Where did life begin? (Merged)

Do you believe we have a creator, aka "God"?

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#1,077
#1,077
BigOrangeTrain said:
If you subscribe to that being a possibility, then you must also agree that God designing everything there is as a possibility.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's also possible there are fairies in my garden riding pink unicorns and pooping skittles. Possible, I guess. Sure. Plausible, less so.

We've seen asteroids - therefore, asteroids "seeding" earth is infinitely more plausible than an eternal magician.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,078
#1,078
JoeKyleVol said:
There are those who argue that truth and logic do not exist.
Click to expand...

That is a separate rabbit hole. And, there are those, including many on this board, who believe they know unequivocally absolute truth.

JoeKyleVol said:
If I say the world is not logical, I must use logic to argue that logic does not exist. Thus, I establish what I am trying to deny.

I cannot argue that there exists a possible world without logic, as that would mean I would have to use logic to establish that such a world exists. The same principle applies as the above.

Logic, as it exists, is all-pervading. It must exist in every possible world. Now, the laws of nature and their mathematical constants can differ from possible world to possible world, as they are not logically necessary.

The following is not a critique of you, but of many atheistic arguments I have encountered: Some atheists want to argue about what is logical all day until we get to the logical problems of a self-caused universe, where they then throw logic to the wind. I find such thought processes mind-boggling and hypocritical. Theists are supposedly irrational because they believe in a God, but atheists are perfectly rational to believe in multiverses and (literally) illogical pre-BB worlds?
Click to expand...

When thinking about these things, it's important to retain perspective. Perspective can change everything.

With that being said, you are in your mind, with your brain structure and your experiences with this part of this universe. Thus, your thought process is going to be affected by how you think (logic).

However, such would not dictate the reality of another universe. It could very easily be a universe where the natural laws are completely different. It could be that A and ~A exist simultaneously. Such seems absurd to us. Conversely, they may have laws of logic that seem self-evident to their thinking beings (if they have any) but would be equally absurd to us. Hell, quantum mechanics is testing our own laws of logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,080
#1,080
PKT_VOL said:
That is a separate rabbit hole. And, there are those, including many on this board, who believe they know unequivocally absolute truth.



When thinking about these things, it's important to retain perspective. Perspective can change everything.

With that being said, you are in your mind, with your brain structure and your experiences with this part of this universe. Thus, your thought process is going to be affected by how you think (logic).

However, such would not dictate the reality of another universe. It could very easily be a universe where the natural laws are completely different. It could be that A and ~A exist simultaneously. Such seems absurd to us. Conversely, they may have laws of logic that seem self-evident to their thinking beings (if they have any) but would be equally absurd to us. Hell, quantum mechanics is testing our own laws of logic.
Click to expand...

Your post reminds me of this show, same premise.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    48.2 KB · Views: 0
#1,082
#1,082
PKT_VOL said:
That is a separate rabbit hole. And, there are those, including many on this board, who believe they know unequivocally absolute truth.

When thinking about these things, it's important to retain perspective. Perspective can change everything.

With that being said, you are in your mind, with your brain structure and your experiences with this part of this universe. Thus, your thought process is going to be affected by how you think (logic).

However, such would not dictate the reality of another universe. It could very easily be a universe where the natural laws are completely different. It could be that A and ~A exist simultaneously. Such seems absurd to us. Conversely, they may have laws of logic that seem self-evident to their thinking beings (if they have any) but would be equally absurd to us. Hell, quantum mechanics is testing our own laws of logic.
Click to expand...

You raise an excellent point---the problem of a purely materialistic and deterministic universe.

With regards to the fact of my thought processes being affected by my material composition and brain structure, your statement reveals the inherent contradiction of pure physicalism.

In a purely material world, my thoughts are not really my thoughts as much as they are chemical reactions caused by other chemical reactions. Thus, my beliefs aren't really the product of my assent to a proposition, but the physical effects of material interactions.

If such is true, then "you" (for whatever "you" can be understood to be in such a paradigm) do not really believe or disbelieve anything. Your lack of belief in a Deity is not the product of any "rational" thinking (for what can be rational about chemical reactions? Or what truth-value is created by a neuron firing?) or being more open-minded, or for anything other than pure random chance from arbitrary causes.

If the universe is purely material, and things such as beliefs are meaningless, then science and naturalistic philosophy are also impossible positions to assent to. If purely materialistic Neo-Darwinian Evolution created our minds by pure random chance, then it follows that our rationality is also arbitrary and not connected to reality. Thus, one cannot "believe" in the evidence of naturalism, much less "rationally" believe anything.

Materialism undercuts its own epistemology.

Also, you state that there could be a universe where A & ~A exist simultaneously, but how? Because you just said there could be one? I'm sorry, but just the statement that such a place might exist is no different than stating that God could make a round square.

In fact, while we are on the topic of other universes, is it possible that there exists in one of these alogical/illogical worlds a God of some sort? In fact, why can't a God both exist and not-exist there, according to your paradigm?

The fact is that abandoning logic at the Big Bang is an unfounded rationalization to explain the gaping hole in materialistic philosophy's cosmogony. It is no different than the type of rationalizations that theists make about how "we just can't understand God."
 
#1,085
#1,085
JoeKyleVol said:
You raise an excellent point---the problem of a purely materialistic and deterministic universe.

With regards to the fact of my thought processes being affected by my material composition and brain structure, your statement reveals the inherent contradiction of pure physicalism.

In a purely material world, my thoughts are not really my thoughts as much as they are chemical reactions caused by other chemical reactions. Thus, my beliefs aren't really the product of my assent to a proposition, but the physical effects of material interactions.

If such is true, then "you" (for whatever "you" can be understood to be in such a paradigm) do not really believe or disbelieve anything. Your lack of belief in a Deity is not the product of any "rational" thinking (for what can be rational about chemical reactions? Or what truth-value is created by a neuron firing?) or being more open-minded, or for anything other than pure random chance from arbitrary causes.

If the universe is purely material, and things such as beliefs are meaningless, then science and naturalistic philosophy are also impossible positions to assent to. If purely materialistic Neo-Darwinian Evolution created our minds by pure random chance, then it follows that our rationality is also arbitrary and not connected to reality. Thus, one cannot "believe" in the evidence of naturalism, much less "rationally" believe anything.

Materialism undercuts its own epistemology.
Click to expand...

I didn't meant to attack it from a purely materialistic point of view. I was merely point out that the mind is inexplicably linked to the brain. Without a healthy brain, one cannot have what we consider a healthy mind.

As for materialism, especially very strict materialism, we don't know much about physical reality, much less about the brain to have a truly meaningful discussion outside of a sketch framework/argument. Too many of the puzzle pieces would be misses.

As I responded to Slice earlier, I don't subscribe to a lot of the seeming "randomness" as being truly random. Hell, 200 years ago, people getting sick seemed awfully random and superstitious. Now, we have germ theory which takes once thought "randomness" out of the equation.

In genetics, we are finding and understanding more about the mechanisms and structures of DNA and the process (including various proteins) which are taking once thought "randomness" into less random, highly probably event areas due to structure, etc.

Thus, "randomness" historically coincides with ignorance. However, that is not say that everything is or must be determined either.

JoeKyleVol said:
Also, you state that there could be a universe where A & ~A exist simultaneously, but how? Because you just said there could be one? I'm sorry, but just the statement that such a place might exist is no different than stating that God could make a round square.

In fact, while we are on the topic of other universes, is it possible that there exists in one of these alogical/illogical worlds a God of some sort? In fact, why can't a God both exist and not-exist there, according to your paradigm?

The fact is that abandoning logic at the Big Bang is an unfounded rationalization to explain the gaping hole in materialistic philosophy's cosmogony. It is no different than the type of rationalizations that theists make about how "we just can't understand God."
Click to expand...

And did our understanding of geometry change when we discovered/invented (depends on how you view things) with non-euclidean geometry? It could be done in ways we can't comprehend. If you put any stock into String Theory, M-Theory, etc., you would have extra dimensions where such may be possible.

Again, this conversation reminds me of this quote:

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Click to expand...

You seem to be necessitating other existences based off your own.

As for the Gods/creator in other universes, it could be possible. Again, perspective. To an ant, we might seem like Gods. If we were to create a computer simulation (which is being attempted at this very moment) to create self-aware beings within the simulation, then the creators would seem like Gods.

Perspective and relation to other things are critical. It can change the whole equation.
 
#1,086
#1,086
PKT_VOL said:
You seem to be necessitating other existences based off your own.
Click to expand...

Yet, you are the one arguing for the existence of other universes and logics off of nothing.

The idea of the multiverse flies directly in the face of Ockham's Razor---do not multiple entities beyond necessity. Your evidence for other universes is far less credible than the idea of a First Cause for the only universe we know exists.

For my cosmological understanding, all I need to establish is the existence of one Absolute and one starting point to the universe (the only one we actually know exists). Yet, you must invent a multitude of other universes and logics with which to hypothesize a self-caused or uncaused natural universe.

That which begins to exist has a cause.
Our universe began to exist (Big Bang).
Therefore, our universe has a cause.

Nothing without volition can move itself to cause anything.
Nothingness (or natural law) does not have volition (or the ability of self-movement).
Therefore, nothingness (or natural law) cannot move itself to cause anything.

Thus, whatever caused the universe to exist would have to possess volition, or ability for self-movement. As an impersonal, unconscious force (like natural law) would likewise have no ability to act to move itself, it follows that the First Cause is likewise a conscious, personal Being.

Creating the idea of a multiverse does nothing but push the problem of causality further back into other universes and using hopeful imagination to explain away the ironclad logic that "ex nihilo nihilo fit"---"out of nothing, nothing comes."
 
#1,087
#1,087
PKT, I must also say that I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation. I suffer from lack of decent philosophical discussions, haha.
 
#1,094
#1,094
JoeKyleVol said:
Yet, you are the one arguing for the existence of other universes and logics off of nothing.

The idea of the multiverse flies directly in the face of Ockham's Razor---do not multiple entities beyond necessity. Your evidence for other universes is far less credible than the idea of a First Cause for the only universe we know exists.

For my cosmological understanding, all I need to establish is the existence of one Absolute and one starting point to the universe (the only one we actually know exists). Yet, you must invent a multitude of other universes and logics with which to hypothesize a self-caused or uncaused natural universe.

That which begins to exist has a cause.
Our universe began to exist (Big Bang).
Therefore, our universe has a cause.

Nothing without volition can move itself to cause anything.
Nothingness (or natural law) does not have volition (or the ability of self-movement).
Therefore, nothingness (or natural law) cannot move itself to cause anything.

Thus, whatever caused the universe to exist would have to possess volition, or ability for self-movement. As an impersonal, unconscious force (like natural law) would likewise have no ability to act to move itself, it follows that the First Cause is likewise a conscious, personal Being.

Creating the idea of a multiverse does nothing but push the problem of causality further back into other universes and using hopeful imagination to explain away the ironclad logic that "ex nihilo nihilo fit"---"out of nothing, nothing comes."
Click to expand...

You are conflating two different systems of thought; the cosmological argument and modern physics. The former is a philosophical construct dating back to Aristotle about infinite regression and one possible absurd solution (out of many absurd possible solutions). The latter is the implication of modern physics theories which have been tested many times and hence have quite a bit of supporting evidence. That is not to say that the theories are true. Nothing in science is true. It is just not falsified, yet. The whole point of science to to continually try to falsify current theories and replace them with better ones when current ones fail (Popper).

This conversation reminds me of a passage from Max Tegmark's recent book Our Mathematical Universe. The MUT is not relevant to the conversation at hand, but his discussion/passage about the implications of current cosmological theories is. I could have put it in my own words but he really articulates the relationship more succinctly than I could off the top of my head. So, I pulled his book off my shelf, page 124-125:

Parallel universes are not a theory, but a prediction of certain theories....

Parallel universes (if they exist) are things, and things can't be scientific, so a parallel universe can't be scientific any more than a banana can....

Another important thing about physics theories is that if you like one, you have to buy the whole package. You're not allowed to say: "Well, I like how general relatively explains Mercury's orbit, but I don't like black holes, so I'm going to opt out of that feature."...

General relativity is a rigid mathematical theory with no adjustments possible; you have to either accept all its predictions, or you have to start over from scratch and invent a different mathematical theory that agrees with all of general relativity's successful predictions while simultaneously predicting that black holes can't exist....

In the same way, parallel universes aren't optional in eternal inflation. They come as part of the package, and if you don't like them, then you have to find a different mathematical theory that solve the bang problem, the horizon problem and the flatness problem, that generates the cosmic seed fluctuations-and doesn't predict parallel universes.
Click to expand...

Note all emphasis was his and the last paragraph is specifically referencing theories that involve a Level I Multiverse verse a Level II or III (most commonly known via quantum mechanics).

I could go into more detail here if need be. However, the point I am trying to make is that the idea of parallel universes didn't come out of thin air, is supported by nothing, and a violation of Ockham's Razor.

As for the Cosmological Argument, the infinite regression never stops. Any "first cause" would just beg the question, "...and what caused that?" Thus, the traditional solution is absurd; an uncaused cause, a self-cause, etc. Similarly, the solution "something from nothing" is equally absurd. So on and so forth with possible solutions.

As for the personal being part, that is a monumental leap from merely an uncaused cause. There is nothing about an uncaused cause which would in any way necessitate a conscious, personal Being.

As stated before, I think infinite regression ceases to intelligible a certain point which I refer to as a "veil of ignorance". In our case, it would be the Big Bang. It could be, that one day, we can talk intelligibly past the Big Bang, but that day isn't today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,095
#1,095
Septic said:
I suppose it's also possible there are fairies in my garden riding pink unicorns and pooping skittles. Possible, I guess. Sure. Plausible, less so.

We've seen asteroids - therefore, asteroids "seeding" earth is infinitely more plausible than an eternal magician.
Click to expand...

Has an asteroid ever been observed seeding a planet? If so then it's more plausible. If not, then your statement is false.

The possibility exists that there are infinite amount of universes. Therefore there is a possibility that God created everything. You cannot just change the facts to suit your argument.

Either ALL possibilities exist, or none exist. Keep on reaching though you little homunculus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top