals that have the characteristics that enable them to survive and reproduce will have their genes carried on to the next generation. Those that do not have the right combination of these characteristics can parish (die) before their own reproduction takes place and if so their specific combination of genes will not then be passed on to future generations.

 

In the long run only the genes of many generations of successful individuals will survive to form a prevailing population gene pool. If and when conditions of survival change, the environment will then select different characteristics that best suit the survival and reproduction of a particular species. By this process, over time, the appearance and characteristics of a population and species will change over time.

 

If I give you a red ball and a blue ball and a yellow ball, you can SELECT one of these balls but you cannot select something until it exists to be selected for in the first place. I KNOW what natural selection is and I fucking know how it works. I'm just really done this this. Fuck it. Think whatever you want. It's not my concern. 

 

I'm about to take about a week off this site. When I return I'm' going to stay in the spirituality forum. This isn't because I cannot stand to hear "views that differ from mine". I can fully respect a materialist's right to hold that view. What I can't respect is someone who implies I'm some kind of functional retard because I simply do not view the world in the same terms as them. This EXTREME arrogance that leads someone to think they "know how everything works". It isn't just a model that "works for them". No, it is THE TRUTH, and anyone who doesn't accept it will be seen as "lesser". Fucking fine. I will stay in the spirituality forum exclusively when I return so that I can have productive conversations about shit I actually want to talk about instead of constantly trying to get closed minded people to open their minds the TINIEST crack to even accept the POSSIBILITY that there are alternatives that might be true.

 

Being in the spirituality forum only, is really the only way I can be on this forum and not be fucking miserable as shit. And if I'm miserable I may as well not be here at all. Freedom is my highest moral value. Arguing with people here is not making me free and it's also disrespecting the freedom of others to just believe whatever they want to believe.

 

In my supposed high-minded ideal of simply wanting those leaving Christianity to not be forced into another mental slave box (Materialism or else, motherfuckers!), I am becoming the monster I hate. ANY ex-C person who is uncomfortable with this dogmatic materialism can SEE there is a spirituality forum and they can seek other viewpoints there. 

 

One of the greatest ironies of life is that you cannot force others to be free. Freedom seems like it is something "all people would want" but it is clear to me that people have to fight for their own freedom and free themselves and nobody else can do it for them. I am NOT saying Materialists "are not free". There are many people who believe "the material is all that is real" who are truly free thinkers. They ARE free, but many of them don't necessarily value freedom as highly as I do because they are not willing to let others have the same freedom they do to come to THEIR own conclusions. Instead they just want to browbeat until everyone meekly obeys. They want everybody to march in a straight line and think exactly as they do, or apparently the world will spin off its axis... or something.

 

In my reaction to this, I am becoming the exact same way. So I'm just stopping that shit right now before I spiral out into becoming a complete caricature of myself. If someone is not happy in the materialist worldview but they feel themselves pressured intellectually to parrot all the same talking points, that's sad, but it's not my problem. Ultimately in this life we all have to free our own minds, and if we get too hung up with how we think someone else is "enslaved" we only re-enslave ourselves. And I won't be a slave for anyone. So I'm not willing to enslave myself into these dumb as shit discussions that are not productive for me on the off chance that someone who "feels pressured to be a materialist" isn't free.

[disillusioned]

I think there's a lot of poor communication and overstatement going on here.

 

One thing I'll say: I think the assertion that the universe logically cannot have a beginning or a cause fails pretty quickly on a strictly materialistic system. On such a system, it seems to me that logic is just a thing that humans do when we try to make sense. It's just a product of our mind. And our minds have evolved in this particular corner of the universe. There's no reason to think that we should be equipped to fully understand the universe,  or that our minds should be capable of producing a thing (logic) which is capable of accurately describing how the universe can and cannot be. So on materialism, it seems to me that logic does not have that kind of power,  and therefore the argument that the universe cannot have had a cause can never get off the ground. 

[TruthSeeker0]

26 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

One thing I'll say: I think the assertion that the universe logically cannot have a beginning or a cause fails pretty quickly on a strictly materialistic system. On such a system, it seems to me that logic is just a thing that humans do when we try to make sense. It's just a product of our mind. And our minds have evolved in this particular corner of the universe. There's no reason to think that we should be equipped to fully understand the universe,  or that our minds should be capable of producing a thing (logic) which is capable of accurately describing how the universe can and cannot be. So on materialism, it seems to me that logic does not have that kind of power,  and therefore the argument that the universe cannot have had a cause can never get off the ground. 

I agree with this completely. I've thought it a bit arrogant to think we are capable of logically understanding fully how the universe is or isn't. Which is exactly why I say embrace the mystery, folks. 

[TruthSeeker0]

One thing that I have wondered though: if we concede the point that the universe cannot be fully understood according to our logic, and that we're just not fully equipped to understand it, does it strike too close to the "god is unknowable" argument, and result in a reactionary defense from some people?

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

I'm about to take about a week off this site. When I return I'm' going to stay in the spirituality forum. This isn't because I cannot stand to hear "views that differ from mine". I can fully respect a materialist's right to hold that view. What I can't respect is someone who implies I'm some kind of functional retard because I simply do not view the world in the same terms as them. This EXTREME arrogance that leads someone to think they "know how everything works". It isn't just a model that "works for them". No, it is THE TRUTH, and anyone who doesn't accept it will be seen as "lesser". Fucking fine. I will stay in the spirituality forum exclusively when I return so that I can have productive conversations about shit I actually want to talk about instead of constantly trying to get closed minded people to open their minds the TINIEST crack to even accept the POSSIBILITY that there are alternatives that might be true.

 

Remember what I said about only the thickest skinned still remaining around here? This is why. It's fierce argument and debate and then burn out. Many people I've enjoyed talking to, gone. Take a breather, reconsider things. I would encourage you not to just give up, though. You're bringing some good perspective to the table like Agnostic always does. It makes for better variety in these discussions and I view the input as valuable for whatever that may be worth you. 

 

I'll be off surfing around at various beaches over the weekend, so I probably won't be on much till next week. 

 

Best of luck. 

 

[mwc]

14 hours ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

The Superconsciousness would be part of the universe, yes. The universe would be basically "the dream of this big mind". And it has no cause. It's eternal by definition. If you don't think a nonconscious universe needs a cause, why do you think a conscious universe needs a cause? And if you think it's an "extra thing" to posit consciousness, I don't really think so. I accept evolution but I think it's absurd to think consciousness somehow comes out of matter instead of the other way around. How would that even happen? Every time something evolves, you've got NEW SHIT. Like totally new information every time. We are not just talking one or two "starting random 'miracles' given enough time passing... we are talking billions and billions of miracles. I mean sure, I can accept this "happened". I just don't accept it happened without consciousness. Because to me that's just a goofy way of thinking that makes no sense.

 

I have a consciousness. You have a consciousness. In what way is it excessive to say the universe has a consciousness? After all, BOTH evolution and creationism are kind of lacking as full explanations. Evolution requires stuff to just "show up from nowhere" and a "creation story" requires some "magic being to make shit". Neither of these two things makes any sense. NOT REALLY. Evolution (which I accept by the way, just not that it's a non conscious thing), is just 'less stupid than' creation stories taken literally. But everybody dreams universes at night. Why can't a bigger mind make a bigger one?

     Would it have to be eternal?  I'm not eternal.  You're not eternal.  The universe doesn't need to be eternal.  Apparently it could be traced back to a singularity, which is maybe like us in the womb prior to us having a consciousness, and one day it will fade.  So even though there may be a something of some sort does that really mean that it will be operational?  Perhaps it will get dementia on an universal level or even just die?  An empty shell or corpse.

 

     And if I'm reading you correctly the universe it sort of "dreaming" at this point so it's unconscious or asleep.  What happens if it wakes up or enters an actual conscious state?  I know we dream in the REM state which would mean the universe would have be in a similar state.  So if it goes into a deeper state or, as I just said, a wakeful state would it essentially "forget" us like we tend to do when we wake up and focus on out reality (which is the universal dream in this case)?

 

          mwc

 

[VerbosityCat]

9 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Remember what I said about only the thickest skinned still remaining around here? This is why. It's fierce argument and debate and then burn out. Many people I've enjoyed talking to, gone. Take a breather, reconsider things. I would encourage you not to just give up, though. You're bringing some good perspective to the table like Agnostic always does. It makes for better variety in these discussions and I view the input as valuable for whatever that may be worth you. 

 

I'll be off surfing around at various beaches over the weekend, so I probably won't be on much till next week. 

 

Best of luck. 

 

 

This is not about "thick skin". To me that's a total bullshit argument so people allow themselves to be talked down to like little morons so they can "prove they are tough enough to endure it". If you were punching me in the face, should I continue hanging out with you? It's all fine and good to punch back, but if the next day you punch me again, should I just stick around for that? We encourage people in "abusive relationships" to get out of them. People are encouraged to leave Christianity here IN PART because it IS an abusive totalitarian little mind control cult.

 

But hey, it's all fine and good for people to stay HERE because "only the strong survive". You can say that about ANY dumbass thing. Was I not "strong enough" to withstand the constant retarded bullshit of Christianity? So if I was SUPER STRONG, I would have "stayed in Christianity" just to prove my mind could handle being constantly assaulted by stupidity? I should just suffer in that because it proves I have a "thick skin" of some sort?

 

How fucking weak is it to make your decisions about where you go and what you do based on if the other little lemmings think you have a "thick enough skin" to hang out in their precious presence? I'm thinking there are a lot of people here who never get out of their basement.

 

These are such weak, emotionally manipulative arguments. I don't think you are an emotionally manipulative person, but this IDEA is totally manipulative. I have nothing to prove to you or this board. My happiness is de facto the litmus test I use to determine who I spend my time with. 

 

I DO enjoy the spirituality space (for now) but I'm not going to be bullied into this total manipulative nonsense about how "only the tough survive here" as though somehow I now need to give up all my freedom just for the approval of people who don't respect me anyway. (any time I spend here having stupid arguments is time I can't be doing something actually productive, useful, and satisfying in my life. This makes me a slave. When I'm not living MY life according to MY values and desires but instead living for the approval of some little trolls on the internet I would not consider that being "strong" by any definition that I actually have respect for.) 

 

Why should I give even the tiniest shit for the approval of people who treat me like I'm a functional retard because I refuse to spew out their dumb talking points? Give me a break.

 

Anyway out for a week. Will be back (in the spirituality forum) around the first. We'll see how it goes. But this is just ONE example of the way people control each other and why it's so important to understand these little control mechanisms so people can't use them on you anymore.

[VerbosityCat]

Just now, mwc said:

     Would it have to be eternal?  I'm not eternal.  You're not eternal.  The universe doesn't need to be eternal.  Apparently it could be traced back to a singularity, which is maybe like us in the womb prior to us having a consciousness, and one day it will fade.  So even though there may be a something of some sort does that really mean that it will be operational?  Perhaps it will get dementia on an universal level or even just die?  An empty shell or corpse.

 

     And if I'm reading you correctly the universe it sort of "dreaming" at this point so it's unconscious or asleep.  What happens if it wakes up or enters an actual conscious state?  I know we dream in the REM state which would mean the universe would have be in a similar state.  So if it goes into a deeper state or, as I just said, a wakeful state would it essentially "forget" us like we tend to do when we wake up and focus on out reality (which is the universal dream in this case)?

 

          mwc

 

 

 

I just think it IS eternal and that you and I are eternal because we are part OF it, just not eternal in this state. And I have no idea what happens if it "wakes up". I'm talking possibilities not "this is the one true truth". I'm not the one stating how things MUST be or CAN'T be around here. take that up with the people who have decided my viewpoint is the result of someone who doesn't understand how natural selection works.

[disillusioned]

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

One thing that I have wondered though: if we concede the point that the universe cannot be fully understood according to our logic, and that we're just not fully equipped to understand it, does it strike too close to the "god is unknowable" argument, and result in a reactionary defense from some people?

 

Sure, it might.  A couple responses though. First, this kind of argument does not in any way show that a God does exist, only that one might. And we already knew that anyways. Practically no one says that it is impossible for a God to exist. So the argument doesn't really go anywhere.  Second, as I've said recently in another thread, we can just concede the point, and then point out the glaring inconsistency in claiming on the one hand that God is unknowable, and on the other hand that we know what he wants us to do. So even if it gets you somewhere, it doesn't get you anywhere close to traditional theism. Third,  that kind of argument rests on a purely materialistic worldview. To use it to try to show the existence of an immaterial God is to negate the underlying assumptions of the argument. In other words, yes,  you can still have your belief in God, but the argument I made can't help you substantiate your belief. The minute you establish God, the argument doesn't work anymore, because materialism is incorrect. 

 

Really, all the argument that I made does is show that, on rigid materialism, we can't know anything about the universe with certainty. It does not entail that all positions are equally valid, or that any particular assertion should be accepted. It's more a critique of materialism than anything else. On materialism, we can only really say how the universe appears to be, not how it is, or how it must be. This is a non-trivial distinction.

 

Niels Bohr put it like this: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature."

 

[mwc]

42 minutes ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

 

I just think it IS eternal and that you and I are eternal because we are part OF it, just not eternal in this state. And I have no idea what happens if it "wakes up". I'm talking possibilities not "this is the one true truth". I'm not the one stating how things MUST be or CAN'T be around here. take that up with the people who have decided my viewpoint is the result of someone who doesn't understand how natural selection works.

     I didn't state *must* or *can't* either.  You compared the universe to humans and so did I.  I was just riffing off what you said, saying some stuff, asking some questions given all that.  Sort of thinking out loud.  But I guess no matter what I say, as an unbeliever, it's going to touch a nerve.

 

          mwc

 

[TruthSeeker0]

1 hour ago, VerbosityCat said:

 

This is not about "thick skin". To me that's a total bullshit argument so people allow themselves to be talked down to like little morons so they can "prove they are tough enough to endure it". If you were punching me in the face, should I continue hanging out with you? It's all fine and good to punch back, but if the next day you punch me again, should I just stick around for that? We encourage people in "abusive relationships" to get out of them. People are encouraged to leave Christianity here IN PART because it IS an abusive totalitarian little mind control cult.

 

But hey, it's all fine and good for people to stay HERE because "only the strong survive". You can say that about ANY dumbass thing. Was I not "strong enough" to withstand the constant retarded bullshit of Christianity? So if I was SUPER STRONG, I would have "stayed in Christianity" just to prove my mind could handle being constantly assaulted by stupidity? I should just suffer in that because it proves I have a "thick skin" of some sort?

 

How fucking weak is it to make your decisions about where you go and what you do based on if the other little lemmings think you have a "thick enough skin" to hang out in their precious presence? I'm thinking there are a lot of people here who never get out of their basement.

 

These are such weak, emotionally manipulative arguments. I don't think you are an emotionally manipulative person, but this IDEA is totally manipulative. I have nothing to prove to you or this board. My happiness is de facto the litmus test I use to determine who I spend my time with. 

 

I DO enjoy the spirituality space (for now) but I'm not going to be bullied into this total manipulative nonsense about how "only the tough survive here" as though somehow I now need to give up all my freedom just for the approval of people who don't respect me anyway. (any time I spend here having stupid arguments is time I can't be doing something actually productive, useful, and satisfying in my life. This makes me a slave. When I'm not living MY life according to MY values and desires but instead living for the approval of some little trolls on the internet I would not consider that being "strong" by any definition that I actually have respect for.) 

 

Why should I give even the tiniest shit for the approval of people who treat me like I'm a functional retard because I refuse to spew out their dumb talking points? Give me a break.

 

Anyway out for a week. Will be back (in the spirituality forum) around the first. We'll see how it goes. But this is just ONE example of the way people control each other and why it's so important to understand these little control mechanisms so people can't use them on you anymore.

This was a good rant imo, and this was spot on. It's really too convenient to treat those who have other perspectives and disagree as being "thin skinned" when they finally have enough of the debate and leave. Leaving because it's better for you and you don't accept control mechanisms like this is actually a strength, not a weakness.  I view calling people thin skinned who leave based on disagreement as disrespect for diversity of opinion and arrogance, when it comes down to it. 

[disillusioned]

FWIW, I agree with @VerbosityCat and @TruthSeeker0 regarding the thick vs thin skinned issue. I drift in and out regularly. It has nothing to do with the thickness of my skin, and much to do with how interesting the discussions are at any given time. Certainly,  if someone is not finding a conversation helpful or interesting then electing not to participate in that conversation should not necessarily be attributed to "thin skin". That's a major over-simplification. 

[Blood]

We don't know how or why the current universe instantiated. I'm perfectly fine with not knowing. Questions of this nature are probably beyond knowing. 

 

Billions of years into this process, organic chemicals began acting in ways that created what we call "life." 

 

Animals eventually developed consciousness, but for the most part they're driven by pure instinct which overrides any reasoning ability. 

 

Homo sapiens developed a higher consciousness than all other animals, but this is almost completely meaningless and trivial, since our animal instincts override it constantly. Homo sapiens would gladly throw all accumulated knowledge of the last 5,000 years in a bonfire if the right religious authority figure told them to do so. 

 

 

[pantheory]

On 10/26/2018 at 9:30 AM, disillusioned said:

I think there's a lot of poor communication and overstatement going on here.

 

One thing I'll say: I think the assertion that the universe logically cannot have a beginning or a cause fails pretty quickly on a strictly materialistic system. On such a system, it seems to me that logic is just a thing that humans do when we try to make sense. It's just a product of our mind. And our minds have evolved in this particular corner of the universe. There's no reason to think that we should be equipped to fully understand the universe,  or that our minds should be capable of producing a thing (logic) which is capable of accurately describing how the universe can and cannot be. So on materialism, it seems to me that logic does not have that kind of power,  and therefore the argument that the universe cannot have had a cause can never get off the ground. 

 

Of course any universe or anything had a beginning. What I'm talking about here is something that came "before" the beginning, a logical contradiction. It sounds only like semantics. But if something was the cause for our universe, what was the cause of that etc.? One ends up in an infinite series. An infinite series going backward in time could have had no beginning cause. On the other hand for a finite universe when time is equated with change, there could be no change before the first change. This, in the Big Bang model, is where the beginning entity also assertedly created time and space. This is where they get the idea that the universe is 13.8 billion years old based upon the theory that there was a beginning to it including time and space. The logical problem arises when one thinks that there could have been an "ultimate" cause for the beginning. Of course there could be a cause for it, but not an ultimate one outside of itself, otherwise one ends up in an infinite series of cause-and-effects again.

 

In religion the argument relates to "the prime mover." The prime mover of course would have been God if there were such a thing. But the logicians then say "if God was the cause of everything, then what was the cause of God?" There are two major proposed answers to this. God is eternal, outside of time and logic, immortal. He has always existed. And the other well-known answer is that God created himself. Since anything supernatural could assertedly be possible, outside of logic, such answers are not logically satisfactory.

 

 

[florduh]

So.... the universe by definition is everything there is but something created it? Where was this something if not in that which contains all? Of course there is no way to know but we can all guess if we want to. Just don't make a religion out of your guess!

[disillusioned]

29 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Of course any universe or anything has a beginning. What I'm talking about here is something that came "before" the beginning, a logical contradiction. It sounds only like semantics. But if something was the cause for our universe, what was the cause of that etc.? One ends up in an infinite series. An infinite series going backward in time could have had no beginning cause. On the other hand for a finite universe when time is equated with change, there could be no change before the first change. This, in the Big Bang model, is where the beginning entity also assertedly created time and space. This is where they get the idea that the universe is 13.8 billion years old based upon the theory that there was a beginning to it. The logical problem arises when one thinks that there could be a "ultimate" cause for the beginning. Of course there could be a cause for it, but not an ultimate one outside of itself.

 

I understand what you are saying, but there are a lot of things asserted here that are not necessarily true. Anything has a beginning? Not necessarily. Also, the question "what caused the cause?" only applies if the cause is material. The law of cause and effect is only known to apply to the material. If someone (note: I do not assert this!) were to assert that the universe had an immaterial cause, then it would be silly to insist that such a cause would itself require a cause.

 

29 minutes ago, pantheory said:

In religion the argument relates to "the prime mover." The prime mover of course would have been God if there were such a thing. But the logicians then say "if God was the cause of everything, then what was the cause of God?" There are two major proposed answers to this. God is eternal, outside of time and logic, immortal. He has always existed. And the other well-known answer is that God created himself. Since anything supernatural could assertedly be possible, outside of logic, such answers are not logically satisfactory.

 

Again, I understand what you are saying. My position is that it doesn't matter if such answers are not logically satisfactory. It does not preclude them from being correct. On materialism, logic cannot be said to have that kind of power. And if we leave materialism behind, then it is entirely possible for the universe to have an immaterial cause. I don't think that there is a way around this.

[pantheory]

51 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

I understand what you are saying, but there are a lot of things asserted here that are not necessarily true. Anything has a beginning? Not necessarily. Also, the question "what caused the cause?" only applies if the cause is material. The law of cause and effect is only known to apply to the material. If someone (note: I do not assert this!) were to assert that the universe had an immaterial cause, then it would be silly to insist that such a cause would itself require a cause.

 

 

Again, I understand what you are saying. My position is that it doesn't matter if such answers are not logically satisfactory. It does not preclude them from being correct. On materialism, logic cannot be said to have that kind of power. And if we leave materialism behind, then it is entirely possible for the universe to have an immaterial cause. I don't think that there is a way around this.

 

OK, let's say that the universe had an immaterial cause for its existence. Then what was the cause of that etc. what I'm talking about is an "ultimate cause," a cause without a cause for itself. If it is supernatural it cannot exist in the domain of logic if anything is possible. Yes, supernatural could mean outside of nature, different from the laws of physics and principles of science that we know of? But is it the most likely possibility? maybe not, but it is possible.