[Lobowolf]

Master Universe Solvers Club:

Q. What was there before there was anything?


A) Nothing. (2)
God. (2)
C) Unspecified matter (2)
D) A "void" (meaning something other than "nothing"). (2)
E) What the ***** does that question even mean? (12)

[hanp]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 2 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

i use philosophically here because for there not to be a beginning means the universe itself is infinite in actuality, and an actual infinite is logically impossible

Says who? You say it's logically impossible for the universe to have existed forever, but possible (true in fact) that there exists a supreme being capable of creating the universe who has existed forever? I think you and I have different definitions of logical.

Oh come on Josh, close your eyes and just let that sentence roll over your tongue once more. You will feel that it's true.

To my foreign ears this one sounds wrong:

Quote

one can prove logically either that something is eternal or something is not eternal

Maybe that's because this is the kind of philosophy where the order of words doesn't matter.

[Winstonm]

Quote

one can prove logically either that something is eternal or something is not eternal

The abiliby to show that a valid logic argument exists seems important to your views, but I am left wondering what is so special about a discipline that can construct a valid argument that is totally untrue?

What is wrong with observation of concrete events and deducing a cause from the evidence?

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Apr 2 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 2 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

i use philosophically here because for there not to be a beginning means the universe itself is infinite in actuality, and an actual infinite is logically impossible

Says who? You say it's logically impossible for the universe to have existed forever, but possible (true in fact) that there exists a supreme being capable of creating the universe who has existed forever? I think you and I have different definitions of logical.

when we speak of this universe, it includes space and time... if there was no beginning (if the universe has always existed), space and time would have existed for an infinite period.. since this is a logical (not necessarily a philosophical) impossibility, there had to be a beginning... come up with whatever definition you believe is commonly used by christians for God and see how he differs from this

Winstonm, on Apr 2 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

Quote

one can prove logically either that something is eternal or something is not eternal

The abiliby to show that a valid logic argument exists seems important to your views, but I am left wondering what is so special about a discipline that can construct a valid argument that is totally untrue?

What is wrong with observation of concrete events and deducing a cause from the evidence?

saying something is untrue and proving it aren't the same... and there's nothing wrong with deducing a cause (i assume you meant of the universe) from the evidence... what do you deduce that cause to be, given your interpretation of the evidence available?

[helene_t]

Lobowolf, on Apr 2 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

Master Universe Solvers Club:

Q.  What was there before there was anything?


A) Nothing.                                                                  (2)
God.                                                                      (2)
C) Unspecified matter                                                  (2)
D) A "void" (meaning something other than "nothing").    (2)
E) What the ***** does that question even mean?          (12)

Agree that (E) is the correct answer. Even if it was phrased slightly less absurdly, say
- "was there a time before the universe?"
- "was there a beginning of time?"
- "is time finite?"
I would still vote for (E), but I can imagine that an expert in cosmology could give a more insightful answer.

[Winstonm]

Quote

saying something is untrue and proving it aren't the same... and there's nothing wrong with deducing a cause (i assume you meant of the universe) from the evidence... what do you deduce that cause to be, given your interpretation of the evidence available?

No, I wasn't talking specifically about the universe but about the method of creating and testing a belief.

But as to the creation or non-creation of the universe, there is not enough evidence to form an opinion.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Apr 3 2009, 07:10 AM, said:

Quote

saying something is untrue and proving it aren't the same... and there's nothing wrong with deducing a cause (i assume you meant of the universe) from the evidence... what do you deduce that cause to be, given your interpretation of the evidence available?

No, I wasn't talking specifically about the universe but about the method of creating and testing a belief.

But as the the creation or non-creation of the univese, there is not enough evidence to form an opinion.

winston, you don't need evidence to have an opinion... you just need courage

[Winstonm]

I find this type of argument unconvincing and I'm not sure I would call this courage.

A: God puts those tiny ships inside those bottles. Have you seen those? There's no way to push a ship inside through that tiny hole. How do you account for it?

B. I can't.

A. Then I must be right.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 05:21 AM, said:

if there was no beginning (if the universe has always existed), space and time would have existed for an infinite period.. since this is a logical (not necessarily a philosophical) impossibility, there had to be a beginning...

This statement is false.

[helene_t]

I didn't read the story about Noah, but did he really take two animals from each species of terrestrial animals? I.e. from each of the 350000 known species of beetle plus all the unknown species, some of which he would have to go to Hawaii or Mauritius for to pick up? Plus 5400 species of mammals (ok, whales could save themselves).

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 3 2009, 07:10 AM, said:

Quote

saying something is untrue and proving it aren't the same... and there's nothing wrong with deducing a cause (i assume you meant of the universe) from the evidence... what do you deduce that cause to be, given your interpretation of the evidence available?

No, I wasn't talking specifically about the universe but about the method of creating and testing a belief.

But as the the creation or non-creation of the univese, there is not enough evidence to form an opinion.

winston, you don't need evidence to have an opinion... you just need courage

Finally we get insight into how one gets a firm belief with no plausible evidence!

Some call this 'courage'. Some have a less charitable name for it.

The rationale apparently is:

1. There are subjects about which we lack hard evidence and so far can't think of any way in which to garner such evidence

2. Some people, centuries ago, who lacked almost all of the understanding that we now have about related matters, came up with a god explanation

3. I like the god explanation

4. Therefore the answer is god.

Hiding from reality in superstition is not courage. Courage is acknowledging that we don't yet know all the answers, conceding that perhaps we can never know all the answers, but persisting with the search.

Jimmy challenged me to come up with an explanation for what created the universe, or what came 'before' the universe, stating, implicitly, that my explanation would be no more full of meaningful content that is his.

I agree, entirely, that any explanation I could put into words, purporting to explain the origins of the universe at the precise instant of the Big Bang or 'before' that instant would be devoid of real content. That doesn't worry me..... because the whole point is that I DON'T pretend to have an explanation.

The fact that I don't have an explanation is not a reason for me to believe in god. It is a reason to think:

1. maybe we just don't know enough about the universe yet, or
2. maybe our brains, being meat brains evolved in response to the environment on earth, are incapable of conceptualizing the answers
3. maybe the question has no meaning: which is related to (2).
4. Maybe there is another aspect that I haven't considered

I would like to believe in number 1... that we, as a species, will eventually understand the answers. But I don't 'choose' to have faith in that, because it would be lying to myself.

The answer is that I DON'T have an answer and, perhaps most importantly, that doesn't bother me even tho I get a sense of awe when contemplating the problem.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 05:21 AM, said:

when we speak of this universe, it includes space and time... if there was no beginning (if the universe has always existed), space and time would have existed for an infinite period.. since this is a logical (not necessarily a philosophical) impossibility, there had to be a beginning...

I admit it, you lost me again! Is it possible or is it not? Using two different qualifying words means what exactly? How do you even know what's possible and what isn't?

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 3 2009, 07:10 AM, said:

Quote

saying something is untrue and proving it aren't the same... and there's nothing wrong with deducing a cause (i assume you meant of the universe) from the evidence... what do you deduce that cause to be, given your interpretation of the evidence available?

No, I wasn't talking specifically about the universe but about the method of creating and testing a belief.

But as the the creation or non-creation of the univese, there is not enough evidence to form an opinion.

winston, you don't need evidence to have an opinion... you just need courage

Courage, foolishness, boredom, whatever. Probably all of those in some combination.

[PassedOut]

jdonn, on Apr 3 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 05:21 AM, said:

when we speak of this universe, it includes space and time... if there was no beginning (if the universe has always existed), space and time would have existed for an infinite period.. since this is a logical (not necessarily a philosophical) impossibility, there had to be a beginning...

I admit it, you lost me again! Is it possible or is it not? Using two different qualifying words means what exactly? How do you even know what's possible and what isn't?

It's certainly incorrect to say that it is a logical impossibility. Possibly Jimmy misstated his position when he wrote that.

[blackshoe]

You left out all the dinosaurs, Helene.

And I wonder what was the point. Did God (or Noah) expect that all the plant life would survive intact, so that the herbivores would have something to eat?

Well, maybe God was figuring he'd just cause all the plants to automagically grow again overnight as soon as the waters receded.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Apr 3 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 3 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 05:21 AM, said:

when we speak of this universe, it includes space and time... if there was no beginning (if the universe has always existed), space and time would have existed for an infinite period.. since this is a logical (not necessarily a philosophical) impossibility, there had to be a beginning...

I admit it, you lost me again! Is it possible or is it not? Using two different qualifying words means what exactly? How do you even know what's possible and what isn't?

It's certainly incorrect to say that it is a logical impossibility. Possibly Jimmy misstated his position when he wrote that.

possibly i did... in an eternal (i use the word to mean one with no beginning, one that has always existed) universe, the timeline between events could not be traversed going forward or backwards... are we speaking of different things?

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

in an eternal (i use the word to mean one with no beginning, one that has always existed) universe, the timeline between events could not be traversed going forward or backwards... are we speaking of different things?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, I can't answer that question, because I have no idea what the preceding statement means.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Apr 3 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

in an eternal (i use the word to mean one with no beginning, one that has always existed) universe, the timeline between events could not be traversed going forward or backwards... are we speaking of different things?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, I can't answer that question, because I have no idea what the preceding statement means.

You beat me to it.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Apr 3 2009, 03:15 PM, said:

possibly i did... in an eternal (i use the word to mean one with no beginning, one that has always existed) universe, the timeline between events could not be traversed going forward or backwards... are we speaking of different things?

Hard to say if we are talking about the same things or different because I don't see what you are getting at.

Consider an infinite sequence of real numbers mapped to time. Surely one can traverse that sequence back and forth even though it has neither beginning nor end.

[hanp]

Jimmy, would you mind writing some more of these sentences for me so that I can use them in a song? They don't have to make sense but it would be nice if you could make them rhyme.

[Lobowolf]

hanp, on Apr 3 2009, 04:30 PM, said:

Jimmy, would you mind writing some more of these sentences for me so that I can use them in a song? They don't have to make sense but it would be nice if you could make them rhyme.

Deep inside of a parallel universe
It's getting harder and harder to tell
What came first.

-Red Hot Chili Peppers.