Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Yeah it's a pretty poor app.

    Not knowing the answer is not the same as believing there is no answer. For example, I don't know the integration of ((e^4x)/75)^x but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't 6. In fact I may even suggest that it is beyond my intellectual abilities to find the answer. But that wouldn't make the answer 6 either.
    Very good. I agree that it's the more rational position to hold. Obviously, to say that the universe is a brute fact - inexplicable - is to say that their is no explanation. It seems more consistent with every other way we analyse things.

    However, I also agree with the point made by Luke Barnes:


    'It is important to realise that no amount of progress in physics will change this situation. Imagine the final equation,*the*law of nature, written on a blackboard to thunderous applause. After the adoration dies down, we will still be faced with the question “why does a universe described by that equation actually exist?”. The answer cannot be found in the equation.'

    '....... If you are a philosophical materialist – if you believe that everything that exists is ultimately the stuff of physics – then this question is unanswerable. Not just unanswered – I have no problem with questions that science cannot currently answer. It’s because of such questions that I have a job. But materialism simply doesn’t have the resources to answer that question. To be a materialist, one must convince oneself that the question is somehow meaningless, that it is nonsense masquerading as one of the deepest and oldest philosophical questions mankind has ever asked.'

    https://letterstonature.wordpress.co...ything-exists/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    without time, there is no beginning, no end. If you ask if the Universe has a beginning, you place yourself within a temporal; dimension. If you take away time, the question becomes meaningless

    Once again : if there is no time then , no "beginning", no "ending"
    OK. You haven't answered the question though.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Before I understood anything about science and life, I disagreed with teachings from my Christian Sunday school. In my 5 year old wisdom, God was mean and why did I have to listen to anything God said when all he did was blame people for their natural behaviour. Plus I could not see anything to prove an intelligent creator. In later years, to witness the evidence of evolution and scientists increased understanding of universal workings, that inspired me. My faith is in knowledge, and the continued efforts to expand it.

    I certainly do not fault anyone for wishing to believe in a god, that is their choice. In fact, my best friend is a devout Christian. But I don't want it shoved down my throat that I'm going to hell for not being religious, or others trying to convert me. How dare anyone else judge me for my choices.

    But if we leave each other alone in that area, it'll be fine.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Very good. I agree that it's the more rational position to hold. Obviously, to say that the universe is a brute fact - inexplicable - is to say that their is no explanation. It seems more consistent with every other way we analyse things.

    However, I also agree with the point made by Luke Barnes:


    'It is important to realise that no amount of progress in physics will change this situation. Imagine the final equation,*the*law of nature, written on a blackboard to thunderous applause. After the adoration dies down, we will still be faced with the question “why does a universe described by that equation actually exist?”. The answer cannot be found in the equation.'

    '....... If you are a philosophical materialist – if you believe that everything that exists is ultimately the stuff of physics – then this question is unanswerable. Not just unanswered – I have no problem with questions that science cannot currently answer. It’s because of such questions that I have a job. But materialism simply doesn’t have the resources to answer that question. To be a materialist, one must convince oneself that the question is somehow meaningless, that it is nonsense masquerading as one of the deepest and oldest philosophical questions mankind has ever asked.'

    https://letterstonature.wordpress.co...ything-exists/

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's a thought provoking point. However though it might make one uncomfortable to "convince oneself that the question is somehow meaningless" that doesn't mean that this isn't the correct position.

    Besides, theism doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. The question it inevitably leads to is 'why did God create us?'. I struggle to understand why theists think that god provides purpose.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    OK. You haven't answered the question though.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have

    when I answered "who knows" ? it means that we can very well accept that the Universe (as we know it) started with the Big bang, but that we don't have any idea about what was before that, or even if it makes any sense to speak of a "before" the Universe (in my personal opinion, it doesn't)

    In other words : we are inside a space/time bubble, and we have absolutely no idea of what is outside, or if an outside even exists

    best
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It's a thought provoking point. However though it might make one uncomfortable to "convince oneself that the question is somehow meaningless" that doesn't mean that this isn't the correct position.

    Besides, theism doesn't provide a satisfactory answer. The question it inevitably leads to is 'why did God create us?'. I struggle to understand why theists think that god provides purpose.
    Oh sure! I don't think Barnes, or myself, we're arguing that it therefore follows the position is false!

    More so, it was to highlight why I think the majority of atheist, at least should, argue the universe is a brute fact. I take it that most atheists are materialists.

    Its from there that my original argument followed.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    I have

    when I answered "who knows" ? it means that we can very well accept that the Universe (as we know it) started with the Big bang, but that we don't have any idea about what was before that, or even if it makes any sense to speak of a "before" the Universe (in my personal opinion, it doesn't)

    In other words : we are inside a space/time bubble, and we have absolutely no idea of what is outside, or if an outside even exists

    best
    OK, but when I argue that you haven't addressed the question, I mean in the sense that you haven't given reasons to think that it is likely or probably that we should consider the universe eternal.

    For example, you side with the idea that time began with the beginning of the universe (that there was a first moment of time). If it follows from Big Bang cosmology that time began - and to ask 'What was before' nonsensical - then how can it be even coherent to say something existed before? If it is, indeed, Incoherent I'd be interested to hear reasons how it's still plausible to have an eternal universe (of course universe here being all of physical reality, so including anything before the Big Bang, if there was something).

    If this is right, it seems to follow that it is more plausible and more likely that the universe did have a beginning if time began with the Big Bang.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I would say that I kind of want to believe in god but find it hard. The idea that he/it just exists out of thin air is kind of madness also basing your life on something just because it is in a book I kind of find to be madness.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    For example, you side with the idea that time began with the beginning of the universe (that there was a first moment of time). If it follows from Big Bang cosmology that time began - and to ask 'What was before' nonsensical - then how can it be even coherent to say something existed before? If it is, indeed, Incoherent I'd be interested to hear reasons how it's still plausible to have an eternal universe (of course universe here being all of physical reality, so including anything before the Big Bang, if there was something).

    If this is right, it seems to follow that it is more plausible and more likely that the universe did have a beginning if time began with the Big Bang.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I said that the Universe (as we know it), might very well have started with the Big bang. And that we have no idea of what was there before, or if it even makes sense to speak of a "before"

    Unfortunately, I think that this is all we can say - as to the rest (other proto-Universes, other proto-times, other before/after, other spaces etc etc) it makes good material for dreaming when looking at the sky on a starry night

    best
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paranoid_Glitch)
    I think atheists are often ignorant.
    Shooting yourself in the head is the only cure for what you have.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    I said that the Universe (as we know it), might very well have started with the Big bang. And that we have no idea of what was there before, or if it even makes sense to speak of a "before"

    Unfortunately, I think that this is all we can say - as to the rest (other Universes, other times, other before/after, other spaces etc etc) it makes good material for reflection when looking at the sky on a starry night

    best
    It's just past midnight on a Sunday - I'm completely sympathetic to not jumping into a conversation on the origin of the universe!

    But my initial point was always: is there any reason to think that it's likely the universe is eternal? I think we both agree you haven't given that?

    Which isn't a knock. Its a complex question, with more work needed.

    But I just wanted to make the point that when you said something along the lines of 'well if God can be uncaused and beginning less, why can't the universe? ' it was in the sense that it's possible for the universe to be eternal.

    But being possible is just to say we can't rule it out with certainty, without evidence or reason to support its truth.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    it's possible for the universe to be eternal.

    But being possible is just to say we can't rule it out with certainty, without evidence or reason to support its truth.
    in a completely different "Universe", "before" the Big Bang, what does even "eternal" mean ?

    we are using a language, concepts, a logic which are deeply steeped in the knowledge and experience of this Universe. We talk of befores and afters, causes, created,uncreated etc But what is beyond our Universe, is completely inaccessible to us (at least, until further proof) and using our language and our logic to describe it is absurd.

    So, yes, in a way, outside of our Universe (as far as we know), anything is possible. Another, "eternal" "Universe" (only as figures of speech of course), another space, another time

    Or perhaps, there is an uncreated giant Turtle there who created us, or a bearded old man who crucified his son for us, or a vengeful, jealous divinity who communicates via perfect revelations which get regularly corrupted etc etc

    the probability for this to happen is, in my estimation, next to zero, but not actually zero

    no one has any shred of evidence about this

    best
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    in a completely different "Universe", "before" the Big Bang, what does even "eternal" mean ?

    we are using a language, concepts, a logic which are deeply steeped in the knowledge and experience of this Universe. We talk of befores and afters, causes, created,uncreated etc But what is beyond our Universe, is completely inaccessible to us (at least, until further proof) and using our language and our logic to describe it is absurd.

    So, yes, in a way, outside of our Universe (as far as we know), anything is possible. Another, "eternal" "Universe" (only as figures of speech of course), another space, another time

    Or perhaps, there is an uncreated giant Turtle there who created us, or a bearded old man who crucified his son for us, or a vengeful, jealous divinity who communicates via perfect revelations which get regularly corrupted etc etc

    the probability for this to happen is, in my estimation, next to zero, but not actually zero

    no one has any shred of evidence about this

    best
    Surely you see you aren't actually addressing my question though, right? There isn't a reason to think it plausible or likely that the universe is eternal. Just stating that it's possible.

    "In a completely different "Universe", "before" the Big Bang, what does even "eternal" mean ?"

    I did mention before that when I say 'universe' I mean all physical reality. So if the Big Bang is ultimately just one physical state that has changed from a previous physical state, the entire physical system is the universe. It seems fairly straight forward, perhaps the term universe has many connotations, with suffering cosmological theories and multiverse etc.

    So, have there always been a physical system that has existed, or has the physical system had a beginning?

    "what is beyond our Universe, is completely inaccessible to us (at least, until further proof)"

    That seems to be a contradiction. Either it is completely inaccessible or it isn't. Unless you want to argue the law of contradiction?

    "using . . . . our logic to describe it is absurd."

    Not so fast. Would that include the basic laws of logic? Like the aforementioned law of contradiction? That's a cornerstone of science's assumptions isn't it? Well, if you want to question the validity of that with this question. I think you've got your answer. It is inaccessible.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    I did mention before that when I say 'universe' I mean all physical reality. So if the Big Bang is ultimately just one physical state that has changed from a previous physical state, the entire physical system is the universe. It seems fairly straight forward, perhaps the term universe has many connotations, with suffering cosmological theories and multiverse etc.

    So, have there always been a physical system that has existed, or has the physical system had a beginning?
    as I said : who knows ?

    once again : the Universe (as we know it) exists. Did it begin ? was it preceded by something else ? what exactly ? does this "something" also qualify as a "Universe" ? is it even possible to talk of "preceding", if time, as we know it, didn't exist ?

    unfortunately, we are stuck with these questions

    good (starry) night
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    I guess we 'believe in' what has evidence to support it.

    There is absolutely zero valid evidence suggesting there is a god. However, scientific theory points us toward evolution, the big bang, plausible ideas about what came before the big bang...
    *crying with laughter* listen honey to this very day science has not proven how the big bang started in terms of how the centre of explosion happened, how is it possible to make a hypothesis about after events when those very scientists (which you atheists lean on for prove about the universe) haven't even figured out how the core of everything happened to prove after events right
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by malaikaxx)
    *crying with laughter* listen honey to this very day science has not proven how the big bang started in terms of how the centre of explosion happened, how is it possible to make a hypothesis about after events when those very scientists (which you atheists lean on for prove about the universe) haven't even figured out how the core of everything happened
    Your poor understanding of cosmology is painfully obvious.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Your poor understanding of cosmology is painfully obvious.
    my physics teacher told us that scientists to this date haven't figured out 100% how this centre of explosion really happened as in what triggered the reaction and how this dot managed to explode in such a large scale to make what we call today the universe
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Your poor understanding of cosmology is painfully obvious.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdpknMMyxyE PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahira__)
    What would you believe is the purpose of life?
    a belief in God is not prequisite to there being a meaning to life, nor is God's existence dependent on life having meaning.

    The two are different questions and I don't understand why one is so frequently asked after the other is answered.

    Tldr:
    Life doesn't need to have meaning. Life can have meaning without God. God can exist without life having meaning.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by malaikaxx)
    my physics teacher told us that scientists to this date haven't figured out 100% how this centre of explosion really happened as in what triggered the reaction and how this dot managed to explode in such a large scale to make what we call today the universe
    And what level of study are you at? Presenting what your teacher told you as if it's actually evidence for anything speaks volumes about your suitability to discuss science, as do the terms ('this dot') you're using to make your case. :rolleyes:

    Also, we haven't figured out anything with 100 percent certainty. :toofunny: These apologetics might work wonders at your local madrassa, but even you should be able to work out that this website mainly attracts slightly more educated types.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 19, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.