Curious thought

HIB

I would consider myself agnostic. I wouldn't call myself atheist only because I don't think it's logically possible to completely deny the existence of a creator. The notion of a 'man in the sky' holds no water for me though.

But here's a thought....If I forget the notion of a 'man in the sky' for a moment, forget thinking of God as 'someone' and instead imagine God as a phrase I use to describe 'some thing'. Then, my rational brain has no real trouble imagining that some thing, maybe some as yet undiscovered pre big bang state of matter, or other dimension, or other such weird and wacky physics created the universe. In the absence of a proper explanation of what it is, I'd be ok with calling it 'God'.

God becomes then a catch all phrase for what I don't understand but believe to be responsible for the creation of the universe. And the weird thing is. ..very few or none of the religious people I know truly believe the 'man in the sky' Family Guy type god. If pressed, they'd probably say they don't know what God is, but he/she set things in motion in our universe. So, maybe our beliefs aren't that different?

Just throwing it out there .... what do ye think?

Peregrinus

Obviously there are people who do believe in the "man in the sky" type God.

And there are those who acknowledge that that belief can't be literally true, but who default to it as a way of thinking or talking about a god whose true nature is not easily known or understood. (Much like we often picture an atom as a tiny lump with even tinier lumps whizzing around it in pleasing curves, even though we know that atoms aren't like that.)

But, yes, there are also believers who would say that any attempt to think of God as part of the universe, or as analagous to part of the universe, is misconceived. And they would go further than you - even a "pre-big bang state of matter, or other dimension, or other weird and wacky physics" would not be God, as far as they are concerned. Those things would just be aspects of the universe that we haven't perceived/can't perceive. God, for them, would the reason those things existed/prevailed/occurred at all, as opposed to not existing/prevailing/occurring. God would the the conditions which make reality possible, or necessary.

Yes, it's very abstract, and will make your head hurt if you think too much about it. For these believers, God is not only not a man in the sky, but he is also not remotely comparable to a man in the sky. Or to anything else in the material universe. He is a reason why things exist (not particular things; anything at all), a condition which makes existence possible.

So, yes, if you think there is or may be a condition which makes existence possible, and if you think it might be reasonable or useful or defensible to name that condition "god" - congratulations! You're a believer!

Will we be seeing you at mass on Sunday? :-)

HIB

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously there are people who do beleive in the "man in the sky" type God.

And there are those who acknowledge that that belief can't be literally true, but who default to it as a way of thinking or talking about a god whose true nature is not easily known or understood. (Much like we often picture an atom as a tiny lump with even tinier lumps whizzing around it in pleasing curves, even though we know that atoms aren't like that.)

But, yes, there are also believers who would say that any attempt to think of God as part of the universe, or as analagous to part of the universe, is misconceived. And they would go further than you - even a "pre-big bang state of matter, or other dimension, or other weird and wacky physics" would not be God, as far as they are concerned. Those things would just be aspects of the universe that we haven't perceived/can't perceive. God, for them, would the reason those things existed/prevailed/occurred at all, as opposed to not existing/prevailing/occurring. God would the the conditions which make reality possible, or necessary.

Yes, it's very abstract, and will make your head hurt if you think too much about it. For these believers, God is not only not a man in the sky, but he is also not remotely comparable to a man in the sky. Or to anything else in the material universe. He is a reason why things exist (not particular things; anything at all), a condition which makes existence possible.

So, yes, if you think there is or may be a condition which makes existence possible, and if you think it might be reasonable or useful or defensible to name that condition "god" - congratulations! You're a believer!

Will we be seeing you at mass on Sunday? :-)

Somehow I don't think our local PP would appreciate my ramblings. 😊

kylith

God becomes then a catch all phrase for what I don't understand but believe to be responsible for the creation of the universe

And do you worship it? That's kind of de rigeur for gods, worship. If not then you're just putting the name 'god' on something when you actually mean 'I don't know'. A state of matter is not a creator, it's a state of matter. A dimension is not a creator. A black hole is not a creator. Describing something as 'a creator' or a 'god' implies deliberate action, which I'm sure you'd agree is not, as far as we know, possible in a state of matter, dimension, or other phenomenon.

And btw, 'atheist' means 'doesn't believe in gods' not 'denies the existence of a creator'. I don't deny that a creator is possible, though massively improbable, but I don't believe in one. It's Gnosticism that refers to 'possibility of knowing'. A gnostic atheist would claim to know that there are no gods. Most atheists would be agnostic; not believing in gods but believing that's it's impossible to know for certain if they actually exist or not.

Personally I think that universes come about via black holes: black holes consume everything, including other black holes. When the last black hole has consumed the last speck of matter in our universe a critical mass is achieved which leads to a big bang and formation of a new universe.

pH

kylith wrote: »

And do you worship it? That's kind of de rigeur for gods, worship. If not then you're just putting the name 'god' on something when you actually mean 'I don't know'. A state of matter is not a creator, it's a state of matter. A dimension is not a creator. A black hole is not a creator. Describing something as 'a creator' or a 'god' implies deliberate action, which I'm sure you'd agree is not, as far as we know, possible in a state of matter, dimension, or other phenomenon.

Yep, the debate too often moves to the existence (or not) of these very wishy-washy concepts, but then in the background the theist god is always around to slip back in. The point is that these "gods" do not matter in the slightest - if they don't require worshipping, if they haven't provided us a set of rules to live by and will reward us/punish us with eternal life, well then so what? For us, and the "meaning" of our lives here on this planet these "gods" existence is irrelevant.

Imagine also that a real "theistic" god did exist, just that He's busy managing the sins on another planet in a distant galaxy, and we're (as all the evidence implies) just the result of natural processes working for billions of years. His existence would be an interesting scientific point, but would make no difference to us, it's entirely possible that you could prove the existence of a genuine theistic intervening god and it still would still be entirely unimportant. It's just our hubris speaking when we believe that if there's anything out there, it surely *MUST BE FOR US*

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously there are people who do believe in the "man in the sky" type God.

And there are those who acknowledge that that belief can't be literally true, but who default to it as a way of thinking or talking about a god whose true nature is not easily known or understood. (Much like we often picture an atom as a tiny lump with even tinier lumps whizzing around it in pleasing curves, even though we know that atoms aren't like that.)

But, yes, there are also believers who would say that any attempt to think of God as part of the universe, or as analagous to part of the universe, is misconceived. And they would go further than you - even a "pre-big bang state of matter, or other dimension, or other weird and wacky physics" would not be God, as far as they are concerned. Those things would just be aspects of the universe that we haven't perceived/can't perceive. God, for them, would the reason those things existed/prevailed/occurred at all, as opposed to not existing/prevailing/occurring. God would the the conditions which make reality possible, or necessary.

Yes, it's very abstract, and will make your head hurt if you think too much about it. For these believers, God is not only not a man in the sky, but he is also not remotely comparable to a man in the sky. Or to anything else in the material universe. He is a reason why things exist (not particular things; anything at all), a condition which makes existence possible.

So, yes, if you think there is or may be a condition which makes existence possible, and if you think it might be reasonable or useful or defensible to name that condition "god" - congratulations! You're a believer!

Will we be seeing you at mass on Sunday? :-)

But if I believe the big bang made the universe, I don't assign it human characteristics and I certainly don't worship it.

kylith

pH wrote: »

Yep, the debate too often moves to the existence (or not) of these very wishy-washy concepts, but then in the background the theist god is always around to slip back in. The point is that these "gods" do not matter in the slightest - if they don't require worshipping, if they haven't provided us a set of rules to live by and will reward us/punish us with eternal life, well then so what? For us, and the "meaning" of our lives here on this planet these "gods" existence is irrelevant.

Imagine also that a real "theistic" god did exist, just that He's busy managing the sins on another planet in a distant galaxy, and we're (as all the evidence implies) just the result of natural processes working for billions of years. His existence would be an interesting scientific point, but would make no difference to us, it's entirely possible that you could prove the existence of a genuine theistic intervening god and it still would still be entirely unimportant. It's just our hubris speaking when we believe that if there's anything out there, it surely *MUST BE FOR US*

Exactly. If a god, or a somehow conscious natural phenomenon, initiated the universe but has done nothing since, has taken no interest in anything humans do, and left no evidence that they exist then they may as well, from our point of view, not exist at all and we may as well behave as though they don't.

The way I look at it is: either all gods exist or none exist. If they exist then believing in them is a waste of time because things that exist don't need to be believed in (I've never heard anyone say they believe in tables, for example, but plenty believe in the Lough Ness monster), and if they don't exist then believing in them is also a waste of time. And even if they do exist then what good would worshiping them do? We'd be like amoebas to a being so powerful, and I don't expect to be worshipped by amoebas so why should a god?

Bandana boy

That is an interesting take on the word believe , you equate belief to worship but they are not the same. You say believing in something is a waste of time , but again as belief is not worship , believing in something is a statement of personal position not an action, it takes no effort or time .

People may not state they believe in Tables but they pretty much do believe that tables exist. The nature of vocabulary we only call out beliefs for things that are not easily proven.

So I believe in Tables but do not tell people this ,it is a given , I also believe in things that are not so obvious , for example Love, string theory and Man influenced global warming .
Not many of us can categorically state all of those as fact but our position on them is that we believe them to be true and in conversation I might state my position by stating my belief in those things .

re your position on all gods or no gods ,that is a very binary look and certainly wrong.
I might tell you that my God is a noninterventionist God who started the Big bang and fecked of to another project.
It is possible that My god exists and that all other gods do not.
Now personally I do not believe in any God and certainly not an interventionist Deity but your way of looking at things is probably more closed minded and filled with bad logic than the worst of the recognised religions.

HIB

I suppose it kind of boils down to a question of whether your 'god' is a conscious self aware entity or not...Most people who believe in 'god' believe that it is a conscious thing that made a choice to start the universe. Some even believe this consciousness is still influencing it. I stop short of that, but I do kind of like this idea of using 'god' as a term to describe stuff we don't yet understand! Let's me tell my 4 year old niece that 'yes. I do believe in god' and spares me a row with her parents

Mark Hamill

HIB wrote: »

I would consider myself agnostic. I wouldn't call myself atheist only because I don't think it's logically possible to completely deny the existence of a creator. The notion of a 'man in the sky' holds no water for me though.

But here's a thought....If I forget the notion of a 'man in the sky' for a moment, forget thinking of God as 'someone' and instead imagine God as a phrase I use to describe 'some thing'. Then, my rational brain has no real trouble imagining that some thing, maybe some as yet undiscovered pre big bang state of matter, or other dimension, or other such weird and wacky physics created the universe. In the absence of a proper explanation of what it is, I'd be ok with calling it 'God'.

God becomes then a catch all phrase for what I don't understand but believe to be responsible for the creation of the universe. And the weird thing is. ..very few or none of the religious people I know truly believe the 'man in the sky' Family Guy type god. If pressed, they'd probably say they don't know what God is, but he/she set things in motion in our universe. So, maybe our beliefs aren't that different?

Just throwing it out there .... what do ye think?

I don't mean that just as a joke, btw. Why use "god" if "god" already means something else? Why not make up a new word or phrase. Or just say "I don't know"?

mahoganygas

It sounds like you are describing deism.

HIB

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't mean that just as a joke, btw. Why use "god" if "god" already means something else? Why not make up a new word or phrase. Or just say "I don't know"?

Nothing I suppose except there is no word for what I'm trying to describr and god seems like a good name for an unknown, perhaps unknowable source of everthing.

oldrnwisr

HIB wrote: »

I would consider myself agnostic. I wouldn't call myself atheist only because I don't think it's logically possible to completely deny the existence of a creator. The notion of a 'man in the sky' holds no water for me though.

Except that's not what atheism is. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims which haven't met their burden of proof. Do you believe in God as laid out in the bible? No? Well then you're an atheist, at least as far as Christians are concerned. An atheist doesn't positively believe there is no God. Instead atheism is the position before proof. If you want to suggest, as below, some kind of agency repsonsible for the creation of the universe then we need to have some method to determine if your claim is true or not. Atheism is the position of not believing your claim until you can show it to be true (or at least reliably supported by reason and evidence).

HIB wrote: »

But here's a thought....If I forget the notion of a 'man in the sky' for a moment, forget thinking of God as 'someone' and instead imagine God as a phrase I use to describe 'some thing'. Then, my rational brain has no real trouble imagining that some thing, maybe some as yet undiscovered pre big bang state of matter, or other dimension, or other such weird and wacky physics created the universe. In the absence of a proper explanation of what it is, I'd be ok with calling it 'God'.

God becomes then a catch all phrase for what I don't understand but believe to be responsible for the creation of the universe. And the weird thing is. ..very few or none of the religious people I know truly believe the 'man in the sky' Family Guy type god. If pressed, they'd probably say they don't know what God is, but he/she set things in motion in our universe. So, maybe our beliefs aren't that different?

Just throwing it out there .... what do ye think?

Well, here's the problem. As Mark pointed out, people already use the word God and so most people already have a well-established definition attached to the word God. So if you are going to come along and establish your own novel definition for the label God, then you're going to constantly have to qualify or explain what your definition is and why you're using it. That seems both confusing and tiresome. For example, I could decide that, for me, chair refers to a new 8-engine armoured hovercraft that I've invented. However, if I then say to someone, I'm going to drive my chair somewhere, then I constantly have to explain that I'm using chair to refer to this new vehicle. It would be far simpler just to come up with a brand new word for this concept that you're talking about.

Secondly, what's wrong with I don't know? So there are things that you don't understand about how the universe came into being. That makes about 7 billion of us. Just because there are things you don't understand doesn't mean you can slot whatever passing fairytale most appeals to you into the gap (or in this case assume that there is some agency behind it). The most honest answer is I don't know. As Richard Feynman once said: "I think it's much more interesting not to know than to have answers which might be wrong."

Finally, if there are things you don't understand about the universe, why not try to correct them. Why not attempt to find out more about the universe, about cosmology, physics, astronomy, evolution etc. Personally, I find that a much more rewarding activity than worship.

Akrasia

HIB wrote: »

I suppose it kind of boils down to a question of whether your 'god' is a conscious self aware entity or not...Most people who believe in 'god' believe that it is a conscious thing that made a choice to start the universe. Some even believe this consciousness is still influencing it. I stop short of that, but I do kind of like this idea of using 'god' as a term to describe stuff we don't yet understand! Let's me tell my 4 year old niece that 'yes. I do believe in god' and spares me a row with her parents

You can spare the rows by not taking a stance on what started the universe, which is very reasonable considering nobody knows what started the universe

It's a mystery. We have a whole load of theories, some are more plausible than others.

I think it's perfectly fine to say 'I don't know, nobody does' to a 4 year old, and follow it up with, 'Hey, maybe you might be the very first person to ever find out the answer!'

Bandana boy

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims which haven't met their burden of proof. Do you believe in God as laid out in the bible? No? Well then you're an atheist, at least as far as Christians are concerned.

That is certainly an interesting take on matters and interpretation of the English language and also very clearly wrong.
Christians while often deluded to the superiority of their brand of religion do not refer to Hindus as Atheists they refer to Hindus as Hindus and they as a rule recognise a person of faith that believes there is a God as whatever brand they call it , They refer to people who do not believe in any God as Atheist.
As does pretty much the whole world , we have a great tool when people cannot agree on a word in the English language.

Dictionary Definition
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

Notice it does not have any mention of believing in the "wrong" god .

HIB

kylith wrote: »

And do you worship it? That's kind of de rigeur for gods, worship. If not then you're just putting the name 'god' on something when you actually mean 'I don't know'. A state of matter is not a creator, it's a state of matter. A dimension is not a creator. A black hole is not a creator. Describing something as 'a creator' or a 'god' implies deliberate action, which I'm sure you'd agree is not, as far as we know, possible in a state of matter, dimension, or other phenomenon.

And btw, 'atheist' means 'doesn't believe in gods' not 'denies the existence of a creator'. I don't deny that a creator is possible, though massively improbable, but I don't believe in one. It's Gnosticism that refers to 'possibility of knowing'. A gnostic atheist would claim to know that there are no gods. Most atheists would be agnostic; not believing in gods but believing that's it's impossible to know for certain if they actually exist or not.

Personally I think that universes come about via black holes: black holes consume everything, including other black holes. When the last black hole has consumed the last speck of matter in our universe a critical mass is achieved which leads to a big bang and formation of a new universe.

I've been thinking a bit about your post, and I'm just wondering, could you equate your belief in a universe arising from a black hole to a 'faith' of any sort? I know I'm playing 'devils advocate' here, but stick with me for a minute

Let's assume we take 'faith' to mean believing in something without any proof. Some people believe in a god, without any proof. You believe that a black hole spawned the universe, without (and actually kind of contrary) to any proof. I'd see your position as faith based in a sense??

antiskeptic

kylith wrote: »

Personally I think that universes come about via black holes: black holes consume everything, including other black holes. When the last black hole has consumed the last speck of matter in our universe a critical mass is achieved which leads to a big bang and formation of a new universe.

Where did the mass and black hole come from in the first place?

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Atheism is the position of not believing your claim until you can show it to be true (or at least reliably supported by reason and evidence).

Isn't that hijacking the term for your own philosophical denomination? It means you have to be a rationalist/empiricist in order to be an atheist.

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where did the mass and black hole come from in the first place?

Dunno. Therefore, Jesus died for our sins.

Find any more balloons? :P

Bandana boy

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't that hijacking the term for your own philosophical denomination? It means you have to be a rationalist/empiricist in order to be an atheist.

You are 100% right
They might be reasons why somebody becomes(returns to being) an atheist.

Somebody else might not be an empiricist but just thinks there is too much cruelty in the world for there to be a god , both would be atheists , if they do not believe in a God.

This might seem like I am nit-picking but as I believe ending the support for organised religion is important for the World . Ipso facto we need to shut down those whose use faulty /clearly incorrect language and logic when defending the atheist position , it only weakens our argument.

It is important to remember that atheism is your opinion on the subject , hopefully a well-informed opinion but an opinion none the less , behaving as if it is some truth you see but others are too stupid to see is not helpful and in fact will force many of those in the grip of organised religion to retreat into its familiarity.

Zillah

kylith wrote: »

Personally I think that universes come about via black holes: black holes consume everything, including other black holes. When the last black hole has consumed the last speck of matter in our universe a critical mass is achieved which leads to a big bang and formation of a new universe.

Pedantic sidebar: this is not how physics works. Blackholes don't rove around the universe gobbling each other up. Gravity diminishes with distance exponentially, so the current blackholes are actually flying away from each other. Everything is; universal expansion is accelerating (thanks to dark energy), so the end of the universe will actually be an infinitely diffuse darkness where no star is visible from any other star, and eventually even the most long-lived stars will die and go dark, and the black holes will evaporate into nothing via Hawking Radiation.

Behold the endless waste that is the heat death of the universe.

Also black holes don't explode or burst no matter how big they get - they're already at "critical mass"; that's kind of the very definition of a black hole: so much matter crammed together that it collapses into a single point, more matter just makes it heavier.

So your made-up rebirth of the universe story isn't any more credible than the God story for your use of some science words.

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote: »

Also black holes don't explode or burst no matter how big they get - they're already at "critical mass"; that's kind of the very definition of a black hole: so much matter crammed together that it collapses into a single point, more matter just makes it heavier.

can they not lose mass/energy as a result of hawking radiation?

magicbastarder

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't that hijacking the term for your own philosophical denomination? It means you have to be a rationalist/empiricist in order to be an atheist.

i just read it as drawing a distinction between believing, and knowing (using evidence to support the knowledge as an example).

Peregrinus

Bandana boy wrote: »

You are 100% right
They might be reasons why somebody becomes(returns to being) an atheist.

Somebody else might not be an empiricist but just thinks there is too much cruelty in the world for there to be a god , both would be atheists , if they do not believe in a God.

This might seem like I am nit-picking but as I believe ending the support for organised religion is important for the World . Ipso facto we need to shut down those whose use faulty /clearly incorrect language and logic when defending the atheist position , it only weakens our argument.

I'm afraid you're making the same mistake. If by "our argument", you mean to suggest that the argument that it is important to end support for organised religion is a normative atheist argument, I'm afraid you are claiming too much. It's quite possible to be an atheist and yet feel that religion is a force for good in the world. (Darwin, for instance, was of this opinion.) It's also possible to be an atheist and be completely indifferent to religion. And it's possible to be an atheist but hold that others have as much right to form and express opinions on the question of religion as you do, and therefor to regard attempts to end the support for organised religion as a species of bigotry.

Atheists don't have to arrive at their atheism on rationalist or empiricist grounds. And, having arrived at their atheism, they aren't compelled to move on to the view that ending support for organised religion is a moral imperative. Neither of these things would qualify or impair their atheism in any way.

Zillah

magicbastarder wrote: »

can they not lose mass/energy as a result of hawking radiation?

Yes, which I refer to in my post. Hawking Radiation =/= explosion. They use the term "evaporation" for it, because it is a very slow process.

Bandana boy

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm afraid you're making the same mistake. If by "our argument", you mean to suggest that the argument that it is important to end support for organised religion is a normative atheist argument, I'm afraid you are claiming too much. It's quite possible to be an atheist and yet feel that religion is a force for good in the world. (Darwin, for instance, was of this opinion.) It's also possible to be an atheist and be completely indifferent to religion. And it's possible to be an atheist but hold that others have as much right to form and express opinions on the question of religion as you do, and therefor to regard attempts to end the support for organised religion as a species of bigotry.

Atheists don't have to arrive at their atheism on rationalist or empiricist grounds. And, having arrived at their atheism, they aren't compelled to move on to the view that ending support for organised religion is a moral imperative. Neither of these things would qualify or impair their atheism in any way.

Pretty sure I prefaced it with my belief is .... followed with for reasoning for being pedantic.
So I don’t agree that I am falling into the same trap but I do appreciate the sentiment and support the vigilance

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote: »

Yes, which I refer to in my post.

bugger, i'm going blind.

oldrnwisr

Bandana boy wrote: »

That is certainly an interesting take on matters and interpretation of the English language and also very clearly wrong.
Christians while often deluded to the superiority of their brand of religion do not refer to Hindus as Atheists they refer to Hindus as Hindus and they as a rule recognise a person of faith that believes there is a God as whatever brand they call it , They refer to people who do not believe in any God as Atheist.
As does pretty much the whole world , we have a great tool when people cannot agree on a word in the English language.

Dictionary Definition
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.

Notice it does not have any mention of believing in the "wrong" god .

Yes, I got that wrong. Thanks for the correction. I really didn't think that one through. Serves me right for posting in a hurry.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't that hijacking the term for your own philosophical denomination? It means you have to be a rationalist/empiricist in order to be an atheist.

Well, kind of.

It would certainly be the operative definition of atheism which I adhere to but I recognise that not everybody approaches it this way. I began by addressing HIB's faulty definition of what atheism is:

"I don't think it's logically possible to completely deny the existence of a creator."

This isn't what atheism is or does. It begins with the faulty assumption that the existence of a creator is self-evident which is just plain wrong. It seems to come from the view that atheism is a positive belief that there are no gods. I was attempting to point out that atheism is not necessarily a positive belief but can be expressed in the terms I laid out.

Zillah wrote: »

Pedantic sidebar: this is not how physics works. Blackholes don't rove around the universe gobbling each other up. Gravity diminishes with distance exponentially, so the current blackholes are actually flying away from each other. Everything is; universal expansion is accelerating (thanks to dark energy), so the end of the universe will actually be an infinitely diffuse darkness where no star is visible from any other star, and eventually even the most long-lived stars will die and go dark, and the black holes will evaporate into nothing via Hawking Radiation.

Behold the endless waste that is the heat death of the universe.

Also black holes don't explode or burst no matter how big they get - they're already at "critical mass"; that's kind of the very definition of a black hole: so much matter crammed together that it collapses into a single point, more matter just makes it heavier.

So your made-up rebirth of the universe story isn't any more credible than the God story for your use of some science words.

Actually as much as I agree with your post, I don't think kylith is too far off the mark. I wouldn't have phrased it like that but the general concept is correct.

If we assume that black holes evaporate (and we have good reason to do so) then the heat death of the universe will mean that eventually we will end up in a situation where you have an infinite space of equal temperature with nothing but massless particles travelling at the speed of light. From this scale the infinite future of this universe looks the same as the singularity of a future universe. The birth of a new universe could arise as a conformal rescaling of our existing spacetime.

Zillah

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If we assume that black holes evaporate (and we have good reason to do so) then the heat death of the universe will mean that eventually we will end up in a situation where you have an infinite space of equal temperature with nothing but massless particles travelling at the speed of light. From this scale the infinite future of this universe looks the same as the singularity of a future universe. The birth of a new universe could arise as a conformal rescaling of our existing spacetime.

Yes you're right about that hypothesis; some have argued that on an indefinite timescale quantum effects could trigger a new universe, but we're getting beyond my layman's understanding - but we can say that's certainly not the same thing as all the blackholes gobbling each other up until there's one super blackhole so full and swollen it explodes into a new universe, which just makes no sense.

Hotblack Desiato

Deism is really just a security blanket for those who feel atheism is a step too far (but who are, by definition, atheists as they have no belief in a theistic god)

An unevidenced, conveniently entirely noninterventionist, entirely non-disprovable god, how does one worship such a god and what would be the bloody point anyway?

kylith

Zillah wrote: »

Pedantic sidebar: this is not how physics works. Blackholes don't rove around the universe gobbling each other up. Gravity diminishes with distance exponentially, so the current blackholes are actually flying away from each other. Everything is; universal expansion is accelerating (thanks to dark energy), so the end of the universe will actually be an infinitely diffuse darkness where no star is visible from any other star, and eventually even the most long-lived stars will die and go dark, and the black holes will evaporate into nothing via Hawking Radiation.

Behold the endless waste that is the heat death of the universe.

Also black holes don't explode or burst no matter how big they get - they're already at "critical mass"; that's kind of the very definition of a black hole: so much matter crammed together that it collapses into a single point, more matter just makes it heavier.

So your made-up rebirth of the universe story isn't any more credible than the God story for your use of some science words.

I wasn't putting it forward as any sort of serious theory, it's just a thought I had based on my limited knowledge of black holes one night. Thanks for explaining why I was totally incorrect.

Sorry, I think I did that wrong: I know that black holes are the fount of life because of some ancient texts that were revealed to me that I'm not going to show an unbeliever like you. You can't tell me I'm wrong... feel it in my heart... provides comfort... ancestor's spirits squashed into a singularity... I can believe whatever I want and you have to respect it regardless of how bonkers it is... going to tell the Iona Institute you're being mean to me, etc.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Actually as much as I agree with your post, I don't think kylith is too far off the mark. I wouldn't have phrased it like that but the general concept is correct.

Jesus, don't go saying things like that, you're scaring me!

HIB

Zillah wrote: »

Pedantic sidebar: this is not how physics works. Blackholes don't rove around the universe gobbling each other up. Gravity diminishes with distance exponentially, so the current blackholes are actually flying away from each other. Everything is; universal expansion is accelerating (thanks to dark energy), so the end of the universe will actually be an infinitely diffuse darkness where no star is visible from any other star, and eventually even the most long-lived stars will die and go dark, and the black holes will evaporate into nothing via Hawking Radiation.

Behold the endless waste that is the heat death of the universe.

Also black holes don't explode or burst no matter how big they get - they're already at "critical mass"; that's kind of the very definition of a black hole: so much matter crammed together that it collapses into a single point, more matter just makes it heavier.

So your made-up rebirth of the universe story isn't any more credible than the God story for your use of some science words.

Seeing as we're being pedantic

Heat death is only one of the potential endgames for the universe.
Whether the universe expands infinitely or collapses back in on itself depends on the overall density of the universe and how that compares to a critical density parameter. Infinite expansion is the current front runner, based on what data is available. But as we don't really understand what dark matter or energy even are , and as combined they constitute 95% of the universes total energy (ordinary matter, photons accounting for the rest), I wouldn't be placing any bets on the heat death theory just yet.

Zillah

But, given that the expansion is accelerating, the chances of any alternative are pretty damn low. Dark Energy would have to vanish.

HIB

Zillah wrote: »

But, given that the expansion is accelerating, the chances of any alternative are pretty damn low. Dark Energy would have to vanish.

Not necessarily vanish, just change. At the moment, our best theories are based on a constant, w (relating energy density and pressure) which we think is -1. Already, some experimental results have indicated that we might be wrong about this, meaning our 'cosmological constant' dark energy theory would collapse. Dark energy may well turn out to be a lot more complicated than a simple constant added to the equations. Truth is... There's a hell of a lot we don't yet understand.

antiskeptic

magicbastarder wrote: »

i just read it as drawing a distinction between believing, and knowing (using evidence to support the knowledge as an example).

Which excludes the possibility of knowing something without empirical evidence to support the knowledge. It's only a philosophy (upheld by belief) which would support such an exclusion. Which merely

A philosophy held exclusively (I'd wager) by those without experience of other ways of knowing.

Are you claiming that God (if he exists) is unable to reveal his existence in any way he choses to? That he too is confined to operating like an empiricist? That'd be a strange claim!

magicbastarder

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you claiming that God (if he exists) is unable to reveal his existence in any way he choses to? That he too is confined to operating like an empiricist? That'd be a strange claim!

my comment was mainly intended to suggest that i read it as an example rather than an axiom or definition, so no claim was being made.

though it's an interesting question to posit whether god can violate logical laws, if he did exist, as some would take it that his existence violates logical laws.

can god make 1+1=3?

antiskeptic

magicbastarder wrote: »

my comment was mainly intended to suggest that i read it as an example rather than an axiom or definition, so no claim was being made.

Where believing is seen as a necessarily something of lesser status? Or would you accept the possibility that one could have more certain knowledge of something by non-empirical means?

though it's an interesting question to posit whether god can violate logical laws, if he did exist, as some would take it that his existence violates logical laws.

God making his presence known by non-empirical means wouldn't violate any logical law that I've heard of. I've not heard the case for his very existence violating logical laws. Must Google that. Let it be said that God not being unable to sin (for example) doesn't alter his omnipotence when omnipotence is understood NOT to mean God can do simply anything at all, but DOES mean that God can do anything that is consistent with himself an according to his will. He wouldn't will to sin (by nature and constitution) therefore, for that reason, can't sin.

He might want that all be saved. But can't set aside his holiness and wrath against sin such as simply open the gates to all and sundry. God is constrained by his nature.

can god make 1+1=3?

I don't suppose God can violate logical laws, no.

orubiru

HIB wrote: »

I would consider myself agnostic. I wouldn't call myself atheist only because I don't think it's logically possible to completely deny the existence of a creator. The notion of a 'man in the sky' holds no water for me though.

But here's a thought....If I forget the notion of a 'man in the sky' for a moment, forget thinking of God as 'someone' and instead imagine God as a phrase I use to describe 'some thing'. Then, my rational brain has no real trouble imagining that some thing, maybe some as yet undiscovered pre big bang state of matter, or other dimension, or other such weird and wacky physics created the universe. In the absence of a proper explanation of what it is, I'd be ok with calling it 'God'.

God becomes then a catch all phrase for what I don't understand but believe to be responsible for the creation of the universe. And the weird thing is. ..very few or none of the religious people I know truly believe the 'man in the sky' Family Guy type god. If pressed, they'd probably say they don't know what God is, but he/she set things in motion in our universe. So, maybe our beliefs aren't that different?

Just throwing it out there .... what do ye think?

I think it's probably a cool and intriguing aspect of human language and evolution that "God" can mean something very specific, such as a 'man in the sky', while at the same time we can use "God" to mean something very vague and almost indescribable. Allowing the concept of God to endure despite intense scrutiny and zero credible evidence even after thousands of years of human history.

This allows us to hold, for example, a belief that God exists and answers our prayers but when someone questions the rationality or validity of that belief we can then retreat all the way back to "nobody knows what really set things in motion" and so we can claim that nobody can disprove the existence of "God".

I have had many conversations with believers who try to do this. They hold their position at the very beginning of The Universe where nobody can really say what happened and God is an incredibly vague concept and then they try to sneak the very specific Prayer Answering, Judging, Damning, Forgiving, Heavenly Access Granting, Christian God in the back door.

So in one sense, in Ireland, I would consider myself an Atheist because I absolutely do not believe that the Christian God, as described in The Bible, exists.

At the same time I would consider myself Agnostic regarding the possibility that a very vague something in a very vague somewhere started everything off.

(This may largely stem from my lack of education and/or intelligence though as I am essentially just settling for "Well, I concede that there could indeed be Some Thing" because I don't actually have the time or money to learn all about Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics etc)

There is a massive difference between God as "some thing" and God as "a being that condemns and forbids homosexuality". I think it's very risky to concede that "God might exist" when people are actually defining God as the latter of those two.

We are able to come up with concepts that are completely irrational on one level but are also cannot be disproved on another level and we wrap them up in the same category.

I could tell you that the ghost of my great grandfather follows me around every day and has saved me from certain death 15 times. You can question that and probably quite easily point out why the concept is absurd. BUT I can get you tangled up in conversation about the existence of some kind of hidden energy that spans dimensions and space and time and ultimately you can't prove that "some thing" that might be described as "ghosts" doesn't exist. Since you can't prove there are no "ghosts" then the foundations for my more specific and more irrational views remain solid.

People can easily go with claiming to understand the nature and desires of God, regarding sin or suffering or heaven or hell, while at the same time being free to go with "God works in mysterious ways" if the situation demands it.

Being able to build your belief system upon an completely unknown, vague and unfalsifiable foundation has it's advantages, I suppose.