Fighting Two Fronts

[PolyHedral]

...the total energy involved in the BBE would weigh about as much as a bag of sugar plus or minus a bag of sugar: it might even have been zero.

Or as much as two bags of sugar? I think there's a problem where your percentile uncertainty is 100%. (Though not as much as a problem than if it were >100%)

 

[Meow Mix]

That's the point my dear. I am no longer assuming, but using Logic to assert my views on two counts. First, by default based on the fact that Atheists are sure of nothing. And second, that being the universe a creation, it is only obvious that the Creator becomes justified. Otherwise, which action would you find easier to perform, to discard the watchman or to deny the watch?
Ben

But you're still making assumptions: that the universe is created.

If you were to employ full epistemic integrity you'd look back as far as you could go (that is, a Planck time after the BBE) and then say "Okay, there's no evidence before that until scientists develop an understanding of quantum gravity, so for now I will have to withhold belief about anything before that event."

If you were epistemically consistent, you would at least be weakly agnostic about anything prior to that Planck era because there's no justification for assertions before it. In fact the only thing that can make statements about what it was like before the Planck era are established and fundamental things like the conservation of energy, which suggest that energy probably existed before it and could have always existed in some form (in which case the universe wouldn't have ever "started" at all, but rather always existed in some form). But you don't have to go that far (I don't, I just acknowledge the possibility): your epistemic integrity stops as soon as the evidence stops, and that's at the Planck era.

So if you're saying you're "no longer assuming," then rationally you must now be an agnostic on the creation issue. Any statements about anything before the Planck era are either just extrapolations on fundamental states of affairs (like in the conservation of energy example) or they're unjustified assumptions.

 

[Meow Mix]

Or as much as two bags of sugar? I think there's a problem where your percentile uncertainty is 100%. (Though not as much as a problem than if it were >100%)

We're talking about the whole universe here: if our uncertainty is a pound of mass (even though our answer is ~ a pound of mass) I'm still pretty impressed!

 

[crimsonlung]

Is that an oxymoron?

miracle doesn't only mean walking on water and turning water into wine....

 

[Ben Masada]

But you're still making assumptions: that the universe is created.

If you were to employ full epistemic integrity you'd look back as far as you could go (that is, a Planck time after the BBE) and then say "Okay, there's no evidence before that until scientists develop an understanding of quantum gravity, so for now I will have to withhold belief about anything before that event."

If you were epistemically consistent, you would at least be weakly agnostic about anything prior to that Planck era because there's no justification for assertions before it. In fact the only thing that can make statements about what it was like before the Planck era are established and fundamental things like the conservation of energy, which suggest that energy probably existed before it and could have always existed in some form (in which case the universe wouldn't have ever "started" at all, but rather always existed in some form). But you don't have to go that far (I don't, I just acknowledge the possibility): your epistemic integrity stops as soon as the evidence stops, and that's at the Planck era.

So if you're saying you're "no longer assuming," then rationally you must now be an agnostic on the creation issue. Any statements about anything before the Planck era are either just extrapolations on fundamental states of affairs (like in the conservation of energy example) or they're unjustified assumptions.

Okay, if you are so sure that the universe was not created, why don't you use your wisdom to tell us how did it come about? It hasn't come out of nothing and it hasn't always existed. It is made out of matter, and matter experiences genesis and destruction, or transformation from a kind of matter into another kind. Scientists speak of death of stars and Science has proved that the universe expands. How are these things happening? If you don't know the answers why not give the Creator the benefit of the doubt at least in the meantime till you know better? The message you are trying to communicate is to get rid of the idea of God, no matter what, even if you don't know anything about what you believe so fundamentalistically.
Ben

 

[Meow Mix]

Okay, if you are so sure that the universe was not created, why don't you use your wisdom to tell us how did it come about? It hasn't come out of nothing and it hasn't always existed. It is made out of matter, and matter experiences genesis and destruction, or transformation from a kind of matter into another kind. Scientists speak of death of stars and Science has proved that the universe expands. How are these things happening? If you don't know the answers why not give the Creator the benefit of the doubt at least in the meantime till you know better? The message you are trying to communicate is to get rid of the idea of God, no matter what, even if you don't know anything about what you believe so fundamentalistically.
Ben

You're misunderstanding me. Pointing out that it's an unjustified assumption that the universe was created is not the same thing as saying "The universe was not created." A lack of belief in X's truth isn't the same thing as beliving X is false; it's just having the epistemic integrity to realize when a belief would be unjustified and refraining from believing it.

The universe might have been created. It might not have been. What I'm saying is that you keep phrasing questions as though it were without ever justifying that assumption (this is why I called it a "hidden" assumption).

My message isn't to "get rid of the idea of God." My message is to, in order to have epistemic integrity, stop believing things which you have no justification to believe.

You ask, "Why not give the creator the benefit of the doubt?" But that implies that this is a creation, which is an unwarranted assumption. It's possible that this is a creation, but we don't know that. We have no justification for that belief. If we wish to be rational beings, if we want epistemic integrity, we will withhold judgement on that belief until there is evidence either way. Right now, we're limited by not having a theory of quantum gravity -- we can't "look back" past the first Planck era.

Why not give the creator the benefit of the doubt? Because as far as we know, it's just as possible that the universe could have just been eternal and that the BBE marked a change in the state of affairs. It's also just as possible that there's an eternal multiverse and that the BBE event marked this universe's branching off from another one. It's also just as possible that brane-theoretical dynamics is true and what we call the "universe" is a collision between complex structures known as branes.

All of these things are possible, none of them have evidence to support them at this point in time. Thus to say, "Why not take one of them for granted" is the same as asking us to just put on a blindfold and toss a dart at a spinning wheel to determine what we believe (at worst), or to just pick what makes the "most sense" to us or what seems most comfortable to us -- but those aren't very good (or very rational) criteria for adopting belief.

The epistemically consistent person won't hit the extent of what they can know and then say, "Oh, I guess I'll just pick something to believe now." Epistemically consistent people use the humble phrase: "I don't know yet."

The person who says "I don't know" has, in my opinion, more integrity than the hardcore science enthusiast who says "It was definitely a multiverse branching!" or the person who says "It was definitely the creative act of a deity!" Just because they're not holding a belief with conviction doesn't mean that those who are holding their beliefs with conviction are correct, justified, or even rational. "I don't know" is the epistemically correct place to stop in this instance. That's what I'm arguing.

 

[Penumbra]

Fighting Two Fronts

Turnorburn, I am here. Just happened to arrive. But I am neither for you nor for Atheists. Although my double-edged sword can cut both ways, I need no Christian help with Atheists. So, if you can't take the heat, you might choose now to leave the kitchen, before the cooking starts.

Well, my dear hosts, you have become famous for the cliche that God does not exist. I have news for you. I am ready to become an Atheist. Yes, just like you; as soon as you tell me where the Universe comes from. I mean, how the Universe came about without a Creator or the Primal Mover, to coin Philosophical rhetoric.

And please, do not discard my question as nonsense or tell me that you don't know, because Atheism itself will lose all its raison d'etre. One cannot discard an axiom if he can't replace it with an option. If you choose to look at my question as too simplistic, you might take that way out, as long as you leave with it; and I mean, leave and not live.

There are two psalms for Atheists in the Bible, which the Psalmist, ironically, wrote twice, ipsisssima verba. By mistake or on purpose, I'll let you figure. They are Psalms 14 and 53. But I believe the Psalmist's message is for Atheists who have no option to God's non-existence.

Well, you are in. Let us get down to business about the issue of the Universe without a Creator, will ya?

Ben

Sorry, but I'm not in the habit of making strong claims for which I do not know the answer.

We have a universe, and evidence that it expanded, spacetime and all, from something akin to a singularity. Did it come from nothing? Did it come from another universe? Did it always exist? Those things aren't answered yet, if ever.

Should I anthropomorphize it and assume that a god created the universe? If so, then I should ask the same questions. Where did this god come from? Did it come from nothing, did it come from something else, or has it always existed?

Rather than make assertive claims that I cannot prove, I instead simply dismiss claims that cannot be shown to be true, or likely true, unless they are one day shown to be true. One of those claims happens to be the existence of deities.

-Lyn

 

[Ben Masada]

You're misunderstanding me. Pointing out that it's an unjustified assumption that the universe was created is not the same thing as saying "The universe was not created." A lack of belief in X's truth isn't the same thing as beliving X is false; it's just having the epistemic integrity to realize when a belief would be unjustified and refraining from believing it.

The universe might have been created. It might not have been. What I'm saying is that you keep phrasing questions as though it were without ever justifying that assumption (this is why I called it a "hidden" assumption).

My message isn't to "get rid of the idea of God." My message is to, in order to have epistemic integrity, stop believing things which you have no justification to believe.

You ask, "Why not give the creator the benefit of the doubt?" But that implies that this is a creation, which is an unwarranted assumption. It's possible that this is a creation, but we don't know that. We have no justification for that belief. If we wish to be rational beings, if we want epistemic integrity, we will withhold judgement on that belief until there is evidence either way. Right now, we're limited by not having a theory of quantum gravity -- we can't "look back" past the first Planck era.

Why not give the creator the benefit of the doubt? Because as far as we know, it's just as possible that the universe could have just been eternal and that the BBE marked a change in the state of affairs. It's also just as possible that there's an eternal multiverse and that the BBE event marked this universe's branching off from another one. It's also just as possible that brane-theoretical dynamics is true and what we call the "universe" is a collision between complex structures known as branes.

All of these things are possible, none of them have evidence to support them at this point in time. Thus to say, "Why not take one of them for granted" is the same as asking us to just put on a blindfold and toss a dart at a spinning wheel to determine what we believe (at worst), or to just pick what makes the "most sense" to us or what seems most comfortable to us -- but those aren't very good (or very rational) criteria for adopting belief.

The epistemically consistent person won't hit the extent of what they can know and then say, "Oh, I guess I'll just pick something to believe now." Epistemically consistent people use the humble phrase: "I don't know yet."

The person who says "I don't know" has, in my opinion, more integrity than the hardcore science enthusiast who says "It was definitely a multiverse branching!" or the person who says "It was definitely the creative act of a deity!" Just because they're not holding a belief with conviction doesn't mean that those who are holding their beliefs with conviction are correct, justified, or even rational. "I don't know" is the epistemically correct place to stop in this instance. That's what I'm arguing.

That's also my point. If the only thing you know for sure is that you don't know and have no answer to any question coming from a Theist, why look for them in religious forums? If you can't help, because you are unable to help even yourself, why not choose "silence" as the best thing to say? You equip yourself with a vernacular from text books of other peoples who struggle with the same uncertainties and try to impress others whom you cannot help by exhibiting a false modesty. I am not impressed. I don't know how God created the universe. That much I give you as a confession to inflate your ego. It exists and I am sure it didn't come out of nothing.
Aristotle said something that was good in his days and is still good today: Something cannot come out of nothing.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's also my point. If the only thing you know for sure is that you don't know and have no answer to any question coming from a Theist, why look for them in religious forums?

When did that happen, and to whom? I'm not aware of any incident resembling this description of yours.

If you can't help, because you are unable to help even yourself, why not choose "silence" as the best thing to say? You equip yourself with a vernacular from text books of other peoples who struggle with the same uncertainties and try to impress others whom you cannot help by exhibiting a false modesty. I am not impressed.

It seems that you are indeed impressed, since you lend Meow Mix's sayings a metaphysical weight that AFAIK she never intended to put there in the first place. Where did you get the impression that she can "help even herself", for instance?

Things like the origin of the Universe and the existence of God are not important for everyone, you know.

I don't know how God created the universe. That much I give you as a confession to inflate your ego.

If you say so. But it just seems so pointless. Meow Mix neither needs nor hints of wanting such a gesture, IMO.

It exists and I am sure it didn't come out of nothing.

If you say so. How can one even know for sure that it did not always exist, however?

Aristotle said something that was good in his days and is still good today: Something cannot come out of nothing.

We don't know for a fact that it applies to the Universe as a whole. Or even that the Universe "came out" in any way.

 

[Ben Masada]

Sorry, but I'm not in the habit of making strong claims for which I do not know the answer.

We have a universe, and evidence that it expanded, spacetime and all, from something akin to a singularity. Did it come from nothing? Did it come from another universe? Did it always exist? Those things aren't answered yet, if ever.

Should I anthropomorphize it and assume that a god created the universe? If so, then I should ask the same questions. Where did this god come from? Did it come from nothing, did it come from something else, or has it always existed?

Rather than make assertive claims that I cannot prove, I instead simply dismiss claims that cannot be shown to be true, or likely true, unless they are one day shown to be true. One of those claims happens to be the existence of deities.

-Lyn

Hey Lyn, yours is the same problem of MM and all Atheists. Whenever a Theist speaks of God, you immediately think anthropomorphically, as if we were talking about a big man out there somewhere creating and expanding the universe. I hate to quote the Bible to an Atheist, but in the NT Jesus declared that God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) Incorporeal and Immortal. To answer your quest, "It has always existed." I don't have the proper words to explain It to you, as you don't know how to explain the origin of the universe without spilling out a text book of theories that keep rising up and, at the same speed, dying out without being proved into facts. Let us keep researching. After all, learning is all that life is about.
Ben

 

[LuisDantas]

Hey Lyn, yours is the same problem of MM and all Atheists.

Lack of money?

Whenever a Theist speaks of God, you immediately think anthropomorphically, as if we were talking about a big man out there somewhere creating and expanding the universe. I hate to quote the Bible to an Atheist, but in the NT Jesus declared that God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) Incorporeal and Immortal. To answer your quest, "It has always existed."

You have full rights to believe in that. But why would you expect others to necessarily share that belief?

I don't have the proper words to explain It to you, as you don't know how to explain the origin of the universe without spilling out a text book of theories that keep rising and, at the same speed dying without being proved into facts. Let us keep researching. After all, learning is all that life is about.
Ben

Why be so dramatic? Is it that bothersome to simply admit that no one is certain about the origin of the Universe, if any? Penumbra, just like anyone else, does not know how or if the Universe came to be. Surely that is not too difficult an idea to accept?

 

[Penumbra]

Hey Lyn, yours is the same problem of MM and all Atheists. Whenever a Theist speaks of God, you immediately think anthropomorphically, as if we were talking about a big man out there somewhere creating and expanding the universe. I hate to quote the Bible to an Atheist, but in the NT Jesus declared that God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) Incorporeal and Immortal.

Ben,

Please do not assume what I immediately think of in terms of religion without knowing very much about me. I'm aware of monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, deistic, panentheistic, and monistic god concepts.

The anthropomorphizing I'm witnessing is having to do with words like "creator" that you specifically used. It doesn't matter if the creator is separate from, encompassing, or equivalent to the universe for it to possibly be an example of anthropomorphism.

To answer your quest, "It has always existed." I don't have the proper words to explain It to you, as you don't know how to explain the origin of the universe without spilling out a text book of theories that keep rising up and, at the same speed, dying out without being proved into facts. Let us keep researching. After all, learning is all that life is about.
Ben

What proof can you offer that it has always existed? And if you say this is true regarding your god, I could propose the same thing about physical existence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am no longer assuming, but using Logic to assert my views on two counts. First, by default based on the fact that Atheists are sure of nothing. And second, that being the universe a creation, it is only obvious that the Creator becomes justified. -BM-

That's not entirely accurate. You need to digress further.
Atheists are sure regarding proven processes and observations as they are presented, but not in way of speculation obviously. Second, your referring to atheists and then for a reason or other referencing the universe itself as a creation.

You need to address as to where the certainty lies in way of a mutual foundation and see where the subject can be taken. If you hope for any value to this particular debate you need to first start on mutual grounds and proceed in terms all can relate and see with. Otherwise this simply stays biased.

 

[Meow Mix]

That's also my point. If the only thing you know for sure is that you don't know and have no answer to any question coming from a Theist, why look for them in religious forums? If you can't help, because you are unable to help even yourself, why not choose "silence" as the best thing to say? You equip yourself with a vernacular from text books of other peoples who struggle with the same uncertainties and try to impress others whom you cannot help by exhibiting a false modesty. I am not impressed. I don't know how God created the universe. That much I give you as a confession to inflate your ego. It exists and I am sure it didn't come out of nothing.
Aristotle said something that was good in his days and is still good today: Something cannot come out of nothing.

Actually, I'm self-taught in philosophy and the rare times in which I express other peoples' views I quote them. I'm not trying to impress others -- you ask why I'm on this forum and then attempt to answer the question for yourself (you assume I'm here for S&G's).

If you're curious, I'm here because I recognize the possibility that someone does know -- that someone does have a justification for making assertions for which I on my own can't find any justification. I'm here to learn and to teach in turn; and to figure out what people know, how they know it, and why they believe things.

Even if neither of us knows, silence isn't always the best option. The point of debate is to inspect someone else's idea and to have them inspect yours. Hopefully, both people will learn and grow from the experience -- at least that's the way I see it.

It doesn't "satisfy my ego" for you to say you don't know how God created the universe because this isn't about my ego, and hopefully it isn't about yours either. This is about what we know and how we know it, and what we can do about increasing our knowledge.

That being said, I don't think you've gone far enough in admitting what you don't know: you're still asserting a creator-being exists at all, but I haven't seen any justification for that assertion. If you want, we can talk about that: what leads you to believe a creator-being exists?

 

[Meow Mix]

Hey Lyn, yours is the same problem of MM and all Atheists. Whenever a Theist speaks of God, you immediately think anthropomorphically, as if we were talking about a big man out there somewhere creating and expanding the universe. I hate to quote the Bible to an Atheist, but in the NT Jesus declared that God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) Incorporeal and Immortal. To answer your quest, "It has always existed." I don't have the proper words to explain It to you, as you don't know how to explain the origin of the universe without spilling out a text book of theories that keep rising up and, at the same speed, dying out without being proved into facts. Let us keep researching. After all, learning is all that life is about.
Ben

For the record I don't look at God anthropomorphically. Usually the God I spend the most time studying is the theologian's ontologically necessary, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God.

 

[Amill]

Yes, it does make sense. What does not make sense is to compare the side the quarter will turn up before you throw it with something that is already before your own eyes. Aren't you part of the universe? What have you learnt about its origin? If you still don't know, why not give the Creator the benefit of the doubt at least till you do?
Now, return the frubals to the pussycat.
Ben

One cannot discard an axiom if he can't replace it with an option.

In my opinion it is logically impossible to dismiss an axiom because I think an axiom in the sense that we are discussing is something that is from the eye of the beholder. So if I consider something to be an axiom, then I already feel that the claim is so self evident that I treat it as truth. It's logically impossible for me to dismiss something I believe in this instant to be truth.

But I can dismiss your axioms all day long if I wish, because I may or may not view your truths as truth myself. When I look at the Universe I don't think that everything I see suggests the existence of a creator. So I have no trouble dismissing the claim without providing a replacement.

 

[Meow Mix]

In my opinion it is logically impossible to dismiss an axiom because I think an axiom in the sense that we are discussing is something that is from the eye of the beholder. So if I consider something to be an axiom, then I already feel that the claim is so self evident that I treat it as truth. It's logically impossible for me to dismiss something I believe in this instant to be truth.

But I can dismiss your axioms all day long if I wish, because I may or may not view your truths as truth myself. When I look at the Universe I don't think that everything I see suggests the existence of a creator. So I have no trouble dismissing the claim without providing a replacement.

Axioms, as opposed to premises, are defined by being self-evident and incorrigible. Not all presuppositional beliefs are axioms.

The word "axiom" is also often applied more loosely such as Euclid's "axioms," but as I said, a real foundational axiom is self-evident and incorrigible (assuming its falsity only proves its truth).

 

[Falvlun]

You are right, it didn't. But because the god you plugged in is too anthropomorphic. That's the one whose death was proclaimed by Nietzsche.
Ben

You wrote this in response to this:

So, in other words, just because we might not have an answer about how the universe came to be now, we should just make up an answer. I know! Let's just say God did it. Because that worked out so well for explaining rain and thunder and other phenomenen... that was later shown to be caused by natural processes. Oh, darn. I guess just plugging God in didn't work so well.

My point had nothing to do with what type of God-concept, but rather with how God-concepts have been used. Whether you believe in an irritable Zeus or a nebulous, creative Energy, the point still stands: It makes no sense to simply plug in a God to explain things that are currently mysterious to us.

 

[gnomon]

I don't know "where" the universe comes from.

How's that for a start?



What if the "fool" says that there are two gods?

This passage sounds like a poor attempt to basically, in logical terms, ad hom anyone who is skeptical of the existence of a God that fits a particularly narrow definition, being Yahweh, and does not accept it's existence. And would all goyim fit this description by default?



Maybe it's me but I fail to see the relevancy of this psalm. It seems to speak to everyone, Jewish or gentile. Actually, the latter part of the verse seems to speak more to the chosen who ignore God.

I want to change my bolded quote from "This passage sounds" to "This thread sounds".

 

[Ben Masada]

Lack of money?



You have full rights to believe in that. But why would you expect others to necessarily share that belief?

We are only debating beliefs for the sake of debate. I don't care even a bit if you or anyone else is interested or not in sharing my beliefs. I am well aware that Jews don't proselytize. And the main reason is that we don't have anything to offer to any one in the afterlife but to turn into dust. (Eccl. 12:7)