Where do we come from

@discobot display help

I currently know how to do the following things:

@discobot start new user

Starts one of the following interactive narratives: new user, advanced user.

@discobot roll 2d6

:game_die: 3, 6

@discobot quote

:left_speech_bubble: Carry out a random act of kindness, with no expectation of reward, safe in the knowledge that one day someone might do the same for you ā€” Princess Diana

@discobot fortune

:crystal_ball: You may rely on it

@discobot fortune

:crystal_ball: Outlook not so good

Yes/no questions are more of a strong suit for @discobot . But weā€™re still thankful for his help.

1 Like

This seems a little pessimistic to me. I think that as technology continues to advance, the envelope of what we can observe will also continue to expand.

Maybe, but there are physical limits. I think string theory is mentioned in the articleā€“to test it, a supercollider too large to be practical would be necessary. You may be right, and surely scientists will not be throwing in the towel on it, but our ability to look at the larger and smaller scales of reality does seem to have limits.

discobot who created god?

I realize my contradiction in criticizing one physicist for bringing in what he ā€œthoughtā€ and then I turn around and do the same. I guess that at a certain point, I say enough already with the speculative theories and itā€™s time for philosophy (and I think all theories that touch on something from nothing and alternatives to the universe having a beginning are speculative).

As for something from a literal nothing, yes, Vilenkin argues this in that same article, for example (http://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe). Krauss also argues this. I think at least Krauss has in mind the cosmological argument when he argues something from nothing. You must argue against at least one of those two pesky premises of the argument if youā€™re an atheist.

Those physical limits apply to our current state of technological development. Before every big technological leap, itā€™s impossible to fully grasp what lies beyond it. Itā€™s like how we thought we were about to hit a physical limit with Mooreā€™s Lawā€¦and then quantum computing came along.

I tried reading that article, but itā€™s too tough sailing for me. Iā€™ll try to read it again later. Didnā€™t he talk about a larger spacetime than ours? Maybe it was something different I read. Physicists talk about nothing all the time, but what Krauss seems to mean for example, some kind of quantum field I think, isnā€™t what I would call nothing. Iā€™m thinking of an argument that asserts a definite knowledge that there is nothing outside our universe, which doesnā€™t seem possible.

Must? No way, not until the day someone can explain to me how God has always existed.

Sure, but it currently seems to be the case, and is an issue for cosmology, I think. As for the future, who knows what it may bring. In another sense, every new discovery seems to bring awareness of another unknown layer, so a limit may be inevitable.

I think if the definition of God, or the meaning of the term, God, is the cause of the Big Bang, it is hard to deny the existence of God. There is no reasonable proof that the God is identical with any specific god of a specific religion.

I believe youā€™re right about Krauss.

I guess when Einstein thought up special relativity, he knew he was right, well before any observations verifying the authenticity of his theory. He knew because everything fell into place beautifully. Thatā€™s what the notion of an infinite, powerful being does for me when it comes to the beginning of the universe. Iā€™m sorry but my philosophy doesnā€™t get any more complicated than that! To me, everything falls into place beautifully.

This is all very generic. If all we have is a supposition that God caused the Big Bang, what else do we know about them? Why call them ā€œGodā€? It seems that ā€œBig Bang Causal Agentā€ would be a more apt title. More below

Thatā€™s cool. No need to apologize. Iā€™d only note, and I guess youā€™d agree, that this is a belief, and not some kind of generally explanatory theory.

I also believe there are forces at work in reality which as of now at least are beyond our understanding. I really believe theyā€™ll always remain so. Thereā€™s gotta be something going on back there. I just donā€™t think Iā€“or anyone elseā€“know what it is. I canā€™t see how we could reasonably put any label on ā€œitā€, much less think we know what it wants, that it cares what we do, knows we exist etc. etc. or is even sentient or capable of such things. This makes me an atheist, but an agnostic atheist.

I want to know the cause of the Big Bang, and I donā€™t suppose that God caused the Big Bang. I just said, if we call the cause as God, it is hard to deny the existence of the ā€œGodā€. Of course, there is no need to call it God, as it is very confusing with the religious God. I prefer just saying ā€œthe cause of the Big Bangā€.

Though I donā€™t think gods create us, nor they are something reasoning our existence, I believe the existence of gods.

1 Like

I see. I didnā€™t quite get your point. Indeed. Put another way, you canā€™t define things into existence.

Is this true? :astonished:

@discobot fortune

:crystal_ball: Yes

2 Likes

Of course itā€™s possible to talk of events before creation. The term for such things is uncreated.

What creation actually means is a linguistic and philosophical issue.

I think in the context of that statement of mine (we were talking science, physics, cosmology), it doesnā€™t make sense to talk about ā€œbeforeā€ the Big Bang since time itself was created with the Big Bang.
As a matter of fact, from the point of view of science, it doesnā€™t seem to make sense to discuss events ā€œbeforeā€ the Big Bang because they have no observational consequences: We can (and I do) just ignore such events as speculation. These are not defined because itā€™s not possible to measure them, which is an important aspect of science.

But if you want to talk philosophy, well yes, I believe then there are some good conversations to be had. And if you want to discuss speculation (like many scientists do when it comes to such events ā€œbeforeā€ the Big Bang), then again letā€™s discuss away.

Yes, itā€™s a belief. But letā€™s be clear, multiverse theory, string theory, etc. are speculative ideas put forward by scientists to make sense of it all at best, and wild speculation by scientists to desire anything but God at worst. At the very least, I donā€™t think the arrogance toward people of faith by scientists is warranted given the crazy shit many of them put forward as ā€œscience.ā€ Letā€™s all be honest, nobody knows these answers and itā€™s quite possible we will never know (well from my point of view, I believe that to be more than just ā€œquite possibleā€- I believe that multiverse and other speculative theories will always be in principle unprovable).