How does this quote by C.S. Lewis' make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I don't follow what you said about the "unexplained", but thanks for the response.

---

It's just that that's what "believing in" something is. Accepting an explination when you can't directly verify it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

It's just that that's what "believing in" something is. Accepting an explination when you can't directly verify it.

---

I see. That makes sense. I guess, then, I choose to believe in the evidence for the big bang since I can't verify it directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I see. That makes sense. I guess, then, I choose to believe in the evidence for the big bang since I can't verify it directly.

---

What is the evidence for the big bang?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

What is the evidence for the big bang?

---

Off the top of my head, the original evidence comes from measuring the expansion rate of the universe. With that estimate one could calculate back to when the expansion started. The discovery of the "cosmic background radiation" later provided more direct evidence that there was an initial beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Off the top of my head, the original evidence comes from measuring the expansion rate of the universe. With that estimate one could calculate back to when the expansion started. The discovery of the "cosmic background radiation" later provided more direct evidence that there was an initial beginning.

---

Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of. The evidence merely points to a expanding universe. That is like trying to determine New York City as being the point of origin of a ship sailing in the Pacific based solely on it's current speed and direction without ever consulting the captain's log, navigational charts, or even the type of ship. It sounds like completely reckless logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of.

---

To be fair, it's not more unstable than "the universe was created by some guy seven thousand years ago."

The universe only appears more meaningful because our sophisticated emotions and mentality have allowed us to embrace it under numerous perceptions. If one day it should ever become 'dark,' we feel we have no motivation, no purpose, no reason, basically nihilistic.

From a human standpoint we try to feed our emotions with both painful and pleasurable intakes based on our capabilities to give it a healthy balance of 'meaning.' We cannot help being curious, desirable, anxious and even arrogant, they are natural attributes we cannot fight. The basic strive for survival is no longer just about survival and reproduction. It's our 'curse' for being social animals. Whereas from the standpoint of other animals, sophisticated 'meaning' becomes more or less necessary.

The utilization of the natural or supernatural probably does not get us any closer to one definitive 'truth,' these have just been tools or mediums to help give our personal canvas more enriched color, a new sophisticated method for social cohesion which is needed for survival. There probably isn't an absolute 'truth' or meaning in the universe since there is not really any objectivity in our perception. Life itself is all part of the laws of probabilities as well the everyday occurrences within it. All we can do is cope with it and complacently sustain on a fundamental level of belief since a verification of absolute truth may be unable to grasp.

In Lewis's description, he may have been referring to God as the light and meaning in his universe and would have probably been in shambles to discover any truth behind the possible non-existence of something he held sacred. But this isn't just about God, it applies to anything we hold dear, and it's all at the expense of our confounded emotions. The ability of belief, regarding numerous concepts, may be what keeps us all fundamentally connected, and how we choose to utilize these beliefs can be our only ultimate way of meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

To be fair, it's not more unstable than "the universe was created by some guy seven thousand years ago."

---

To be fair, it's not "some guy"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of. The evidence merely points to a expanding universe. That is like trying to determine New York City as being the point of origin of a ship sailing in the Pacific based solely on it's current speed and direction without ever consulting the captain's log, navigational charts, or even the type of ship. It sounds like completely reckless logic.

---

I think you are right in questioning why the current expansion of the universe implies that this expansion could be uniformly traced back to some origin. Maybe something stopped the expansion for a while or increased its speed or slowed it down in the past. However, if the universe did anything like that there would need to be a force to account for the change in velocity. Outside of the gravitational pull of the mass in the universe I don't know what that force would be.

Your original question was on my mind when I walked to the library yesterday. There I found that more evidence could be obtained from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ) The data from the probe placed the age of the universe at 13.73 billion years plus or minus 1%.

I admit I don't know how to verify any of this evidence. I read it. I trust the source and so I "believe" it, as JuniperWoolf points out. You do the same thing with the Gospels. You read about Jesus' death and resurrection. You trust the sources and you believe it.

There is one thing to note about the big bang. It was a complete beginning of the universe out of nothing. As such, it completely undermines atheism. It is amusing to watch atheists stumble when faced with this evidence. All of a sudden scientific evidence becomes more questionable than it normally would have been for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serena03

The universe only appears more meaningful because our sophisticated emotions and mentality have allowed us to embrace it under numerous perceptions. If one day it should ever become 'dark,' we feel we have no motivation, no purpose, no reason, basically nihilistic.

From a human standpoint we try to feed our emotions with both painful and pleasurable intakes based on our capabilities to give it a healthy balance of 'meaning.' We cannot help being curious, desirable, anxious and even arrogant, they are natural attributes we cannot fight. The basic strive for survival is no longer just about survival and reproduction. It's our 'curse' for being social animals. Whereas from the standpoint of other animals, sophisticated 'meaning' becomes more or less necessary.

The utilization of the natural or supernatural probably does not get us any closer to one definitive 'truth,' these have just been tools or mediums to help give our personal canvas more enriched color, a new sophisticated method for social cohesion which is needed for survival. There probably isn't an absolute 'truth' or meaning in the universe since there is not really any objectivity in our perception. Life itself is all part of the laws of probabilities as well the everyday occurrences within it. All we can do is cope with it and complacently sustain on a fundamental level of belief since a verification of absolute truth may be unable to grasp.

In Lewis's description, he may have been referring to God as the light and meaning in his universe and would have probably been in shambles to discover any truth behind the possible non-existence of something he held sacred. But this isn't just about God, it applies to anything we hold dear, and it's all at the expense of our confounded emotions. The ability of belief, regarding numerous concepts, may be what keeps us all fundamentally connected, and how we choose to utilize these beliefs can be our only ultimate way of meaning.

---

This sort of irrationality is precisely what Lewis is talking about. Aside from the fact that you seem thoroughly unacquainted with logic or even the basic organization of rational thought (flat assertion after flat assertion does not an argument make), your only point seems to be that meaning is illusory. The problem, of course, is that you undercut not only Lewis's meaning, but also your own. If all human understanding of meaning is an illusion, it not only invalidates my understanding of God, my understanding of the universe, my understanding of meaning, but also your scientistic (not "scientific") notions about meaning's falseness. If you undermine the fundamental human capacity to discern meaning and truth, you consequently undermine your capacity to discern the meaning and truth of the very proposition you are advancing. What you are saying is self-refuting. You testify against your proposition by attempting to explain it to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Seems to be the most unstable evidence that I've ever heard of. The evidence merely points to a expanding universe. That is like trying to determine New York City as being the point of origin of a ship sailing in the Pacific based solely on it's current speed and direction without ever consulting the captain's log, navigational charts, or even the type of ship. It sounds like completely reckless logic.

---

Bienvenu,

Perhaps you do not understand that the Big Bang is the best piece of corroborating evidence a theist could ever hope for. Not too long ago scientists thought the universe was eternal, and then--whammo!--they discovered background radiation. Thus, an expanding universe. Thus, the Big Bang. This development in astronomy and physics is ideally problematic for atheists. Now, Aristotle's prime mover makes more sense than ever. To get an idea of just how perfectly the Big Bang fits with Judeo-Christian theology, consider the following passage from Nahmanides, a rabbinical scholar from the 13th Century:

"...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Bienvenu,

Perhaps you do not understand that the Big Bang is the best piece of corroborating evidence a theist could ever hope for. Not too long ago scientists thought the universe was eternal, and then--whammo!--they discovered background radiation. Thus, an expanding universe. Thus, the Big Bang. This development in astronomy and physics is ideally problematic for atheists. Now, Aristotle's prime mover makes more sense than ever. To get an idea of just how perfectly the Big Bang fits with Judeo-Christian theology, consider the following passage from Nahmanides, a rabbinical scholar from the 13th Century:

"...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."

---

No doubt that the historical account of that nonsense is true. Actually, the decadent and still decaying Catholic Church hired Hawkings in the 70's to try to enter into some of the picture again, after we overcame it in the 1940's with the outcome of wwii after deposing Benito and Adolf, and leaving Francisco to die on his own. Such is the nature of religion. Thank goodness it's now in a museum and there is nothing they can do to get a piece of the pie where the action is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

No doubt that the historical account of that nonsense is true. Actually, the decadent and still decaying Catholic Church hired Hawkings in the 70's to try to enter into some of the picture again, after we overcame it in the 1940's with the outcome of wwii after deposing Benito and Adolf, and leaving Francisco to die on his own. Such is the nature of religion. Thank goodness it's now in a museum and there is nothing they can do to get a piece of the pie where the sction is.

---

Thank you Caf for that pile of irrelevant balderdash. Perhaps when you figure out how to engage in a rational conversation you will rejoin this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

This sort of irrationality is precisely what Lewis is talking about. Aside from the fact that you seem thoroughly unacquainted with logic or even the basic organization of rational thought (flat assertion after flat assertion does not an argument make), your only point seems to be that meaning is illusory. The problem, of course, is that you undercut not only Lewis's meaning, but also your own. If all human understanding of meaning is an illusion, it not only invalidates my understanding of God, my understanding of the universe, my understanding of meaning, but also your scientistic (not "scientific") notions about meaning's falseness. If you undermine the fundamental human capacity to discern meaning and truth, you consequently undermine your capacity to discern the meaning and truth of the very proposition you are advancing. What you are saying is self-refuting. You testify against your proposition by attempting to explain it to us.

---

There is nothing scientific or 'scientistic' about personal meaning, except from basic neurological standpoint, it really is a generation of our emotions. All it means is that there's no objectivity to the way we do discern meaning and truth; it appears 'illusory' because our interpretation for various concepts are so subjective and the possibility of absolute truth becomes even more obscured. I am not undermining my own personal existence and discerment just because I see the universe differently than yours, how does this undermine your discernment and understanding becuase various beliefs and perspectives exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Thank you Caf for that pile of irrelevant balderdash. Perhaps when you figure out how to engage in a rational conversation you will rejoin this one.

---

You are welcome. Make sure you store it for when you need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

To be fair, it's not "some guy"...

---

Ohhhh, your god's female? My mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I think you are right in questioning why the current expansion of the universe implies that this expansion could be uniformly traced back to some origin. Maybe something stopped the expansion for a while or increased its speed or slowed it down in the past. However, if the universe did anything like that there would need to be a force to account for the change in velocity. Outside of the gravitational pull of the mass in the universe I don't know what that force would be.

Your original question was on my mind when I walked to the library yesterday. There I found that more evidence could be obtained from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe ( http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ ) The data from the probe placed the age of the universe at 13.73 billion years plus or minus 1%.

I admit I don't know how to verify any of this evidence. I read it. I trust the source and so I "believe" it, as JuniperWoolf points out. You do the same thing with the Gospels. You read about Jesus' death and resurrection. You trust the sources and you believe it.

There is one thing to note about the big bang. It was a complete beginning of the universe out of nothing. As such, it completely undermines atheism. It is amusing to watch atheists stumble when faced with this evidence. All of a sudden scientific evidence becomes more questionable than it normally would have been for them.

---

Then why are not most cosmologists theists?

Edit: Further, why does Stephen Hawking, the world's leading cosmologist, come out and say that given what we know of the universe's origins, it is not necessary to posit the existence or the activity of a God? I know we've had this exact same conversation before, but I could not let that statement there pass unopposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Then why are not most cosmologists theists?

---

Ha! He'll probably say that they are, Darcy, and bring up Swaggart, Baker and Roberts as evidence. Don't the latter deal with the cosmos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Then why are not most cosmologists theists?

Edit: Further, why does Stephen Hawking, the world's leading cosmologist, come out and say that given what we know of the universe's origins, it is not necessary to posit the existence or the activity of a God? I know we've had this exact same conversation before, but I could not let that statement there pass unopposed.

---

How does Hawking account for the origin of the universe without recourse to something outside of it where some choice was made?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

How does Hawking account for the origin of the universe without recourse to something outside of it where some choice was made?

---

He says it came about as the result of physical laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serena03

There is nothing scientific or 'scientistic' about personal meaning, except from basic neurological standpoint, it really is a generation of our emotions. All it means is that there's no objectivity to the way we do discern meaning and truth; it appears 'illusory' because our interpretation for various concepts are so subjective and the possibility of absolute truth becomes even more obscured. I am not undermining my own personal existence and discerment just because I see the universe differently than yours, how does this undermine your discernment and understanding becuase various beliefs and perspectives exist?

---

This is so ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serena03

there's no objectivity to the way we do discern meaning and truth

---

Fairly typical bunkum here. Is the above statement true? Does it have meaning? Is it true just for you? If so, why are you telling me? In your reletavistic world, I can simply choose to believe otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serena03

it appears 'illusory' because our interpretation for various concepts are so subjective

---

Why is it that reletavists try to confound objective truth by attempting to make objectively true statements about "our" interpretations? If you ever hope to sound rational, as opposed to irrational, which is all you accomplish here, you need to understand that you can never make statements that confound truth and meaning. You can still believe it, if you want. You can just never tell anyone without looking ridiculous.

You can't make sweeping statements about the illusion of truth and expect anyone to believe the truth of your statement. You can't make statements about the illusion of meaning and expect anyone to understand your meaning. All this hokum is just logically unteneable the second you try to share it with someone.

See, in our world of subjective truth and meaning, your post stated that you were buried in ice cream and waiting for aliens to whisk you away to Alpha Centauri, which I believe to be true and meaningful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

How does Hawking account for the origin of the universe without recourse to something outside of it where some choice was made?

---

The atheists are now trying to suggest that (and I'm not kidding) "the universe caused itself."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

The atheists are now trying to suggest that (and I'm not kidding) that "the universe caused itself."

---

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

---

Wow...I don't think that you can make that sound any more ridiculous. And a Supernatural Supreme Being is not the same thing as "magic". The Lord is a force something greater than we can understand.

I still wonder why whenever there is a thread started to discuss some religion text, the atheists feel the need to question the existence of God in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Well your incredulity aside, there is sound mathematical reasons to argue that the universe was created out of a quantum fluctuation, as this could account for the Big Bang in a universe with net 0 energy, which all the evidence points to. However, this is not the same as saying the universe created itself, as we can only move back so far and we can not yet, or maybe ever, assess why something like this would happen, or what could exist before then.

Why that is somehow less reasonable than magic as an explanation is besides me.

---

A quantum fluctuation in what, where, when? I watched in disbelief as Quentin Smith, a real atheist philosopher, tried to use Zeno's Paradox, an ancient philosophical puzzle, to explain this. And you're simply WRONG: a number of atheist philosophers and scientists are saying exactly that "the universe caused itself."

No one is proposing magic, so keep your strawmen to yourself. And how is this absurdity unreasonable? It is by definition unreasonable.

If the universe did not literally begin to exist, then the generally ridiculous atheist rejoinder (it loses explanatory power) actually makes sense.

Of course, everyone is holding out hope that string theory/M theory can salvage Big Bang theory from demonstrating a beginning consistent with Judeo-Christian creation, but it tries to make the Aristotealean prime mover possible (the collision of branes) by the grandest proliferation of needless entities ever proposed anywhere, and for atheists so generally bewitched by Occam's razor, this would seem problematic--not to mention M theory is mostly a plagiarism of Leibniz's spiritual monad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

A quantum fluctuation in what, where, when? I watched in disbelief as Quentin Smith, a real atheist philosopher, tried to use Zeno's Paradox, an ancient philosophical puzzle, to explain this. And you're simply WRONG: a number of atheist philosophers and scientists are saying exactly that "the universe caused itself."

No one is proposing magic, so keep your strawmen to yourself. And how is this absurdity unreasonable? It is by definition unreasonable.

If the universe did not literally begin to exist, then the generally ridiculous atheist rejoinder (it loses explanatory power) actually makes sense.

Of course, everyone is holding out hope that string theory/M theory can salvage Big Bang theory from demonstrating a beginning consistent with Judeo-Christian creation, but it tries to make the Aristotealean prime mover possible (the collision of branes) by the grandest proliferation of needless entities ever proposed anywhere, and for atheists so generally bewitched by Occam's razor, this would seem problematic--not to mention M theory is mostly a plagiarism of Leibniz's spiritual monad.

---

Neither string theory nor M theory is required to explain the BB, as they are involved with reconciling quantum mechanics with other forces, like gravity.

A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

{edit}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Neither string theory nor M theory is required to explain the BB, as they are involved with reconciling quantum mechanics with other forces, like gravity.

A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

---

I didn't ask you to explain a quantum fluctuation; I asked you in what, where and when this quantum fluctuation occured. Nice try at avoidance. And you need not pretend to explain the purposes of M theory to me. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

A quantum fluctuation where is an easy enough question to answer, if there is nothing and a quantum fluctuation occurs so that for a brief period some energy, balanced by negative energy of an equal amount, comes into existence briefly, then a universe will be created.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...2/nothing.html

This summarises it succinctly.

I don't even know what theoretical physics has to do with atheism anyway, these ideas don't deal with religion, they just deal with astrology and physics.

---

Are you proposing a fluctuation in nothing, nowhere, never?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

The atheists are now trying to suggest that (and I'm not kidding) "the universe caused itself."

---

Not mere atheists, but scientists, physicists, cosmologists, learned experts who have devoted their lives to the study of such matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

I didn't ask you to explain a quantum fluctuation; I asked you in what, where and when this quantum fluctuation occured. Nice try at avoidance. And you need not pretend to explain the purposes of M theory to me. Thanks.

---

Who is trying to avoid anything? I question your reading comprehension because I clearly said that if a quantum fluctuation were to occur before there was a universe it would have the potential of producing a big bang, and thus creating a universe. The matter of how quantum fluctuations operate is pertinent because it is required to explain why this would not violate the principles of conservation of energy, and why it is possible that the entire universe is in a sense composed of nothing.

You brought up M theory in respect to the Big Bang, I merely pointed out why M theory is not necessary to explain the Big Bang. If we want to talk about avoidance, we might mention your bringing up the subject of aspects of physics which actually bare no direct relation to the subject of the Big Bang.

Why can't you respond to any post without being a jackass about everything, geez.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

This is so ridiculous.



Fairly typical bunkum here. Is the above statement true? Does it have meaning? Is it true just for you? If so, why are you telling me? In your reletavistic world, I can simply choose to believe otherwise.



Why is it that reletavists try to confound objective truth by attempting to make objectively true statements about "our" interpretations? If you ever hope to sound rational, as opposed to irrational, which is all you accomplish here, you need to understand that you can never make statements that confound truth and meaning. You can still believe it, if you want. You can just never tell anyone without looking ridiculous.

You can't make sweeping statements about the illusion of truth and expect anyone to believe the truth of your statement. You can't make statements about the illusion of meaning and expect anyone to understand your meaning. All this hokum is just logically unteneable the second you try to share it with someone.

See, in our world of subjective truth and meaning, your post stated that you were buried in ice cream and waiting for aliens to whisk you away to Alpha Centauri, which I believe to be true and meaningful.

---

The fact that you are taking my words as any sort of assertion as truth or meaning shows how badly you missed the point. It's people like you though who aren't worth the time talking to anyway when you twist words around as an intervention to your beliefs or an obligation to agree. Besides, I can't believe I'm beginning to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises. Good day and may your universe be enriched with the light, truth and meaning it surely needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Who is trying to avoid anything? I question your reading comprehension because I clearly said that if a quantum fluctuation were to occur before there was a universe it would have the potential of producing a big bang, and thus creating a universe. The matter of how quantum fluctuations operate is pertinent because it is required to explain why this would not violate the principles of conservation of energy, and why it is possible that the entire universe is in a sense composed of nothing.

You brought up M theory in respect to the Big Bang, I merely pointed out why M theory is not necessary to explain the Big Bang. If we want to talk about avoidance, we might mention your bringing up the subject of aspects of physics which actually bare no direct relation to the subject of the Big Bang.

Why can't you respond to any post without being a jackass about everything, geez.

---

A fluctation in nothing, nowhere, never is no less "magic" than an Aristotelean prime mover. I brought up M Theory because despite how string theory originated, M Theory now proposes mechanisms for creation directly related to the Big Bang, which constitutes an attempt to save Big Bang theory from creation ex nihilo, and which is necessarily relevant to a discussion about the Big Bang.

{edit}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

A fluctation in nothing, nowhere, never is no less "magic" than an Aristotelean prime mover. I brought up M Theory because despite how string theory originated, M Theory now proposes mechanisms for creation directly related to the Big Bang, which constitutes an attempt to save Big Bang theory from creation ex nihilo, and which is necessarily relevant to a discussion about the Big Bang.

---

No, there is a fundamental difference. Because quantum fluctuations are observable phenomena that we are aware of, so we can theoretically model how they could produce a universe in a theoretical "vacuum of energy." I think there is a substantial difference between proposing how something we know exists, could occur at a point we know probably exists (prior to the current universe coming into existence) and how it could produce the features of the universe we see now based on how it operates according to known physics. This is different from a theorized supernatural cause that is outside what we know of material existence. The difference is that if a proposed vacuum of energy is something that did exist, but we can't of course be certain of that, and that quantum fluctuations are things that could occur without our current universe existing, then if those conditions are met this explains how our universe came to exist. These are reasonably hypotheses, no one is saying this is how it must of happen, but it is by far a better explanation than something we know nothing of having done it through force of will or what have you.

Edit: What produced the state of nothing, and what produces quantum fluctuations would be another matter. But that is not how physics operates, not everything is necessarily going to be explainable with the evidence we will be able to access.

{edit}

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serena03

The fact that you are taking my words as any sort of assertion as truth or meaning shows how badly you missed the point. It's people like you though who aren't worth the time talking to anyway when you twist words around as an intervention to your beliefs or an obligation to agree. Besides, I can't believe I'm beginning to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises. Good day and may your universe be enriched with the light, truth and meaning it surely needs.

---

Describing the nature of objective truth is, by its very nature, "assertion as [sic] truth or meaning."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serena03

how badly you missed the point..

---

This is called irony. Your "point" wouldn't pass muster in an introductory logic course. This isn't my opinion, but the objective truth. Descartes's subjectivism was merely methodological and sought ultimately to prove objective truth. If he had onyl gotten as far as "truth is an illusion" or "meaning is subjective" he wouldn't have ever written anything down.

It's hilarious that you think it's odd "to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises" when the vast majority of logical and rational discussions in the history of philosophy have been conducted within the scope of religious doctrine. And by the way, you don't even need religious premises for our discussion. All I am doing is pointing out how your assertions are self-contradictions; no religion necessary. And by the way, if you weren't looking for a rational discussion based on religious premises, then why are you trolling in a religious texts forum??????? The btter question is: why am I trying to have a logical discussion with someone incapable of logic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

No, there is a fundamental difference. Because quantum fluctuations are observable phenomena that we are aware of, so we can theoretically model how they could produce a universe in a theoretical "vacuum of energy." I think there is a substantial difference between proposing how something we know exists, could occur at a point we know probably exists (prior to the current universe coming into existence) and how it could produce the features of the universe we see now based on how it operates according to known physics. This is different from a theorized supernatural cause that is outside what we know of material existence. The difference is that if a proposed vacuum of energy is something that did exist, but we can't of course be certain of that, and that quantum fluctuations are things that could occur without our current universe existing, then if those conditions are met this explains how our universe came to exist. These are reasonably hypotheses, no one is saying this is how it must of happen, but it is by far a better explanation than something we know nothing of having done it through force of will or what have you.

Edit: What produced the state of nothing, and what produces quantum fluctuations would be another matter. But that is not how physics operates, not everything is necessarily going to be explainable with the evidence we will be able to access.



Maybe, I'm no stranger to infractions, that is up to the infinite wisdom of the moderating staff.

---

First, "a vacuum of energy" is not sysnonymous with "nothing," which is how you, yourself, described it. If time exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If space exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If any material "thing" can be said to exist we are not discussing the beginning.

So in what, where and when did the fluctuation occur? As far as anyone knows, "nothing" isn't big on fluctuating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

First, "a vacuum of energy" is not sysnonymous with "nothing," which is how you, yourself, described it. If time exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If space exists, we're not talking about the beginning. If any material "thing" can be said to exist we are not discussing the beginning.

So in what, where and when did the fluctuation occur? As far as anyone knows, "nothing" isn't big on fluctuating.

---

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

---

The current orthodoxy regarding the BIg Bang is that it encompasses the beggining of time and space. Any discussion starting after these components exist, cannot be said to address the actual beginning of the universe. It is also the consensus that there are structural impediments to ever actually figuring out scientifically what occurs beyond the singularity. Science only works given the inductive assumption of the uniformity of natural laws, which can never hold beyond the singularity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Describing the nature of objective truth is, by its very nature, "assertion as [sic] truth or meaning."



This is called irony. Your "point" wouldn't pass muster in an introductory logic course. This isn't my opinion, but the objective truth. Descartes's subjectivism was merely methodological and sought ultimately to prove objective truth. If he had onyl gotten as far as "truth is an illusion" or "meaning is subjective" he wouldn't have ever written anything down.

It's hilarious that you think it's odd "to discuss logic and rationality within religious premises" when the vast majority of logical and rational discussions in the history of philosophy have been conducted within the scope of religious doctrine. And by the way, you don't even need religious premises for our discussion. All I am doing is pointing out how your assertions are self-contradictions; no religion necessary. And by the way, if you weren't looking for a rational discussion based on religious premises, then why are you trolling in a religious texts forum??????? The btter question is: why am I trying to have a logical discussion with someone incapable of logic?
.

---

Now you're starting to catch my drift about the delusional; evidently you have THE objective description for objective truth? Good luck with finding universality in that. When you finally pull your head out of your objectively arrogant a$$ then we can begin to restore logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

That depends on whether space and time are dependent on the presence of matter and energy. A vacuum of energy may as well be timeless and spaceless, because it would have to be devoid of matter. How does nothing experience time and space if it is nothing?

I'm not sure we need an ultimate explanation of existence to explain how the current universe, as a material space exists. The BB is a beginning, and it is explainable through current physics, even if it is not necessarily the ultimate beginning.

If we're asking how did existence come to be, I think it's a different question from how the current universe came to be.

---

Oh, and by the way, if your vacuum of energy contains a mix of matter/antimatter or particles/antiparticles it cannot be said to be a true vaccum and would be similar to what we find in space right now. A net total of zero is not precisely a vacuum. And I've also heard more than one scientist (Neil Degrasse Tyson, for instance) say that matter/antimatter isn't even really a theory but more a place holder to make all the math work in existing theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Any discussion starting after these components exist, cannot be said to address the actual beginning of the universe.

---

I'm curious, what's your logical answer for "how did the universe originate?" And please, feel free to say "my god did it," because as everyone knows, that theory is completely air tight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serena03

Now you're starting to catch my drift about the delusional; evidently you have THE objective description for objective truth? Good luck with finding universality in that. When you finally pull your head out of your objectively arrogant a$$ then we can begin to restore logic.

---

The difference, Serena, is that one of us has actually taken coursework in logic. In any logic course, you will learn that presmises that cast doubt on themselves are not good.

Look, you're completely missing the point. Logic is a mode of discourse that occurs only once any number of things have been taken for granted. Among these are that statements have meaning and true statements are possible. If you assert that meaning is entirely subjective or that truth is illusory, you impeach the very mechanisms of the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

I'm curious, what's your logical answer for "how did the universe originate?" And please, feel free to say "my god did it," because as everyone knows, that theory is completely air tight.

---

Yeah because everyone knows that hack Aristotle was just some fundamentalist Christian trying to crash the atheist party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Yeah because everyone knows that hack Aristotle was just some fundamentalist Christian trying to crash the atheist party.

---

So your "logic" is that Aristotle thought it was true, so it is? Aristotle, like most people of his time, also thought that the earth was flat and that all matter was composed of earth, wind, water and fire. Do you agree with him there, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

The difference, Serena, is that one of us has actually taken coursework in logic. In any logic course, you will learn that presmises that cast doubt on themselves are not good.

---

I really wish that you would shut up about your background in "logic." All you're really accomplishing is making yourself look like a douche, and preventing anyone from even considering agreeing with you out of spite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

So your "logic" is that Aristotle thought it was true, so it is? Aristotle, like most people of his time, also thought that the earth was flat and that all matter was composed of earth, wind, water and fire. Do you agree with him there, too?



I really wish that you would shut up about your background in "logic." All you're really accomplishing is making yourself look like a douche.

---

See, this is what modern atheists do: they demosntrate their fundamental incpacity for rational discussion and end by calling a theist a name.

Let me set you straight on your goofy ideas about Aristotle. First, it doesn't matter if he thought the world was flat; that's not an idea anyone cares about. Newton thought he could transmute lead into gold; that doesn't mean we gave up on calculus or Newtonian physics. YOU just don't know how philosophy works if you think antique philosophy is entirely useless. The disgreements in philosophy now are the same as the disagreements then. Aristotle has never gone entirely out of style. Roger Penrose, one of the foremost mathematicians alive, is a Platonist, which, in case you can't figure that out, means he is largely concerned with the ideas of Plato, who also thought the world was flat. Aristotle's prime mover argument is not only a foundational idea in western culture, but still in use today. The latest iteration is Craig's Kalam argument.

Perhaps when you can demostrate more than a tendency toward non sequiturs, we could actually discuss the issue, which, if I recall, is the writing of CS Lewis.

Edit: Too late; I already caught the snapshot of you calling me a name. Hmmmm, I wonder if you'll get an infraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

See, this is what modern atheists do: they demosntrate their fundamental incpacity for rational discussion and end by calling a theist a name.

---

Who said I was an atheist? You know stuntpickle, I don't appreciate it when you call me names.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

First, it doesn't matter if he thought the world was flat; that's not an idea anyone cares about.

---

You know what? I don't care about Aristotle. You're trying to blow off my question, so I'll ask it again: hey stuntpickle, how did the universe originate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

The disgreements in philosophy now are the same as the disagreements then. Aristotle has never gone entirely out of style. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

---

I don't care. What do YOU, STUNTPICKE, what do YOU think? How did the universe originate, and why do you think so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Perhaps when you can demostrate more than a tendency toward non sequiturs, we could actually discuss the issue, which, if I recall, is the writing of CS Lewis.

---

You've used the phrase "non sequitur" a few times now, and it makes me think that you don't understand the definition:

non se·qui·tur
noun
a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

The only conclusion that I've come to so far is that you sound like a douche, and I don't think that anyone would fail to see the logic in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuntpickle

Edit: Too late; I already caught the snapshot of you calling me a name. Hmmmm, I wonder if you'll get an infraction.

---

It's a small risk in this case, because I technically didn't "call you" anything. I said that you SOUND like a douche. The way that you are speaking to people on this forum is in a douchey manner. I could have said that you sound "arrogant," but that's not as funny and it also lacks style.