do you ever think there could be some sort of 'higher force'

gonnaplayrugby

with the whole how did something(the universe) form from nothing? as incredible as it sounds we would have to assume that some sort of being which exists outside of time put the wheels in motion.

thats the only thing that leads me to believe there might be a 'god'

Turtwig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_sABor77E

gonnaplayrugby

any chance you can thumb down posts like you can on youtube?

iUseVi

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

with the whole how did something(the universe) form from nothing? as incredible as it sounds we would have to assume that some sort of being which exists outside of time put the wheels in motion.

thats the only thing that leads me to believe there might be a 'god'

Have you heard of "infinite regress"?

If we assume something or someone made the universe (and I don't), where did this entity come from? If you say it always existed, then why not just say the universe always existed? You are just moving the problem one stage further back (hence the regress). It is possible that the universe is perpetually having big bangs followed by big crunches.

Turtwig

4. The Argument from The Big Bang

1. The Big Bang, according to the best scientific opinion of our day, was the beginning of the physical universe, including not only matter and energy, but space and time and the laws of physics.

2. The universe came to be ex nihilo (from 1).

3. Something outside the universe, including outside its physical laws, must have brought the universe into existence (from 2).

4. Only God could exist outside the universe.

5. God must have been caused the universe to exist (from 3 & 4).

6. God exists.

The Big Bang is based on the observed expansion of the universe, with galaxies rushing away from each other. The implication is that if we run the film of the universe backward from the present, the universe must continuously contract, all the way back to a single point. The theory of the Big Bang is that the universe exploded into existence about 14 billion years ago.

FLAW 1: Cosmologists themselves do not all agree that the Big Bang is a "singularity" — the sudden appearance of space, time, and physical laws from inexplicable nothingness. The Big Bang may represent the lawful emergence of a new universe from a previously existing one. In that case, it would be superfluous to invoke God to explain the emergence of something from nothing.

FLAW 2: The Argument From the Big Bang has all the flaws of The Cosmological Argument — it passes the buck from the mystery of the origin of the universe to the mystery of the origin of God, and it extends the notion of "cause" outside the domain of events covered by natural laws (also known as the universe) where it no longer makes sense.

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).

3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.

4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).

5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).

6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.

7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).

8. God exists.

FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though God exists, he doesn't have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining why God must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can't be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?

FLAW 2: The notion of "cause" is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume.

COMMENT: The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!"


There ya go both your possible arguments restated and the flaws identified. If it's the only thing that leads you to believe in God, then at the very least you should be having doubts right about now.

karlog

I don't know and i don't pretend to know

Antbert

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

do you ever think there could be some sort of 'higher force'

No.

ChocolateSauce

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

with the whole how did something(the universe) form from nothing? as incredible as it sounds we would have to assume that some sort of being which exists outside of time put the wheels in motion.

thats the only thing that leads me to believe there might be a 'god'

Have I ever wondered? Sure.

Genghiz Cohen

*Everything Malty just said, but in a much more condesending tone.

fitz0

So then instead of nothing creating something from nothing, God created something from nothing? Or did God create the universe from part of itself, its incorporeal self that resides in a reality apart from our own?

Pete M.

Well, yes, kind of, but as in maybe really advanced aliens who predetermined elements of the history of mankind, kind of like as if we are their anthill.
But only because it may be possible.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wacker

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or when the remote is just out of reach and my chair is really comfortable.

liamw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Zombrex

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

with the whole how did something(the universe) form from nothing? as incredible as it sounds we would have to assume that some sort of being which exists outside of time put the wheels in motion.

thats the only thing that leads me to believe there might be a 'god'

Never really understood the position that a god solves the something from nothing problem.

People say you can't have something from nothing and then present "God" as if he solves this. Ok, how does God make something from nothing? Well apparently God can do anything, including making something from nothing.

Needless to say that is an entirely unsatisfactory answer, a sort of defining yourself out of a problem answer.

If God can create something from nothing then surely it is easy to imagine something coming from nothing by other means and thus we no longer have any problem.

If God can do it why can't a primary super particle do it, or a fundamental energy field, or a space time bend?

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

<epic kraussness>

That's too long Liam, this one is better and more to the point.:)

Daftendirekt

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

with the whole how did something(the universe) form from nothing? as incredible as it sounds we would have to assume that some sort of being which exists outside of time put the wheels in motion.

thats the only thing that leads me to believe there might be a 'god'

Why would we have to assume this? For all anyone knows, there might be universes constantly popping in and out of existence outside of this one.

Fact of the matter is, nobody knows, and we never will know if people keep inventing explanations rather than looking for real ones.

mickmcgee

no

hiorta

Antbert wrote: »

No.

If this question had been asked some time ago the replies might have been the same, yet we could now add:

Radio
x-ray
electricity
nuclear
microwave
magnetic fields.....etcetera.
There are more, of course, but the point is that our mental evolution enables us to realise a bit further and deeper just what is 'out there'.
Anyone want to bet there are no more/ others?

Zillah

Sure there could! There are, however, an infinite number of things that could be, and we have no way of knowing if any of them are true. So I will continue to regard with utter scorn those who claim that the that one just happened to have been taught to them as children is the right one.

Mark Hamill

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

with the whole how did something(the universe) form from nothing? as incredible as it sounds we would have to assume that some sort of being which exists outside of time put the wheels in motion.

This is a strawman with really poor contradictory reasoning.
Firstly the universe didn't come from "nothing", it came from a initial hot, dense, state. When the big bang happened (essentially and expansion of said state), time and space where created, and so therefore the initial state was not necessarily subject to the laws of space time as we know them (ie what "caused" the expansion didn't necessarily have to happen "before" it as the terms "cause" and "before" are time dependent).
Secondly, even if the universe came from "nothing", that couldn't point to some eternal being causing it, because then the universe would not actually have come from "nothing", it would have come from that being. Basically you have set up a false premise and tried to prove it with a conclusion that contradicts it.

Mark Hamill

hiorta wrote: »

If this question had been asked some time ago the replies might have been the same, yet we could now add:

Radio
x-ray
electricity
nuclear
microwave
magnetic fields.....etcetera.
There are more, of course, but the point is that our mental evolution enables us to realise a bit further and deeper just what is 'out there'.
Anyone want to bet there are no more/ others?

In what ways are these higher forces, as opposed to just forces?

Undergod

Do I ever think there could be some sort of higher force?

Yeah, there could be. I'll think about it more when there's evidence to base my opinions on.

hiorta

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In what ways are these higher forces, as opposed to just forces?

They are 'higher' than any that are naturally detectable by humans without resorting to some kind of instrument.
I not sure what you mean by 'higher', but my point is that there are more than we realise.

Osgoodisgood

No, cos it's not much more grown up than....
"A big boy did it and he ran away!"

Come to think of it, it's exactly that grown up. You know, not very.

Mark Hamill

hiorta wrote: »

They are 'higher' than any that are naturally detectable by humans without resorting to some kind of instrument.

Hmmm I think you need to read a physics book. Radio, microwave and xray are all to do with same force, electromagnetic radiation, visible light is also part of this spectrum. The radiation is of the same type, regardless of wether humans can detect it mechanic instruments (radio receiver) or organic ones (the eye).

hiorta wrote: »

I not sure what you mean by 'higher', but my point is that there are more than we realise.

Why call them higher then? Calling them higher has connotations, particularly in a thread where someone is talking about the existence of god.
Besides, there are not necessarily more than we realise. In physics, there are only four fundamental forces, the various forces you listed are just the interactions of these viewed on a larger scale.

HxGH

Unkept political promises fuel our existance :pac:

Undergod

hiorta wrote: »

They are 'higher' than any that are naturally detectable by humans without resorting to some kind of instrument.
I not sure what you mean by 'higher', but my point is that there are more than we realise.

Like the strong and weak nuclear force?

Zombrex

hiorta wrote: »

They are 'higher' than any that are naturally detectable by humans without resorting to some kind of instrument.
I not sure what you mean by 'higher', but my point is that there are more than we realise.

Er that doesn't answer the question.

How are they higher, on what scale of height are they higher?

Or is this just this wishy-washy new age terminology nonsense again, a "higher" plane of existence type stuff.

toiletduck

This thread just makes me think of The Last Question

Turtwig

toiletduck wrote: »

This thread just makes me think of The Last Question

tl;dr
Is there an answer to the question. Wot's the question anyway?:p

Mark Hamill

toiletduck wrote: »

This thread just makes me think of The Last Question

Love that story. The Last Answer (scroll down ~20%) is also very good.

Mark Hamill

Malty_T wrote: »

tl;dr

Read it, its well worth it.

Malty_T wrote: »

Is there an answer to the question. Wot's the question anyway?:p

The question:

How do you reverse entropy?

The answer:

Not telling :P, (would lose impact if I just posted the end anyway)

PoleStar

While I do not belive there is some higher force, what I do find often amusing is the argument that stems from "What created the big bang"

"Is there some higher force"

People that put forward this argument seem to assume that this advanced intelligence (which they apply a mystical term and reverence to and call it god)
who is in possession of technology and knowledge far in advance of our own, would care in the slightest whether or not the little beings that inhabit his experiment worship him/her in their lives which relatively to him/her would be the equivalent to us watching algae frow on a murkey pond.

Liveit

It is simply a fact that nobody knows whether there is a god or not.
All we can rely on is belief, belief that there is or that there is not a god.
This lack of knowledge could be a test from god or it simply could be true that there is no god.
What would be the test in believing in a god if it was a common fact?
There is no-one alive that should tell another that there is/ is not a god. They can inform them of both sides, but should not try to make their mind up in any way.
Again, nobody knows whether god is real or not.

Ickle Magoo

Liveit wrote: »

It is simply a fact that nobody knows whether there is a god or not.
All we can rely on is belief, belief that there is or that there is not a god.
This lack of knowledge could be a test from god or it simply could be true that there is no god.
What would be the test in believing in a god if it was a common fact?
There is no-one alive that should tell another that there is/ is not a god. They can inform them of both sides, but should not try to make their mind up in any way.
Again, nobody knows whether god is real or not.

That could be said about faeries, or spaghetti monsters or tea pots or anything else you care to mention that has no proof of existence - that doesn't mean people won't make an informed judgment over likelihood of existence...

EDIT: It's also got nothing to do with a belief that there is no God, it's a lack of belief in a God - without any evidence the default position is that there is nothing to have a belief in, rather than a chosen rejection of one or other positions.

Daftendirekt

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Love that story. The Last Answer (scroll down ~20%) is also very good.

That was great. Thanks for the link.

Flamed Diving

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

*Everything Malty just said, but in a much more condesending tone.

Everything Genghiz Cohen said, but while holding you in a headlock and furiously rubbing your crown with my knuckles.

UR Wrong

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is a strawman with really poor contradictory reasoning.
Firstly the universe didn't come from "nothing", it came from a initial hot, dense, state. When the big bang happened (essentially and expansion of said state), time and space where created, and so therefore the initial state was not necessarily subject to the laws of space time as we know them (ie what "caused" the expansion didn't necessarily have to happen "before" it as the terms "cause" and "before" are time dependent).
Secondly, even if the universe came from "nothing", that couldn't point to some eternal being causing it, because then the universe would not actually have come from "nothing", it would have come from that being. Basically you have set up a false premise and tried to prove it with a conclusion that contradicts it.

Wow thats quite condescending, probably want to check the theory out first before u don ur professors hat. Big Bang theorists do generally take it that our universe came from 'nothing'; its expansion(ie big bang), and hence time and space, is a different argument.

Turtwig

UR Wrong wrote: »

Wow thats quite condescending, probably want to check the theory out first before u don ur professors hat. Big Bang theorists do generally take it that our universe came from 'nothing'; its expansion(ie big bang), and hence time and space, is a different argument.

Nope they don't.

the idea that the big bang was “small”
is misleading. The totality of space could be infi nite. Shrink an
infi nite space by an arbitrary amount, and it is still infi nite.

Nothing is just used to refer to something as infinitesimally tiny, but it is still something.

UR Wrong

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope they don't.

You are here: Science >> Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.


from http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Turtwig

UR Wrong wrote: »

You are here: Science >> Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.


from http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Jebus!
DUDE THAT'S A CREATIONIST WEBSITE!!!!

Soulja boy

gonnaplayrugby wrote: »

with the whole how did something(the universe) form from nothing? as incredible as it sounds we would have to assume that some sort of being which exists outside of time put the wheels in motion.

thats the only thing that leads me to believe there might be a 'god'

the strong, the weak, the electromagnetic and the gravitational, there are your forces.
Nearly everything that exists is caused by something else changing.
We are probably a side effect of something else bigger then us (maybe two universes brushing up against each other in the night). Its highly unlikely that any conscious decision went into forming us.

Dades

Malty_T wrote: »

DUDE THAT'S A CREATIONIST WEBSITE!!!![/SIZE]

Urk :eek:

UR Wrong = FAIL

Peddle your crazy someplace else, buddy. :pac:

Flamed Diving

UR Wrong wrote: »

You are here: Science >> Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.


from http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Darwin didn't invent the evolutionary worldview. He simply brought something new to the old philosophy: a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." In his Origin of Species, Darwin proposed natural selection as the mechanism by which all life could have descended from a common ancestor (Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification"). However, today we know that natural selection is a deficient mechanism, even in light of genetic mutation. In fact, with the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years, Darwin's theory has become "a theory in crisis."

http://www.allaboutscience.org/charles-darwin.htm

Theology is ultimately concerned with ontology -- to whom, or to what, does the universe owe its existence? Questions relating to ontology, therefore, are not matters of scientific enquiry. The scientific methodology presupposes uniformity in the fundamental physical laws and constants. It can thus not answer questions pertaining to their origin without reasoning in a circle.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/science.htm

Ape to Man -- The Chasm Furthermore, as the corpus of hominid fossil specimens continues to grow, it has become increasingly evident that there is an unbridgeable chasm between hominids and humans in both composition and culture. Moreover, homologous structures (similar structures on different species) do not provide sufficient proof of genealogical relationships—common descent is simply an evolutionary assumption used to explain the similarities.

To assume that hominids and humans are closely related because both can walk upright is tantamount to saying hummingbirds and helicopters are closely related because both can fly. Indeed, the distance between an ape, who cannot read or write, and a descendant of Adam, who can compose a musical masterpiece or send a man to the moon, is the distance of infinity.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/ape-to-man.htm

Liveit

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That could be said about faeries, or spaghetti monsters or tea pots or anything else you care to mention that has no proof of existence - that doesn't mean people won't make an informed judgment over likelihood of existence...

EDIT: It's also got nothing to do with a belief that there is no God, it's a lack of belief in a God - without any evidence the default position is that there is nothing to have a belief in, rather than a chosen rejection of one or other positions.

What is your point. That was a very un-specific post

Dades

Liveit wrote: »

What is your point. That was a very un-specific post

Ickle Magoo's post very clearly addressed what you said in yours.

Just because something cannot be "known" to exist or not doesn't mean the possibility it might has be entertained. There would need to be some evidence to suggest that 'thing' existed for that to be a logical thing to do.

Liveit

Dades wrote: »

Ickle Magoo's post very clearly addressed what you said in yours.

Just because something cannot be "known" to exist or not doesn't mean the possibility it might has be entertained. There would need to be some evidence to suggest that 'thing' existed for that to be a logical thing to do.

Of course it has to be looked at. What comes after this life affects us all so we should at least try to search for an answer.
If you mean 'entertained' as in 'believed in' and you think it is not a logical thing to do(to believe with no evidence), you are looking at religion in a scientific way, a way in which religion differs from the most other things, as in it should not be judged with logic, in my view.

Liveit

Liveit wrote: »

Of course it has to be looked at. What comes after this life affects us all so we should at least try to search for an answer.
If you mean 'entertained' as in 'believed in' and you think it is not a logical thing to do(to believe with no evidence), you are looking at religion in a scientific way, a way in which religion differs from the most other things, as in it should not be judged with logic, in my view.

So how can it be judged if not by logic?

Does this mean any random nonsense I make up in my head can be excluded from logical and critical analysis if I just declare it "religion"?

Flamed Diving

King Mob wrote: »

So how can it be judged if not by logic?

Does this mean any random nonsense I make up in my head can be excluded from logical and critical analysis if I just declare it "religion"?

Yes, under his definition anything goes.