Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

i concur with the person who moved to florida on this one.

My 'significant being' loves to play games when he's not sneaking into the cookie jar, between meals.

Wicked man...

At your place, I'd be sneaking into the pickle bucket between meals.

Mmm.... chocolatey caffeine high... mmm.....

You probably won't ever see these things because it happens on the quantum level.

Check out these sites:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html

"There is sufficient evidence at present to justify the belief that the universe began to exist without being caused to do so. This evidence includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. The singularity theorems lead to an explication of the beginning of the universe that involves the notion of a Big Bang singularity, and the Quantum Cosmological Models represent the beginning largely in terms of the notion of a vacuum fluctuation. Theories that represent the universe as infinitely old or as caused to begin are shown to be at odds with or at least unsupported by these and other current cosmological notions.

My purpose in this paper is to argue that there is sufficient evidence at present to warrant the conclusion that the universe probably began to exist over ten billion years ago, and that it began to exist without being caused to do so. I believe accordingly that the positions held by many if not most contemporary philosophers concerning this issue are unjustified, for their beliefs typically fall into one of three mutually exclusive categories, (1) the universe is probably infinitely old, (2) the universe began to exist and its beginning was caused by God, and (3) insufficient evidence is available to enable us to decide about whether the universe began to exist or is infinitely old."

And this one:

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

"Remarkably, modern science has arrived at more or less the same conclusion as Augustine, based on what we now know about the nature of space, time, and gravitation. It was Albert Einstein who taught us that time and space are not merely an immutable arena in which the great cosmic drama is acted out, but are part of the cast-part of the physical universe. As physical entities, time and space can change- suffer distortions-as a result of gravitational processes. Gravitational theory predicts that under the extreme conditions that prevailed in the early universe, space and time may have been so distorted that there existed a boundary, or "singularity," at which the distortion of space-time was infinite, and therefore through which space and time cannot have continued. Thus, physics predicts that time was indeed bounded in the past as Augustine claimed. It did not stretch back for all eternity.

If the big bang was the beginning of time itself, then any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless. Unfortunately, many children, and adults, too, regard this answer as disingenuous. There must be more to it than that, they object.

Indeed there is. After all, why should time suddenly "switch on"? What explanation can be given for such a singular event? Until recently, it seemed that any explanation of the initial "singularity" that marked the origin of time would have to lie beyond the scope of science. However, it all depends on what is meant by "explanation." As I remarked, all children have a good idea of the notion of cause and effect, and usually an explanation of an event entails finding something that caused it. It turns out, however, that there are physical events which do not have well-defined causes in the manner of the everyday world. These events belong to a weird branch of scientific inquiry called quantum physics."

Excellent reading on these sites.

Don't know what you mean about why it has to be nothingness . . .

as to why does it matter . . . because I enjoy contemplating the universe. I also enjoy basking in the little joys of day to day life. One is not mutually exclusive to the other. So I suppose it matters to me, though I don't expect nor would require that it matter to anyone else. What they think or don't think is their business, as long as they don't start telling me I can't think at all-- (insert Christianity here).

Some people chose not to worry about or even entertain the idea of "the purpose of it all". That's fine by me. I find I learn more about myself by asking those questions, even if the answers I get are not what I expected or wanted.

Yes, it is an interesting theory. I've read it before. However, even the writer admits it to be a theory. When you're dealing with quantum physics, it all basically theory at this point and time. Why I find the argument compelling, what they basically offer are additional possibilities. I forget the name of the scientist, but he was one of the founding fathers of quantum physics. Even he admitted that what they were pioneering was largely guesswork. I'll have to look into that to get his name. Maybe 20-30 years from now the proof will come in and I'll bow graciously in defeat.

I would argue this point, though admittedly I'm much better with quantum theory than the actual (mathematical) physics of it. The absence of time doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with the absence of existence. At least I have yet to see any strong theories to support this.

Thanks for the info, notblindedbythelight

Let me get back to you with some links. I'm a bit crunched for time right now.

That's okay...no hurry.

Thanks and by the way, welcome!

rainyday8169

Just to clarify, I don't need to believe that we, as individuals, need to have a purpose or that any purpose that may exist has to be "predestined"- I hate that word anyway. I have my theories about "the purpose of it all", but they are admittedly just theories.

Why not chance? I guess I could just as easily say, why chance? Why randomness?
What have you seen that tends to make you believe that its all one big roll of the dice? I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion, just curious. As far as miraculous things, I don't believe in miracles

Again, I need to know things. Call it a sickness of mine, but I don't believe that search makes it so that I can't enjoy life-- quite the contrary!

Honestly, I could go off on a tangent about the word "chance", but my head might explode.

And I could go off on a tangent about the word "creation" but my head might explode

That is where there is a problem. Anything that exists outside of time is meaningless. If it was created, there had to be a specific moment that it came into existance...a point in time. There would be no time before time.

If eternity is outside of time, then how can a singularity that exists in eternity wait for all eternity before exploding?

"It would seem then that, in the context of the kalam argument and its prohibition of an actual infinity, eternity should be understood as a timeless state of affairs rather than a beginningless duration of absolute time. If this is so, then it is reasonable to conclude that the kalam argument allows for eternity to mean a changeless, timeless void apart from the existence of the universe.

While Craig seems to agree with this definition of eternity when discussing the problem of an actual infinite, he slips into a realist view of time when discussing the principle of determination in the kalam argument's conclusion.³ The universe began to exist because of thermodynamic considerations and the impossibility of an actual infinite. This implies that the universe is eternal in the sense that there were no moments in which the space-time continuum did not exist. Yet in order to effectively employ the argument for a particularizer who decides a course of action at a given moment, it is necessary to revert to an absolutist view of time. This is seen most clearly in Craig's partial support of Kant's antithesis to his first antinomy, which Craig summarizes in the question "why did the universe begin to exist when it did instead of existing from eternity?" (1979, p. 150). Similarly, in his discussion of big bang cosmology, Craig asks, "if the big bang occurred in a super dense pellet existing from eternity, then why did the big bang occur only 15 billion years ago? Why did the pellet of matter wait for all eternity to explode?" (1979, p. 117). This line of thought is deeply informed by Averroes' concern over the Creator's decision between two admissible and equally likely outcomes. However, it presupposes an ontological view of time that conflates eternity with infinity. If the super dense pellet exists "from eternity" how can it "wait for all eternity" before producing its explosion? In a relational view of time, the universe's existence from the first moment is its existence from eternity, so these questions only make sense from an absolutist view of time. The kalam argument relies too heavily on this conflated notion of eternity in order to argue that God was a particularizer who freely chose to create the universe in time."

One part of the article that you provided made me think that maybe god could possibly exist outside of time because Kalam states that god is eternal and requires no cause, but Still argues:

"Suppose we assume for a moment that time is ontologically real. This presents another difficulty for, if time is real, then necessarily the universe's cause must also exist in time. If this cause produced the universe in time then there is no reason to think that it was the first cause or that God is that cause; we might apply the principle of sufficient reason to ask whether God is a first cause or one of many possible intermediate causes in time. Grünbaum (1989) points out that

if literally everything--including the universe as a whole--has a cause to which it owes either its state-of-being or even its very existence, it becomes imperative to ask for the cause of God's state-of-being or even existence. Why should He be an uncaused cause? (p. 383; his emphasis).
Craig (1992) feels that Grünbaum's argument is "flimsy" because "according to the kalam [argument] everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since God is eternal, He requires no cause" (p. 236; Craig's emphasis). If time is absolute--and the universe began to exist while God did not--then Craig's reply seems quite cogent. But if eternity is timelessness, then this reply is insufficient because it excludes anything outside of space-time as needing a sufficient reason for its existence. If God's atemporal existence requires no cause then we would be forced to conclude that an atemporal quantum singularity also does not require a cause. This is to say that, in a relational view of time, if there is no time t prior to the existence of the universe at t = 0, then any efficient cause such as an initial singularity must be an eternal, uncaused cause. It could be objected that, despite its timeless nature, an initial singularity is still a thing that requires a further sufficient reason and therefore must be an intermediate cause rather than the first cause. If an initial singularity did produce the universe and was itself efficiently caused by God, then God might be the elusive first cause. However, there is no way of knowing this short of arbitrarily saying so, or as many have pointed out, stopping Schopenhauer's "hired cab" at God's doorstep. In a relational view of time, a predicate other than eternity must be our criterion of correctness for determining a theistic first cause, since an initial singularity and the Creator are otherwise synonymous in this regard."

In other words, if god does not require a cause then an initial singularity does not require a cause either.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Still.html

Please read the above. It addresses problems in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Conclusion
"The kalam argument is a very convincing proof for the notion that the universe began to exist. I must admit to sharing some of Craig's concern that the universe could not have "popped" into existence uncaused. But further than this I cannot go. The empirical limitations concerning causation at the quantum level force us to reserve judgment as to the nature of the universe's cause, if indeed the universe was caused at all. Also it seems that the impossibility of an actual infinite suggests that even God must have a beginning to God's existence. Despite these objections, my main disagreement with the kalam argument's conclusion to a particularizer as the universe's cause centers around its two confusing notions of eternity. Eternity is first understood, in the context of the Mutakallimn, as relational to bodies in motion in order to demonstrate the impossibility of an actual infinite and the finititude of time. Yet, in the argument's conclusion, eternity is understood as absolute time in order to demonstrate that a particularizer had made a choice in time between two likely outcomes--now or later--and chose to create the universe at one time rather than another. Because of these two conflated notions of eternity in the kalam argument's conclusion, the argument that God was the efficient cause of the universe is insufficient. In order to convince the skeptic, the kalam argument will need to provide additional argumentation for God as the efficient cause of the universe."

No particular reason. I realize it's my own peculiarity. I just happen to agree with Thomas Paine.

No one should shove their peculiarities down another person's throat without their permission, it is quite rude to do so.

One should always obtain permission before gently inserting their peculiarities into another person's mouth, and should always ensure that their peculiarities are clean and pleasant smelling....

Altar boy?

(Oh, don't tell me I'm the only one who thought that...)

Can't wait to insert someones peculiarities into my mouth. (guys its been a 4 month drought so sue me)

There are other things I would rather have done to me than being sued though.

Yer peculiarities of course

I agree. For some reason it's more comforting to me to believe that god exists, and I find it easier to beleive something outside this universe created it rather than it leaping into exist on it's own when nothing else in the known universe can.

WTF?

If that's your picture, you're very attractive.

How can it be that long?

Go out and say "yes".

Icon -
I slipped into a Deistic mindset for a few months, but I am an atheist now, and will most likely remain one unless some sort of contrary evidence presents itself. I was listening to christian rock, and tihnking of some of the fun (social) that I had as a believer and although I could never accept the validity of the bible or the divinity of Jesus, I wanted so bad to beleive again, at least in a limited way.
I actually 'felt' that I had a religious experience;that many answers to many of my questions were being "imprinted" on me by god.

Oh well, that's me for you.