The Origin of the Universe

[ProHypster]

No, it doesn't work that way.

Read:

 

"Most irreligious individuals, quite understandably, do not like to acknowledge the inevitable and logical consequence of their irreligiosity -- that life is ultimately purposeless." An atheist or agnostic will almost always respond to this argument by protesting that their life does have meaning and purpose. "We create the purpose. I believe my life has a purpose!" This response demonstrates a misunderstanding of the claim. No one denies that atheists believe their lives have purpose. But simply believing something doesn't make it true. The question is whether their lives actually have purpose. Their alleged purpose turns out to be nothing more than a placebo. Their life has purpose only because they believe it to have purpose.

 

EDIT: Nihilism is not a philosophy, it reasosn itself that it's wrong. It's like believing in the belief that there is no belief.

[danielsangeo]

Then what is "purpose"?

[ProHypster]

The ultimate aim or a goal of an action.

 

EDIT: Wikiepdia

 

Purpose is a result, end, mean, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken,[1] or of an object being brought into use or existence, whether or not the purpose was a primary or secondary effect.

[WonSul]

No, it doesn't work that way.

Read:

 

"Most irreligious individuals, quite understandably, do not like to acknowledge the inevitable and logical consequence of their irreligiosity -- that life is ultimately purposeless." An atheist or agnostic will almost always respond to this argument by protesting that their life does have meaning and purpose. "We create the purpose. I believe my life has a purpose!" This response demonstrates a misunderstanding of the claim. No one denies that atheists believe their lives have purpose. But simply believing something doesn't make it true. The question is whether their lives actually have purpose. Their alleged purpose turns out to be nothing more than a placebo. Their life has purpose only because they believe it to have purpose.

 

EDIT: Nihilism is not a philosophy, it reasosn itself that it's wrong. It's like believing in the belief that there is no belief.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

(It's labeled a philosophical doctrine.)

Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value

 

What's your source by the way?

[danielsangeo]

The ultimate aim or a goal of an action.

 

So, why can't we create our own purposes?

 

No one denies that atheists believe their lives have purpose. But simply believing something doesn't make it true. The question is whether their lives actually have purpose. Their alleged purpose turns out to be nothing more than a placebo. Their life has purpose only because they believe it to have purpose.

 

This is what you posted. "Alleged purpose"? "Believing [your life has purpose] doesn't make it true"? Why not?

[Dan-95]

"So, why can't we create our own purpose?"

 

Haven't we done so? If we aren't creating we're choosing someone else's anyway.

[ProHypster]

Ok, seriously, Nihilism is a loophole philosophy to me, nonetheless, I guess it is a philosophy since people do think that thinking is non existential:

 

Nihilism of an epistemological form can be seen as an extreme form of skepticism in which all knowledge is denied.

 

My source for that quote is some christian web page and actually I reform it, I don't think it's right, Daniel's last post makes sense.

 

Still, we are back to nothing.

 

And talking about ethics vs. logic:

 

Moral nihilism, also known as ethical nihilism, is the meta-ethical view that morality does not exist as something inherent to objective reality; therefore no action is necessarily preferable to any other. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is not inherently right or wrong. Other nihilists may argue not that there is no morality at all, but that if it does exist, it is a human and thus artificial construction, wherein any and all meaning is relative for different possible outcomes. As an example, if someone kills someone else, such a nihilist might argue that killing is not inherently a bad thing, bad independently from our moral beliefs, only that because of the way morality is constructed as some rudimentary dichotomy, what is said to be a bad thing is given a higher negative weighting than what is called good: as a result, killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting. In this way a moral nihilist believes that all moral claims are false.

 

Let me ask this question:

 

Can there be action without purpose observed on earth?

[danielsangeo]

Dan-95: I know. That's why I was pulling this face:

 

ThatSmartGuy: Action without purpose? What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

[ProHypster]

Don't answer it, I will rephrase later.

 

More un-philosophical Nihilism:

 

Radical nihilism

 

Radical nihilism is the belief that there, in the last instance, is not given a foundation for knowledge, ethics or justice, and not even this lack of foundation, can serve as a starting point for (a rejection of) knowledge, ethics or justice. Radical nihilism, turns in the light of the missing universal, objective and ahistorical certainties, towards the historically and culturally transmitted possibilities of cognition and moral / political action, well aware that the true and the good are in the last instants based on faith.

[WonSul]

Well actually... if it's going to have nothing to do with the Origin of the Universe, can it be taken to another thread?

[ProHypster]

Yeah, I think I will ask that question to myself.

 

Keep debating the Big Bang...

[Bjossi]

Personally I find the big bang idea rather odd and incomplete. Even if one day it is proven that the universe started as a tiny "ball" of matter and energy, where did matter and energy come from? The mere thought on this subject makes my mind hurt. . .

[Eedo Baba]

Personally I find the big bang idea rather odd and incomplete. Even if one day it is proven that the universe started as a tiny "ball" of matter and energy, where did matter and energy come from? The mere thought on this subject makes my mind hurt. . .

 

Most models state that time didn't exist before the big bang. This is because general relativity was a result of the expansion. People often want to apply a cause to the big bang, but even if this seems reasonable, you need to understand that in a state of being without general relativity, everyday concepts like "cause and effect" don't apply.

It's confusing, I agree.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think it's because the concept of infinity is actually very hard to grasp. Maybe there never was any beginning.

[ProHypster]

I think it's because the concept of infinity is actually very hard to grasp. Maybe there never was any beginning.

..which would suggest infinity time

 

But yes, the "there never was any beginning" would fit our understanding of physics.

 

So I'm going to quote my previous post:

 

Big Bang:

Will it answer any why questions: Most likely No.

Does it explain life's origins: No.

Does it really explain the beginning of our universe: No, it's just an event that we think happened in the already made material universe.

 

So, honestly I think what will explain more questions is when we create or understand how artificial life can be made.

Not the virus and cell we made but life from non living material.

Or was life material always around?

[ProHypster]

Personally I find the big bang idea rather odd and incomplete. Even if one day it is proven that the universe started as a tiny "ball" of matter and energy, where did matter and energy come from? The mere thought on this subject makes my mind hurt. . .

 

Most models state that time didn't exist before the big bang. This is because general relativity was a result of the expansion. People often want to apply a cause to the big bang, but even if this seems reasonable, you need to understand that in a state of being without general relativity, everyday concepts like "cause and effect" don't apply.

It's confusing, I agree.

Why would a Big Bang happen though.

Why didn't the ball just stay a ball of energy and matter.

This is the confusing part.

That action or force that made the Big Bang expand would be god to me.

I think god in the end is really the same thing as purpose and reason.

 

What do you think?

 

Is the non-believer position that it just happened and there is no explanation for it?

I'm not mocking, I'm seriously considering and comparing.

Wouldn't the action still be there. Wouldn't the action be god anyway?

So how is atheism possible?

I want to hear some answers.

 

It seems to me there is a god in any case to everyone's philosophy even if you are atheist. :/

[Bjossi]

I think it's because the concept of infinity is actually very hard to grasp. Maybe there never was any beginning.

 

Infinity is infinitely complex to imagine.

 

I could write those words myself, but I don't actually understand the thought behind them. I can not imagine something existing for infinite amount of time.

[Rover]

Personally I find the big bang idea rather odd and incomplete. Even if one day it is proven that the universe started as a tiny "ball" of matter and energy, where did matter and energy come from? The mere thought on this subject makes my mind hurt. . .

 

Most models state that time didn't exist before the big bang. This is because general relativity was a result of the expansion. People often want to apply a cause to the big bang, but even if this seems reasonable, you need to understand that in a state of being without general relativity, everyday concepts like "cause and effect" don't apply.

It's confusing, I agree.

Why would a Big Bang happen though.

Why didn't the ball just stay a ball of energy and matter.

This is the confusing part.

That action or force that made the Big Bang expand would be god to me.

I think god in the end is really the same thing as purpose and reason.

 

What do you think?

 

Is the non-believer position that it just happened and there is no explanation for it?

I'm not mocking, I'm seriously considering and comparing.

Wouldn't the action still be there. Wouldn't the action be god anyway?

So how is atheism possible?

I want to hear some answers.

 

It seems to me there is a god in any case to everyone's philosophy even if you are atheist. :/

 

I want to ask you a question first. How exactly do you justify drawing a positive conclusion (a prime mover in your case) from a lack of data?

Why is "a god did it" a better position than simply saying "I don't know"

[Eedo Baba]

Personally I find the big bang idea rather odd and incomplete. Even if one day it is proven that the universe started as a tiny "ball" of matter and energy, where did matter and energy come from? The mere thought on this subject makes my mind hurt. . .

 

Most models state that time didn't exist before the big bang. This is because general relativity was a result of the expansion. People often want to apply a cause to the big bang, but even if this seems reasonable, you need to understand that in a state of being without general relativity, everyday concepts like "cause and effect" don't apply.

It's confusing, I agree.

Why would a Big Bang happen though.

Why didn't the ball just stay a ball of energy and matter.

This is the confusing part.

That action or force that made the Big Bang expand would be god to me.

I think god in the end is really the same thing as purpose and reason.

 

What do you think?

 

Is the non-believer position that it just happened and there is no explanation for it?

I'm not mocking, I'm seriously considering and comparing.

Wouldn't the action still be there. Wouldn't the action be god anyway?

So how is atheism possible?

I want to hear some answers.

 

It seems to me there is a god in any case to everyone's philosophy even if you are atheist. :/

 

There are too many holes in the idea that an intelligent being created the universe. The very idea is rooted in the question "What created the universe?", and the assumption that there was an actual creation of energy.

People need to understand their own dispositions if they want to logically explain the universe. Humans have an innate need to fill gaps in their reasoning. Look at the following: La_p

As a human with experience with English, you'll probably fill in the gap with an M, since most of the time, the word would be lamp.

The same goes for the imagining of a deity. You see a gap in the universe's beginning, because you don't understand or know what happened. Since your whole life you've lived in a world of cause and effect, creation and destruction, you fill the gap with a creator, a god. It's the subconscious part of the mind doing the work for you, just like when you inserted the M into la_p. But you have to understand that the assumption is irrational. The everyday experience that your subconsciousness is building on is irrelevant when looking at how physics and logic worked at the beginning of the universe.

[danielsangeo]

I always like to go back to the puddle analogy that Douglas Adams proposed (paraphrased below):

 

A puddle suddenly gains sentience. It looks around itself and says, "My, what a fortunate circumstance I find myself in. Oh, look at this hole! It's perfect for me. It follows my contours perfectly. Every single nook and cranny of myself is perfectly aligned with the hole." The puddle shudders at the realization and continues, "Why, it's almost like this hole was made especially for me. If any of the contours of this hole were off by a millimeter or it was rotated less than a degree, it wouldn't fit me at all. It's just too perfect to have happened by chance."

Edited May 27, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)