Jump to content

WHERE DID WE (THE UNIVERSE) COME FROM?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

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.

 

I understand.  But the only things that we know of that require causes are material things. So, quite possibly,  our hypothetical immaterial cause requires no cause. 

 

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

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?

 

Indeed.

 

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

But is it the most likely possibility? maybe not, but it is possible.

 

The most likely possibility? See how you just tried to impose logic again?

 

I will say it one more time: on strict materialism,  there is no reason whatsoever to think that logic has any special power.  It is just the thing we do when we try to make sense. And our ability to make sense is purely a product of how we have interacted with the material world. Therefore, logically, logic can say nothing about any hypothetical immaterial entities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Alright, back.   Apologies from the outset. I'm not as well-read on this topic as I really should be. I second LF in saying that I miss BAA. As for what I can say, here it goes...  

It came from a pot-smoking magic turtle.    

Damn I wish BAA was here right now. He'd love this question.   Ok, there are several ideas about this. One of them is the idea of an eternal cosmos in which we are just one pocket universe i

Posted Images

  • Moderator
On 10/26/2018 at 2:13 PM, 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".

 

It isn't not an argument. It's an observation. Spiritual minded usually argue hard, burn out fast, and then disappear. It's just a trend that's available to observe. What remains are many atheist materialists who then make up a majority. That's how an ex christianity community can eventually consist of a large atheist materialist majority when it may have once been otherwise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disillusioned,

 

"....there is no reason whatsoever to think that logic has any special power."

 

I disagree on this one since IMHO  logic and observation are all that we have to discern reality. 

 

  ".....our ability to make sense is purely a product of how we have interacted with the material world."

 

True

 

"Therefore, logically, logic can say nothing about any hypothetical immaterial entities."

 

I think one could logically say that any hypothetical immaterial entities probably don't exist if one believes that there is no reason or evidence for their existence. Of course beliefs are different, and also what seems logical to one person may not seem logical to another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burnedout said:

What is rather evident to me is that the researchers in physics will argue at least as hard on their theories as theologians will argue their religion.  Most of the grand theories are taught as if they are fact, when they violate the scientific method in that a repeatable and observable experiment can be performed to prove or disprove it.  What nobody really wants to admit, if you dare to pull back the proverbial curtain on the institutions, is that there is funding that drives the narratives behind many of those grand theories from sources with their own agendas.  Not all the agendas are nefarious, but often the institutional money making process takes on a life of it's own and the funding and narrative become more important than the facts known.  In short, the reality is that despite all the grandiose theories, not as much is really known as the narrative would lead you to believe.  Until there is an experiment that can really prove such as say, string theory, big bang, etc., that repeatable, observable, and provable, they really don't know Jack shit.

 

Yes, misguided funding can and has motivated wrong conclusions and has entrenched wrong theories IMO. I also agree that a number of the most revered theories of today will be shown to be somewhat, or totally wrong in the long run. But IMO there is also a great deal of  generally valid mainstream scientific knowledge and related theories out there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I think one could logically say that any hypothetical immaterial entities probably don't exist if one believes that there is no reason or evidence for their existence. Of course beliefs are different, and also what seems logical to one person may not seem logical to another.

 

Yes, one can say this.  In fact, I say this too. It isn't logically inconsistent to say this.  It seems like the best answer to me.  But it doesn't follow logically and necessarily either. I don't think it could. It's just an assumption. I think it's a good assumption,  but it isn't a necessary one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burnedout said:

What is rather evident to me is that the researchers in physics will argue at least as hard on their theories as theologians will argue their religion.  Most of the grand theories are taught as if they are fact, when they violate the scientific method in that a repeatable and observable experiment can be performed to prove or disprove it.  What nobody really wants to admit, if you dare to pull back the proverbial curtain on the institutions, is that there is funding that drives the narratives behind many of those grand theories from sources with their own agendas.  Not all the agendas are nefarious, but often the institutional money making process takes on a life of it's own and the funding and narrative become more important than the facts known.  In short, the reality is that despite all the grandiose theories, not as much is really known as the narrative would lead you to believe.  Until there is an experiment that can really prove such as say, string theory, big bang, etc., that repeatable, observable, and provable, they really don't know Jack shit.

 

Ok then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Yes, one can say this.  In fact, I say this too. It isn't logically inconsistent to say this.  It seems like the best answer to me.  But it doesn't follow logically and necessarily either. I don't think it could. It's just an assumption. I think it's a good assumption,  but it isn't a necessary one.

 

OK  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:36 AM, VerbosityCat said:

 

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. 

Good thoughts imo....I've mentioned several times that the adamant adherence to the new box is a result of a bad experience in the old box.  A few people who have had mixed thoughts ultimately leave bc the new box tribe is can't allow the other to exist.  Imo, I think it would kind of suck to not allow for both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, end3 said:

 I think it would kind of suck to not allow for both. 

 

Why not just stay out of the boxes??  They just block your vision, and the cool breeze. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if someone already said this, but nobody fucking knows.

 

Like....I went through a "I HAVE TO KNOW RIGHT NOW" phase before I just realized that I will never know. Humans don't know shit. We're feces slinging monkeys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
16 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

Sorry if someone already said this, but nobody fucking knows.

 

Like....I went through a "I HAVE TO KNOW RIGHT NOW" phase before I just realized that I will never know. Humans don't know shit. We're feces slinging monkeys.

 

Never say never! Two hundred years ago I might have said we shall never fly, much less go to the moon. Never?

 

Obviously, we can't go back in time and witness early evolution or the beginning of the universe (if there even was a beginning). Naturally, someone has already mischaracterized the science, but I know of no scientist who claims to have proof of how this all began. What they have is best guesses based on known information and extrapolated. At this point we do not know and have no way of knowing the beginning of all things, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some day we just might be as sure of that as we are of evolution now.

 

For now, I do not have to know everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, florduh said:

 

Never say never! Two hundred years ago I might have said we shall never fly, much less go to the moon. Never?

 

Obviously, we can't go back in time and witness early evolution or the beginning of the universe (if there even was a beginning). Naturally, someone has already mischaracterized the science, but I know of no scientist who claims to have proof of how this all began. What they have is best guesses based on known information and extrapolated. At this point we do not know and have no way of knowing the beginning of all things, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some day we just might be as sure of that as we are of evolution now.

 

For now, I do not have to know everything.

I dunno, I'm a whole lot more cynical than that. Are we going to survive to even be around to look for the answers to that? Quite a few times lately this book I read in high school called The Chrisalids has come to mind. At the time I thought it was completely bizarre. But when you consider it, it's not so bizarre at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
4 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I dunno, I'm a whole lot more cynical than that.

I'm cynical as shit, but I can't ignore the history lesson that unimagined things can in fact be possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2018 at 6:54 PM, end3 said:

Good thoughts imo....I've mentioned several times that the adamant adherence to the new box is a result of a bad experience in the old box.  A few people who have had mixed thoughts ultimately leave bc the new box tribe is can't allow the other to exist.  Imo, I think it would kind of suck to not allow for both. 

 

Sorry end3, I don't follow your answer, not because it is not a good one, I just don't know the difference between the old box, the new box, and what in general you are referring to. Will you  please advise me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

Sorry if someone already said this, but nobody fucking knows.

 

Like....I went through a "I HAVE TO KNOW RIGHT NOW" phase before I just realized that I will never know. Humans don't know shit. We're feces slinging monkeys.

 

Yes, in religion all should realize IMO that all of the contentions of truth in religion are 100% BS. But in mainstream science humans know a great deal of truth many times explained from understandable perspective. But many also realize that many of the most treasured mainstream theories of today will be realized as being pure BS within a half a century from now. But humans using science have accomplished phenomenal things in engineering, and some irrefutable conclusions in theory, natural selection is an example of this.

 

Feces-swinging primates in some ways maybe, but little of these disabilities relate to science and its principle methods of observation and logic IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Sorry end3, I don't follow your answer, not because it is not a good one, I just don't know the difference between the old box, the new box, and what in general you are referring to. Will you  please advise me?

I think a good many people would categorize our reality in two "boxes", spiritual and physical.....maybe not.  Verbosity Cat, from what I gathered, was saying that the potential backlash from a swing too far into the spiritual box would result in another far swing into the physical box......i.e. a sellout to science and logic.....leaving less room for adequate input from both boxes.....free thinking.  And, it's pretty much what I have observed here at ExC.  Not a bad thing though....it's reasonable that people, if traumatized from A, would then go camp elsewhere, B.  It is painful sometimes to watch people have to be so measured with their responses....that they are now trapped in the new box....or it at least appears this way to me.    Hope this helps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, end3 said:

I think a good many people would categorize our reality in two "boxes", spiritual and physical.....maybe not.  Verbosity Cat, from what I gathered, was saying that the potential backlash from a swing too far into the spiritual box would result in another far swing into the physical box......i.e. a sellout to science and logic.....leaving less room for adequate input from both boxes.....free thinking.  And, it's pretty much what I have observed here at ExC.  Not a bad thing though....it's reasonable that people, if traumatized from A, would then go camp elsewhere, B.  It is painful sometimes to watch people have to be so measured with their responses....that they are now trapped in the new box....or it at least appears this way to me.    Hope this helps. 

Hey stop talking as if we're traumatized here etc and bad experiences are why we left religion. That's only a small part of it. Give credit to thinking people who used their brains. To you it might appear they are trapped in a box, but to them, they are being rational, and that's freedom. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Hey stop talking as if we're traumatized here etc and bad experiences are why we left religion. That's only a small part of it. Give credit to thinking people who used their brains. To you it might appear they are trapped in a box, but to them, they are being rational, and that's freedom. 

You're right....not everyone has left for the same reasons....and not everyone swings so far into box#2.  Carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Burnedout said:

Of course, you and I both have mentioned the issue of the funding becoming a problem by contaminating the process because those with the money have their own agendas. 

I missed something. Who, exactly, would benefit from any particular hypothesis about how the universe "began?" And also, which hypothesis has been presented as irrefutable fact?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, florduh said:

I missed something. Who, exactly, would benefit from any particular hypothesis about how the universe "began?" And also, which hypothesis has been presented as irrefutable fact?

 

Alex, who is the entire population that is anti-religion?  To the latter.....by god, if science proclaims it, it's fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, end3 said:

.....by god, if science proclaims it, it's fact.

 

Says no scientist ever.  

 

*god I miss  BAA around here*

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Hey stop talking as if we're traumatized here etc and bad experiences are why we left religion. That's only a small part of it. Give credit to thinking people who used their brains. To you it might appear they are trapped in a box, but to them, they are being rational, and that's freedom. 

Was thinking about this a little more......in another box is not freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
43 minutes ago, end3 said:
2 hours ago, florduh said:

I missed something. Who, exactly, would benefit from any particular hypothesis about how the universe "began?" And also, which hypothesis has been presented as irrefutable fact?

 

Alex, who is the entire population that is anti-religion?  To the latter.....by god, if science proclaims it, it's fact.

 

Who, besides religions, has claimed anything on this topic as being irrefutable fact?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rule, scientists do not proclaim things top be irrefutable facts. This is a gross misconstrual. They do proclaim things to be facts, but in science,  all facts are refutable in principle. And, if they are shown to be incorrect,  they cease to be viewed as facts. That's how science works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, florduh said:

 

Who, besides religions, has claimed anything on this topic as being irrefutable fact?

You and Jeff quit being so literal.  I think what BO means is the media typically takes an article, a research article, and essentially places it out in front of the people as "a new study has determined".....which sounds pretty convincing that we are all about to hear a new FACT via science.  But if you actually read the research, I doubt it ever comes across with as much certainty as the media places on it.  This is a symptom of a larger issue imo....that I shall reveal after this commercial message. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.