And that does not mean I "believe" in a multiverse, it means I can understand how one would function and how it would fit in with our current reality. You apparently cannot do this - even though it is quite plausible, albeit redundant, to consider the universe from a multiversal perspective.
The truth is we do not know what the universe is, even though some assume that they are smart enough to know exactly what it is. All that really means is that these people are arrogant and conceited. And probably not as smart as they think they are - for intellectual dishonesty is equivalent to stupidity.
And some people are so rigid in there thinking that they cannot conceive the possibility of anything contrary to their own beliefs as being worthy of being discussed or understood.
im flattered - you have ignored me 2 or 3 times now
science and philosophy outside of science can logically co-exist if you don't submit yourself to sheer ignorance.
Also interesting that Einstein came to a somewhat theistic conclusion about the universe in his last years, something ignored by the media in their latest miscontrued propoganda article. Einstein must be rolling in his grave.
Yeah, exactly. If the physical constants did not exist at their precise values, basically nothing would exist. So the fact that the constants seem so precise and 'finely-tuned' seems to point to the universe having some kind of purpose.
So it seems the laws were designed or evolved in the first moments of the creation of the universe specifically with the intention for complex, intelligent, sentient beings like us to exist, doesn't it? Funny that eh!
and the Big Bang theory essentially (although perhaps not directly) says that there was NOTHING before the creation of the universe; zilch. zip. zero. nada. As I already pointed out, due to the fluctuation of time when it was first created there cannot have been ANYTHING before our universe.
There cannot be other instances of time outside outside of the time that began our universe, it makes no sense.
The simple fact is, anywhere we see intelligence, that intelligent must have been designed, or created.
Intelligence and order like what we observe in the universe today can not arise from nothing for no reason. Ie. a computer's Artificial Intelligence, is created by the intelligence of man. Therefore it is logical to assume that our intelligence must have a source.......Also see Richard Dawkins failed attemt at the 'Blind watchmaker' argument, which I can link to if you like.
If there were no purpose behind nature and evolution, complex beings like us wouldn't exist in the first place. See the C.S lewis quote in my last post about 'a universe without meaning would mean that we should never have discovered it has no meaning, for a universe without meaning would be a dark and empty universe'
What we do know is that the universe has not existed forever
Because morons on this forum are in a habit of being intellectually prejudiced, so it needs to be pointed out to them that a deeply religious person was responsible for arguably the most important discovery in scientifc history and that science and philosophy outside of science can logically co-exist if you don't submit yourself to sheer ignorance.
Indeed. I wonder then if people at this forum would be interested in hearing George Lemaitre's views; or would they just disregard him as a religious nutter like they do everyone else. Also interesting that Einstein came to a somewhat theistic conclusion about the universe in his last years, something ignored by the media in their latest miscontrued propoganda article. Einstein must be rolling in his grave.
Here you go. He also made similar claims in other interviews, that life on Earth must have been intelligently designed by alien beings from elsewhere in the universe.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Try again.
Yeah... this argument was created by atheists to try and explain why the physical constants are so perfectly tuned for the universe. Can you link to any scientific articles that support this theory? The idea that the finely-tuned constants that govern the universe are the inevitable result of infinite random constants from an infinite set of other universes is generally considered by most scientists to be absolute nonsense. Science fiction, pseudoscience at best - as Alan Guth says, "Anybody who doesn't accept the Big Bang is generally regarded by the scientific community as a crackpot." - and the Big Bang theory essentially (although perhaps not directly) says that there was NOTHING before the creation of the universe; zilch. zip. zero. nada. As I already pointed out, due to the fluctuation of time when it was first created there cannot have been ANYTHING before our universe. Nothing physical anyway. Time began with our universe, simple as that. Stephen Hawkings can further prove this in many of his theories.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that, assuming a theory of a multiverse were true, that a creator, or a first cause would still be necessary? Or is it your assumption that if it were true, it all came from nothing for no reason, or the 'multiverse' has always existed, or what...?
Yes, well, there has been very little scientific research on the soul or consciousness, so it's difficult to say either way. According to the scientific method it doesn't even exist, because it's not a physically observable phenomena (not in the traditional sense anyway)Your soul is who you are, your personality, your mind, the consciousness that comprises of your emotions, experiences, dreams and memories.
Fuck's sake - i'm not making any assumptions, we don't know exactly what was before the Big Bang, but we do know that time began with the Big Bang, and did not exist before. There cannot be other instances of time outside outside of the time that began our universe, it makes no sense.
The simple fact is, anywhere we see intelligence, that intelligent must have been designed, or created. Intelligence and order like what we observe in the universe today can not arise from nothing for no reason. Ie. a computer's Artificial Intelligence, is created by the intelligence of man. Therefore it is logical to assume that our intelligence must have a source. Organisms which do not possess intelligence or sentience, and are simply a natural part of the maintenance of Earth or nature itself, are a different matter.
Yes. If inflation proves to be correct, which it pretty much is, then the universe will continue expanding forever.
Wow, I didn't realise I was claiming to know exactly what the universe is, we don't even know what the 'dark energy' or 'anti-matter' is that makes up most of the universe and causes it to expand. What we do know is that the universe has not existed forever, and appears to have been created by something - a prediction we made thousands of years ago, coincidentally.
Yeah, funny, that's the exact kind of arrogance that other people in this thread display on a regular basis.
but then people used to think the Earth was flat
and at that same time the bible said it was round. Isiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth"
It depends if he talked sense or nonsense I believe. The problem with most religious folk is that they tend to attribute things to god... and god is a relative term depending on your beliefs. As there is no true proven definition of god then what value does attributing something to it have? Is god Yehwah? Allah? Budhah?
I'll have to watch this later as I'm at work and/or cbf'd right now. If this is true then my view of Dawkin's the man will be degraded. But my view of most of what he says will be unaffected.
Being "fine-tuned" is just an appearance. It appears this way because we could not see the universe in any other form - except for one that is fine tuned. If the universe were not fine tuned we would not be here to see it. That does not mean it was fine-tuned on purpose.What you are saying is this: If you take a deck of cards, shuffle it, draw five cards, place cards back in the deck, reshuffle, rinse and repeat, then eventually when you draw a royal flush you have done so on purpose. .
So, if we cannot make observations prior to the big bang how then can we say anything about it without making an assumption?
Anything prior to the big bang is part of the unobservable universe, to which for all intensive purposes of modern physics - we assume did not happen because it can have no impact on this universe. This does not mean nothing exists, it means that whatever existed prior doesn't matter a fucken fat rats arse because it can't influence anything in any way what-so-ever.
No not a first cause. In a multi-verse there is no first cause, there just is. Actually multi-verse models solve the infinite regression problem imo. I'm surprised more theists don't jump on the multi-versal band wagon, but I can only presume that they haven't explored the theological implications.
As for the soul, you have actually just described the brain. So soul = brain to theists? And there has been tons of research into the brain obviouslyYou say that scientists claim the soul does not exist, well - perhaps you should actually properly define it as something that is not actually known to be something else.
Ever heard of the Philosophy of Science? This is different than the Philosophy (or Phenomenology) of Religion. Philosophy and Science can coexist peacefully, Religion and Science however....
It seems you have missed this post of mine (to be continued when I get home...) Here is the link for easy access,http://forums.iconzarena.co.nz/showthread.php?t=27666&page=161
Have you considered that we evolved according to those laws. In another(hypothetical) universe with different laws, we would be different.
C.S.Lewis was a deeply religious person and therefor had to make comments like this, for his own personal appeasement. I don't understand why a universe without meanig would be dark and empty? It can just as easily be filled with stars and galaxies etc.
Are you sure? We 'know' this do we? Maybe the universe in this phase but that doesn't discount the possibility of a prior universe.
C.S. Lewis was a author of fictions? Do you seek wisdom in such sources? He was being poetic. Not factual. "For a universe without meaning would be a dark and empty universe" does not rate as a scientific explanation I'm afraid.
It looks that way at the moment, but then people used to think the Earth was flat and the sun orbited us.
Well you are actually saying you know how the universe works. You make all these assumptions as if you know for a fact that they are true. Example - you claim to know that time did not exist before the big bang - and that's pretty major. That's pretty much limiting the possible ways the universe can work - and for what reason?
The no boundary proposal, has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. It is now generally accepted, that the universe evolves according to well defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe, to break the laws. However, until recently, it was thought that these laws did not apply to the beginning of the universe. It would be up to God to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going, in any way He wanted. Thus, the present state of the universe, would be the result of God's choice of the initial conditions. The situation would be very different, however, if something like the no boundary proposal were correct. In that case, the laws of physics would hold, even at the beginning of the universe. So God would not have the freedom to choose the initial conditions. Of course, God would still be free to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. However, this may not be much of a choice. There may only be a small number of laws, which are self consistent, and which lead to complicated beings, like ourselves, who can ask the question: What is the nature of God? Even if there is only one, unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations, and makes a universe for them to govern. Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling, that it brings about its own existence. Although Science may solve the problem of ~how the universe began, it can not answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that.
But not you?
The problem is the scriptures are full of lots of symbolism, and unfortunately some make the mistake of interpreting it literally, when it is written in a way that would relate to and be understandable primarily to the people of the time - we can still understand it, we just have to look at it a bit differently. It's still pretty incredible that some of the predictions the Bible made all those years ago turned out to be true, including the most important one; that the universe was created. Coincidences? perhaps...I just started reading the bible not too long, enjoying it so far, the first passages of Genesis are incredibly powerful. Very simple, but powerful nonetheless; and it's full of so much useful wisdom that could potentially make this world a better place to be if they were only given more recognition by the everyday man.
It's still pretty incredible that some of the predictions the Bible made all those years ago turned out to be true, including the most important one; that the universe was created. Coincidences? perhaps...
If there is a 'God' that is the source of the universe, then we can attribute the existence of everything in the universe to God. So the most basic definition of God is that God is the source of everything.
thankfully I choose to pay attention to more rational, openminded thinkers rather than fanatically biased individuals, in the same way that I wouldn't pay attention to a fanatically over-the-top religious person.
Well, actually we could exist to observe a universe that isn't so finely-tuned. Or atleast, some things could still exist, the point is not so much that the universe is finely-tuned but that is finely-tuned in a way that it is almost perfect.
I would rather die having a belief, that I consider to be respectable and viable based on what I have learnt in my life, than no belief whatsoever.
Why is man the only creature on this planet that gained sentient consciousness and self-awareness?
Man you're dense.
Yes, everything evolved according to the laws. But if the laws were not as exact as they are, nothing would evolve.
I try to remain open-minded. That's why i'm agnostic. Can't say the same for most others in this thread.
I am hoping that by discussing this stuff and sharing my views (which tend to be primarily theistic, I admit) it will get people thinking and we could move past the stage of ridiculous Flying Spaghetti Monster analogies and hopefully start discussing other interesting ideas which don't get talked about very often because some can't progress past the unrealistic notion that science explains everything. I don't mind discussing multiverse theories and what-not but I will remain adamant that it is not really plausible because no-one has yet to convince me otherwise.
Err, actually he was an atheist, and was trying to come up with an argument for atheism being an intellectually-acceptable position for him to continue living by, but in failing to do so turned to religion.Read the quote again. If you can't understand it, well, that's your problem...
You're all arguing with a loon.
If you can't think of anything intelligent to say, resort to petty insults instead!
It's morons like you that make this forum shit.
I think that's an absolute crock of shit, and you're a delusional brainwashed atheist nutter.
What a loser, waste of space
he's a gigantic noobie.
And I'm sick of you people acting like a bunch of cocks for no reason, so fuck all of you
you dumb fucks
That's what YOU believe ya fucking dipshit
Nah, see, it's because you're just acting like a pompous know-it-all dickhead now, you might think you know it all but you don't know shit.
You really are a fucking moron aren't you?
Predictions? Which ones?True? Are you absolutely sure you've got that right?
Almost perfect for us to have evolved, but it still doesn't need the existence of a creator. Ockham's Razor.
I choose to believe science over religion. Religion really isn't viable unless you want a way to control people through fear and ignorance.But that's just me. Maybe I prefer fact over fiction?
How do you know this? Elephants exhibit self-awareness, Cetaceans exhibit self-awareness and sentient consciousness....
^There's the psyche we know and love. I was waiting for the insults, thought s/he wouldn't be able to contain him/herself for long!
But the flying spaghetti monster is just as plausible as the judao-christian god, or allah, or thor or zeus. Can you disprove the existence of any of these? Because from where I'm sitting you only accept one creator and this invalidates the other gods.....but why? why not worship zeus, or shiva? They had creation myths too, you might like those also.
This was about C.S. Lewis. He was religious.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewishttp://www.cslewis.org/But then, you probably missed the subtlety in his Narnia chronicles as well.So he turned his back on atheism...shame...still doesn't mean that he was right by choosing religion (specifically christianity). Also, scientific knowledge has progressed since then. Religious knowledge appears to be stagnant and circular.
Interesting, especially given the timbre of some of your replies:
so that youtube clip at 2:10.... "now I don't really beleive thats happened on this planet..."
"It could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by, probably, some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet," "Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility."- Richard Dawkins.Mr. Mathis said Mr. Dawkins' observation was amusing. "If it's a space alien, it's 'an intriguing possibility.' If it's God, you're delusional," he said. "That pretty much sums up the debate."
Also the quotes you made, why do those people think atheists attack or rage against god? thats just wrong. religion is not god.
and the whole 'finely tuned constants' rubbish, it doesn't really matter what they were they had to be 'something' sure, something was always going to result from it, your making out that we'd either have what we have now or nothing else is possible. thats ludicrous.
Haha.
But one of the most important predictions, obviously, that the universe was CREATED instead of just always existing. That the earth is round (spherical) before it could even be scientifically proven. That earth rests atop a formless void - that life is in the blood, not in the brain as scientists thought for a long time, there are many things.
Yeah, instead they came from nothing, from nothing, for absolutely no fucking reason at all. Makes perfect sense.
Maybe you just prefer being an ignorant dumbass instead of an open-minded intellectual capable of grasping reality in more ways than one?
Bringing up Flying Spaghetti Monsters and other crap only shows how absolutely deluded you are and incapable of forming any coherent argument - we're not talking about your little fantasies, we're talking about the first cause for the existence of the universe - if you want to limit yourself to talking about fairy's and bullshit which have absolutely no relevance to the existence of everything then go read some fucking fantasy books. If you had tried to talk to people like Einstein or Lemaitre about this shit they would laughed in your face like the muppet that you are.
