The subject of physical matter in the universe

Bishop9999999
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The subject of physical matter in the universe

Interesting discussions here, hope I can contribute.  I am wondering what the Atheist explanation is for there being matter in the universe.  All things considered, it seems odd that the Big Bang would just suddenly occur for no reason.  Thoughts?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
http://www.rationalresponder

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Saying "goddidit" hardly

Saying "goddidit" hardly makes for a possible alternative. The only workable models would be "non theistic" or naturalistic...

The current state of cosmology would have to answer your question with a "I don't know", but there are ex nihilo conjectures that do not violate physics.

In addition, Hawking's model, as well as multiverse and Brane theories would eliminate the need for a 'starting point' altogether

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions


 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Bishop9999999
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Good argument, I like

Good argument, I like it.

 

But is it God that needs a starting point, or the just the Bible?


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Matter can not be created,

Matter can not be created, nor destroyed, only changed. Thus if their is matter, we conclude there was always matter. If matter can not be created, and exists, it means it always was.

 

Matter can be changed into Energy, as well as Energy changing into matter.

 

The big bang was just collection of matter that blew out. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: Matter

James Cizuz wrote:

Matter can not be created, nor destroyed, only changed.

The laws of thermodynamics are laws that apply to events within our universe, not the universe itself.

Quote:
 

Thus if their is matter, we conclude there was always matter.

This does not follow. I don't think matter could be eternal, as protons have a half life (granted its 10 to the 500th power years). 

There are cosmological accounts for a creation of matter, and even for a creation of energy, that do not violate basic physics. In addition, Brane theory also accounts for universe creation via vacuum energy. 

It's simply dogma to assert that 'god' created the universe.   On the other hand, we can't just assume that matter always existed because of the laws of thermodynamics.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Saying

todangst wrote:

Saying "goddidit" hardly makes for a possible alternative. The only workable models would be "non theistic" or naturalistic...

The current state of cosmology would have to answer your question with a "I don't know", but there are ex nihilo conjectures that do not violate physics.

In addition, Hawking's model, as well as multiverse and Brane theories would eliminate the need for a 'starting point' altogether

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions


 

 

I don't understand exactly how Hawking's model eliminates the need for a "starting point". That is, if we're talking about the whole curvature thing when we say "Hawking's model". And, a multiverse theory may eliminate the immediate need for a "starting point", but not the distant need. If multiverse theory is true, then it would just lead people to ask "What is the starting point for the universes?"

Anyway, I can see how a "goddidit" can make for a possible alternative, and "workable" models that are not naturalistic. 

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ghost of Amityville

Ghost of Amityville wrote:

 

I don't understand exactly how Hawking's model eliminates the need for a "starting point". That is, if we're talking about the whole curvature thing when we say "Hawking's model".

It eliminates it in the sense that a circle has no special starting point or ending point.

here's a brief review:

http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

I believe this focuses mainly on the concept of "finite but boundless" spatially, and not temporarlly, however. But it's a good analogy... Hawkings himself holds that his theory eliminates any need for a creation event, or a god for that matter....

Quote:

and, a multiverse theory may eliminate the immediate need for a "starting point", but not the distant need. If multiverse theory is true, then it would just lead people to ask "What is the starting point for the universes?"

The multiverse itself would be uncaused/ eternal.

But yes, there's a lot more to be said here. But I can't cover it all here, and you of course can explore the matter on your own.

Quote:

Anyway, I can see how a "goddidit" can make for a possible alternative,

Actually, you can't see it. You just think you can, because like most people, you assume that 'god', as a reference to the supernatural, is a meaningful term.

But 'it' is not. In fact, it's incoherent.

Let me demonstrate:

If what you say is true, then you would be able to provide me with the basic groundwork for your theory. The first step would be hypothesis formation. Provide me an operationizable term for 'god'. This term must be falsifiable. You can begin by providing an ontology for your new theory. Please ensure that your theory does not steal from naturalism.

I trust you see the impossibilty of the situation, and why any reference to the supernatural leads to a broken concept. An argument for a supernatural origin for the universe can only be an argument from ignorance, for an entirely mysterious cause... which can be reduced to:

"We don't know."

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:

It eliminates it in the sense that a circle has no special starting point or ending point.

here's a brief review:

http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

I believe this focuses mainly on the concept of "finite but boundless" spatially, and not temporarlly, however. But it's a good analogy... Hawkings himself holds that his theory eliminates any need for a creation event, or a god for that matter....

But even a circle still needs a starting point in a sense. How did the circle come to be? Not "What is the starting and ending points of the circle?" but "How did the circle start?"

And also, I think you may be creatively paraphrasing Hawking. I've never heard him claim that his theory eliminates the need for a creation event or a god.

Quote:

The multiverse itself would be uncaused/ eternal.

But yes, there's a lot more to be said here. But I can't cover it all here, and you of course can explore the matter on your own.

But a multiverse can't be eternal because "eternal" implies time, and how would time be measured in a multiverse? Also, how would the claim that the multiverse is uncaused be any different that the claim that our universe is uncaused?

Quote:

Actually, you can't see it. You just think you can, because like most people, you assume that 'god', as a reference to the supernatural, is a meaningful term.

But 'it' is not. In fact, it's incoherent.

Let me demonstrate:

If what you say is true, then you would be able to provide me with the basic groundwork for your theory. The first step would be hypothesis formation. Provide me an operationizable term for 'god'. This term must be falsifiable. You can begin by providing an ontology for your new theory. Please ensure that your theory does not steal from naturalism.

I trust you see the impossibilty of the situation, and why any reference to the supernatural leads to a broken concept. An argument for a supernatural origin for the universe can only be an argument from ignorance, for an entirely mysterious cause... which can be reduced to:

"We don't know."

The fact that I can see it isn't dependent on the term supernatural. No reality is dependent on mere terms, and no amount of analyzing the term supernatural is going to prove anything. Rather, the fact I can see "goddidit" as a possibillity is based on the probability that a reality exists beyond mere naturalism. Although, it would have to qualified that this reality "exists" is an entirely different way than something that is subject to space and time.

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ghost of Amityville

Ghost of Amityville wrote:
todangst wrote:

It eliminates it in the sense that a circle has no special starting point or ending point.

here's a brief review:

http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

I believe this focuses mainly on the concept of "finite but boundless" spatially, and not temporarlly, however. But it's a good analogy... Hawkings himself holds that his theory eliminates any need for a creation event, or a god for that matter....

But even a circle still needs a starting point in a sense.

It's an analogy, ergo there are differences between the analogy and the analogue. Focusing on problems in the analogy only demonstrates where the analogy fails, as it must fail somewhere (otherwise, the two entities would be identical and the analogy would be pointless).

Why not read Hawkings and learn more about it from him?

Quote:

How did the circle come to be? Not "What is the starting and ending points of the circle?" but "How did the circle start?"

Read Hawkings. The question 'how did the circle come to be" makes no sense in his model.

Quote:

And also, I think you may be creatively paraphrasing Hawking.

I think that's a pretty wild accusation.

Quote:

I've never heard him claim that his theory eliminates the need for a creation event or a god.

So, let me get this straight.

You've never heard him say it.

So I must be making it up?

Allow me to expose your folly:

"The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary. The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would be neither created nor destroyed. It would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

 

http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."

In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator.
Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.

 

That's two major works (that you've obviously never read) that contain the claim.

Quote:

The multiverse itself would be uncaused/ eternal.

But yes, there's a lot more to be said here. But I can't cover it all here, and you of course can explore the matter on your own.

Quote:

But a multiverse can't be eternal because "eternal" implies time,

The point before you is that the multiverse would be uncaused.

Quote:

Actually, you can't see it. You just think you can, because like most people, you assume that 'god', as a reference to the supernatural, is a meaningful term.

But 'it' is not. In fact, it's incoherent.

Let me demonstrate:

If what you say is true, then you would be able to provide me with the basic groundwork for your theory. The first step would be hypothesis formation. Provide me an operationizable term for 'god'. This term must be falsifiable. You can begin by providing an ontology for your new theory. Please ensure that your theory does not steal from naturalism.

I trust you see the impossibilty of the situation, and why any reference to the supernatural leads to a broken concept. An argument for a supernatural origin for the universe can only be an argument from ignorance, for an entirely mysterious cause... which can be reduced to:

"We don't know."

Quote:

The fact that I can see it isn't dependent on the term supernatural.

So it's based on the fact that there are limits to knowledge, ergo something supernatural might exist, because you don't think you can rule it out?

If this is the case, then all you have is an argument from uncertainty, a logical fallacy. Your ability to doubt that 'naturalism is all that is" is not a grounds for a believe in existence beyond existence. Limits to our knowledge do not allow us to make postive speculations about 'what' is beyond the limits, and furthermore, your doubt would not provide an ontology for 'supernatural'

Furthermore, such a response misses the point: my argument holds that the term 'supernatural' is an incoherent reference, and that no one can refer to 'anything' beyond nature, ergo we are ruling out the ability to make the reference, a priori.

We are demonstrating that any attempt to make the reference lead to a broken concept.

You can't provide a probability for an impossibility. 

Quote:

No reality is dependent on mere terms,

No one here is denying this!

The problem before you cannot make a reference beyond existence.

Quote:

and no amount of analyzing the term supernatural is going to prove anything.

Analyzing the term will proven it is a broken concept.

Quote:

Rather, the fact I can see "goddidit" as a possibillity is based on the probability that a reality exists beyond mere naturalism.

But you cannot actually form such a probability, because your terms are incoherent.

To say that there is a 'reality' beyond nature is to say that there is existence beyond existence. And this is an internal contradiction. It's incoherent. How can there be existence beyond existence? How can you form a probability with an incoherent term?

All you can really do is concede that there are things you do not know. This is not a basis for any claim, let alone a 'god' claim. It merely is a profession of ignorance.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
todangst, I'll play this

todangst,

I'll play this part for once.

Well said.  I always enjoy your posts.  This concept of stealing from naturalism and supernaturalism as being a broken concept is something I've understood for some time, but the way you articulate it has been superior to the ways I have tried to explain the idea previous to having read your posts here.  

 I'll simply add that everything we know comes from our interaction and perception of the natural world.  Without some solution of how it would be possible for the physical parts of our brain to interact with something non/super-physical, we must assume that everything we have experience with must be physical as well. 

Thus, every concept, category of thought, etc must contain attributes of the natural.  Thus, supernatural is incomprehensible because we cannot, by definition and extention of our powers to perceive, apprehend it.  Not only can we not talk about it, think about it, etc, but to even refer to it is nonsense.  To claim it exists--to even postulate that it exists--is necessarily ad hoc.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.