- This topic is empty.
- Posts
t8 as defined three options for “the beginning”.
Everything come from:
1. Nothing
2. Something
3. SomeoneAre their any more options he did not think of?
Well I personally think t8's got it accurate.
t8 believes the answer is 3) someone
Stu thinks the answer is 2) something
As far as I know no serious scientist, theologian or philospher thinks the answer is 1) nothing
Although, I wouldn't mind discussing the nothing possiblity, by it's very nature we have nothing to talk about. The idea of everything coming into being out of nothing for no reason is unreasonable from any rational perspective whether, Scientific, Theological or Philosophical.
So this leaves:
Something or Someone
And that means:
EITHER WAY A FORCE OF SOMEKIND HAS ALWAYS EXISTED!!!
For starters, the first thing that comes to my mind is WOW!
WOW!
Science and technology I believe has simplified and explained many things. I believe this is good. However, I also think this has collectively numbed our sense of wonder some.
For crying out loud, WOW!
Wake up Sleepers! Quit listening to pink floyd for a bit and stop being “Comfortably Numb”!
If this Force is a “something” and not at all sentient then somehow we have somekind of eternal energy or dust (for lack of a better word) that has always existed.
I know Stu would hate this, but to me that is basically like saying that the source of all things is an eternal self existent Magical energy or as the movie the Golden Compass calls it “dust”.
It gets even weirder. This “dust” is everything! Matter, energy and every element, atom and molecule.
This dust “is” the universe. This dust “is” our planet and everything on it. You and me.
Wait for it. This dust actually is A SOMEONE!!!!!
Reality boggles the mind.
Once you grasp this understanding it isn't very hard to consider that this “dust” was a Someone all along.
OR atleast this “dust” was a someone before we were someones.
If this isn't the case and our lives are the “first” someones then things get really really weird.
WE ARE GOD.
We would basically be eternal magic dust forming into matter and through evolution becoming SELF AWARE. I would be you and you would be me. I would be all things and so you would you. We would be split personalities of the same being.
The First Cause no matter how you slice it, IS SELF AWARE.
Anything, you guys have to add. My head is spinning.
look around isent it obvious god or as you say this dust created all these things,everything! this system could not just come into being of its self,there was a master designer,god,the GREAT “I AM”!!
Quote (michaels @ Jan. 10 2008,16:31) look around isent it obvious god or as you say this dust created all these things,everything! this system could not just come into being of its self,there was a master designer,god,the GREAT “I AM”!!
I agree.I wanted to address both perspectives though in order to demonstrate that no matter how you slice it the source of all is sentient. We call him God.
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 10 2008,16:03) Stu thinks the answer is 2) something
This is not true. I have suspended judgement and claim not to know, and I suggest most strongly that no one here knows either, and the major problem remains in defining what 'something' actually is. For example, we don't know about dark matter and dark energy, and those two things are critical for really describing what is going on. Until a real scientist can do that for you this thread will be filled with religion and/or philosophy and/or sophistry.We can observe particles come into and go out of existence now. They are called virtual particles and their longevity depends on whether they interact with a photon or not. That is not an explanation for the existence of matter, just a fact to consider.
By all means be a deist, but the god that fits that particular gap joins a long history of shrinking gods.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 10 2008,18:16) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 10 2008,16:03) Stu thinks the answer is 2) something
This is not true. I have suspended judgement and claim not to know, and I suggest most strongly that no one here knows either, and the major problem remains in defining what 'something' actually is. For example, we don't know about dark matter and dark energy, and those two things are critical for really describing what is going on. Until a real scientist can do that for you this thread will be filled with religion and/or philosophy and/or sophistry.We can observe particles come into and go out of existence now. They are called virtual particles and their longevity depends on whether they interact with a photon or not. That is not an explanation for the existence of matter, just a fact to consider.
By all means be a deist, but the god that fits that particular gap joins a long history of shrinking gods.
Stuart
then replace dust with dark matter throughout my post.I agree that the definition of “something” is important.
But it is either something or nothing.
Can you agree there?
From what science I have studied they all agree it is something even if the definition of that is vague.
by the way sorry for putting words in your mouth. I really thought that was your position.
looking back I think it was that you were denying nothing and someone and so I probably labeled you with the remaining option.
I suppose this means you believe that there can be more options?
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 10 2008,18:29) by the way sorry for putting words in your mouth. I really thought that was your position. looking back I think it was that you were denying nothing and someone and so I probably labeled you with the remaining option.
I suppose this means you believe that there can be more options?
Thanks, Son of Light, yes the basic lesson of Einstein mustn't be forgotten. All matter is equivalent to energy, as described by a wave equation. Now the idea that humans are made of atoms and waves at the same time is enough of a challenge for most people conceptually without getting into the unknowns of the relationship between dark matter and matter, and their relationships with dark energy.You say
Quote The idea of everything coming into being out of nothing for no reason is unreasonable from any rational perspective whether, Scientific, Theological or Philosophical.
and I just think you are completely wrong to rule it out on scientific grounds. There is no science that says that. Deists do say it but it is an opinion based on ignorance.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 10 2008,18:48) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 10 2008,18:29) by the way sorry for putting words in your mouth. I really thought that was your position. looking back I think it was that you were denying nothing and someone and so I probably labeled you with the remaining option.
I suppose this means you believe that there can be more options?
Thanks, Son of Light, yes the basic lesson of Einstein mustn't be forgotten. All matter is equivalent to energy, as described by a wave equation. Now the idea that humans are made of atoms and waves at the same time is enough of a challenge for most people conceptually without getting into the unknowns of the relationship between dark matter and matter, and their relationships with dark energy.You say
Quote The idea of everything coming into being out of nothing for no reason is unreasonable from any rational perspective whether, Scientific, Theological or Philosophical.
and I just think you are completely wrong to rule it out on scientific grounds. There is no science that says that. Deists do say it but it is an opinion based on ignorance.Stuart
I see your point.But Stu, if everything did in fact pop out of nothing, then that is real magic and Harry Potter really starts to look possible.
Just considering what you wront in more detail, Son of Light
Quote So this leaves: Something or Someone
Something is imponderable because the universe as we perceive it did not exist before the big bang, and someone is additionally a problem because now you have put forward yet another ‘cause’ that must be massively complex, and must itself have had a first cause. The explaining you must do now has just gone up by a huge amount, and the explaining power the ‘someone’ brings itself is zero.Quote And that means:
EITHER WAY A FORCE OF SOMEKIND HAS ALWAYS EXISTED!!!
That is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory.Quote For starters, the first thing that comes to my mind is WOW!
Sure, I’d agree there!Quote Science and technology I believe has simplified and explained many things. I believe this is good. However, I also think this has collectively numbed our sense of wonder some.
Yes, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.Quote For crying out loud, WOW!
Wake up Sleepers! Quit listening to pink floyd for a bit and stop being “Comfortably Numb”!
OK, we get the point. We realise that you have the same experience that a 13 year-old does when he first realises he can think abstractly then tries to imagine infinity! To be less patronising, this is why scientists do science. That WOW factor is addictive.Quote If this Force is a “something” and not at all sentient then somehow we have somekind of eternal energy or dust (for lack of a better word) that has always existed.
Like I said before, not necessarily.Quote I know Stu would hate this, but to me that is basically like saying that the source of all things is an eternal self existent Magical energy or as the movie the Golden Compass calls it “dust”. It gets even weirder. This “dust” is everything! Matter, energy and every element, atom and molecule. This dust “is” the universe. This dust “is” our planet and everything on it. You and me.
Actually it is not quite as mysterious as that. After the big bang, once matter and antimatter separated and the particles that formed spontaneously were stable through forces of the right magnitude, the rest is pretty straightforward to explain, although there has been much WOW along that journey. When matter and antimatter meet they annihilate one another, releasing energy. Explain how they were separated in the first place and you’d be making progress.Quote Wait for it. This dust actually is A SOMEONE!!!!! Reality boggles the mind. Once you grasp this understanding it isn't very hard to consider that this “dust” was a Someone all along. OR atleast this “dust” was a someone before we were someones. If this isn't the case and our lives are the “first” someones then things get really really weird. WE ARE GOD. We would basically be eternal magic dust forming into matter and through evolution becoming SELF AWARE. I would be you and you would be me. I would be all things and so you would you. We would be split personalities of the same being. The First Cause no matter how you slice it, IS SELF AWARE. I wanted to address both perspectives though in order to demonstrate that no matter how you slice it the source of all is sentient. We call him God.
That is a religious doctrine, based on ignorance. It has no place in a serious discussion of a scientific question. The main reasons are that it is not falsifiable, and does not make any predictions. String theory suffers from broadly the same problems.I maintain that this will be a religio-sophistrical discussion in which people will parade their doctrinal prejudice under a pseudoscientific thread heading. In other words write what you like, but unless you seriously are on the verge of winning a Nobel Prize, it won't be science!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 10 2008,18:48) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 10 2008,18:29) by the way sorry for putting words in your mouth. I really thought that was your position. looking back I think it was that you were denying nothing and someone and so I probably labeled you with the remaining option.
I suppose this means you believe that there can be more options?
Thanks, Son of Light, yes the basic lesson of Einstein mustn't be forgotten. All matter is equivalent to energy, as described by a wave equation. Now the idea that humans are made of atoms and waves at the same time is enough of a challenge for most people conceptually without getting into the unknowns of the relationship between dark matter and matter, and their relationships with dark energy.You say
Quote The idea of everything coming into being out of nothing for no reason is unreasonable from any rational perspective whether, Scientific, Theological or Philosophical.
and I just think you are completely wrong to rule it out on scientific grounds. There is no science that says that. Deists do say it but it is an opinion based on ignorance.Stuart
Just as athiesm is an opinion based on ignorance.So all things equal, deism atleast has examples of sentience to show as evidence (us) while athiesm has no example of nothingness to show us.
Stu,
You are smart and you are right in the technicalities.
But honestly, we might as well chew grass then.
I am not going to wait for the next einstein before I try and reason myself. If a genius comes along and clears some things up I will adjust my pool of Knowledge accordingly.
In the meantime, I will use what knowledge I have to gather as much clues as I can to reality.
Sorry I don't know how to properly quote people:
You Said:
Quote
Wait for it. This dust actually is A SOMEONE!!!!! Reality boggles the mind. Once you grasp this understanding it isn't very hard to consider that this “dust” was a Someone all along. OR atleast this “dust” was a someone before we were someones. If this isn't the case and our lives are the “first” someones then things get really really weird. WE ARE GOD. We would basically be eternal magic dust forming into matter and through evolution becoming SELF AWARE. I would be you and you would be me. I would be all things and so you would you. We would be split personalities of the same being. The First Cause no matter how you slice it, IS SELF AWARE. I wanted to address both perspectives though in order to demonstrate that no matter how you slice it the source of all is sentient. We call him God.That is a religious doctrine, based on ignorance. It has no place in a serious discussion of a scientific question. The main reasons are that it is not falsifiable, and does not make any predictions. String theory suffers from broadly the same problems.
My response:
Stu, if the dust (this is my catch word for all the fancy science lingo) was not an intelligence or and intelligence did not create the dust then the dust eventually did manifest itself into an intelligence. (us)
This isn't religion this is observed facts. Let me introduce you to myself, I exist.
If that is the case then we are indeed the dust becoming self aware.
why is this just religio mumbo jumbo to you?
Hi Son of Light
Quote Just as athiesm is an opinion based on ignorance.
I’ll grant you there is no absolute about atheism, but don’t forget that most atheists will acknowledge that they are strictly agnostic, and the word atheist itself is only a reaction to the claims of believers. Atheism is a provisional conclusion based on the evidence, so it is not based on ignorance. Belief in the supernatural is a conclusion based on what evidence?Quote So all things equal, deism atleast has examples of sentience to show as evidence (us) while athiesm has no example of nothingness to show us.
No, there is no objective evidence of supernatural sentience. Otherwise why would faith be necessary?Quote But honestly, we might as well chew grass then.
No, I disagree. We should carry on doing cosmological physics. I think this thread might not be the most fertile ground for that endeavour, however.Quote I am not going to wait for the next einstein before I try and reason myself. If a genius comes along and clears some things up I will adjust my pool of Knowledge accordingly. In the meantime, I will use what knowledge I have to gather as much clues as I can to reality.
Well sure, I would encourage that, but you seem to have made up your mind about the answer already. Are you prepared for a continuation of the long series of scientific explanations that have never needed a deity? No matter how much we learn there will always be things we don’t know. I find it best to revel in the uncertainty and challenge of a mystery that has proved very resistant to solving. It is an issue that has slowed quantum physics to a worrying crawl. To make a religious conclusion about it and to call that science I believe would be to make a mistake.Quote Stu, if the dust (this is my catch word for all the fancy science lingo) was not an intelligence or and intelligence did not create the dust then the dust eventually did manifest itself into an intelligence. (us)
This isn't religion this is observed facts. Let me introduce you to myself, I exist. If that is the case then we are indeed the dust becoming self aware. why is this just religio mumbo jumbo to you?
I thought this thread was about ‘something from nothing’ or its variations. I don’t understand why the goal posts are moving again to sentience now. By discussing matter in this way you ignore our complete lack of understanding of the stuff you call dust. What does it mean that this stuff ‘exists’? What is the distinction between ‘something’ and ‘nothing’? I don’t think a concrete concept is any use here, for the reasons given by Einstein, Feynman and many others.Sentience is not a magical or divine eruption, but is the result of gradual selected change. By positing a god, you are not actually explaining anything in practical terms anyway. You are simply shifting the question to how god became sentient. I would add that there are many things that we are conceptually incapable of and perhaps mere sentience is not the apex of possibility. One thing of which I am almost certain is that we will never develop abilities that do not give us a survival and reproductive advantage, notwithstanding the possibilities of genetic engineering, which may never be available to most of the population anyway. There you have a prediction based on evolutionary theory! Beat that! The way by which we became self-aware is the same as the way by which we became human, and there is nothing to rule out self-awareness and even foresight in other species. One deist view is that the creator, having created then left things to run, has somehow seeded matter with all the properties it needs to eventually produce humans by natural selection, but the very nature of natural selection contradicts that view. It is also not science, again because it makes no predictions and is not falsifiable.
A new thread on sentience?!
Stuart
Stu,
How prevalent would atheism be today if so many religious adherents did not feel the need to force their beliefs on everyone and urge them to convert to their particular brand?
Quote (Towshab @ Jan. 11 2008,11:00) Stu, How prevalent would atheism be today if so many religious adherents did not feel the need to force their beliefs on everyone and urge them to convert to their particular brand?
I just wonder if the answer might be around 35%. That is if you find out what people candidly think. Mid-thirties seems to be a very common figure across the world and maybe there is a genetic causal relationship there. Let's wave the arms wildly and say 35% mostly-atheist and 65% believers of some kind.Now consider the different question of what if there had never been christian missionaries or bible translations to spread specifically the christian meme. In New Zealand, sometime between the last census and the next one, the number self-identifying as christian will drop below 50% of the population. A similar trend can be seen across the Western world, with the possible exceptions of the US, and Roman Catholicism in South America.
What is it about the christian doctrines that people find so forgettable or repugnant? What originally made it appealing? The threat of social exclusion in the face of everyone's admiration for the emperor's new clothes? The threat of execution for blasphemy in medieval times? Simply the gullibility or genuine ignorance that has people lining up for snake oil even today?
Let's say these things were taken away from you:
shelter
water
food
oxygen
companionship
knowledge that a man who was conceived through magic and walked after his own death, was judicially executed so you can be 'saved' from doing wrong that actually you didn't doIn what order would you want to get these things back?
Stuart
Hi Stu,
In the family of God the big issues are taken care of.
Little things tend to fall into place and stresses fade.
But you keep muddling believers with the religious.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 11 2008,12:19) Hi Stu,
In the family of God the big issues are taken care of.
Little things tend to fall into place and stresses fade.
But you keep muddling believers with the religious.
This sounds like the reassurances of the snake oil seller. What does it actually mean?Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
