The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Yes Arrow, God Is Fantasy

Re: Yes Arrow, God Is Fantasy
Posted by Anonymous (Guest) - Saturday, March 3 2012, 18:19:58 (UTC)
from 50.9.24.83 - 50-9-24-83.chi.clearwire-wmx.net Network - Windows Codename Longhorn - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
>Hi,
>
> It's highly likely that the Universe has always subsisted in some form or another.
>
>I'm not sure about that. The universe did have a beginning. It is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Before that, there was nothing, or "quantum vacuum". According to the argument of the first cause:
>
>1. A material event cannot cause itself or else it would have to precede itself, which is impossible.
>2. For every material event, there is a material cause.
>3. Its cause also must have a material cause.

Yes inflation had a beginning, not the Universe. The Universe has properties which can be defined as eternal. The Universe began from a quantum fluctuation of phase transition from potential energy to kinetic energy. Quantum fluctuations were the first cause and "prime mover" of the Universe. The Universe prior to the inflationary expansion event, was in a quantum state.

You don't need to extrapolate what had occurred "before" the Universe. Because at that point causality breaks down at the subatomic level, due to the condition the Universe was in at the beginning. Because the Universe was in a quantum state before the Big Bang, it accedes to the quantum uncertainty principle. So there can be no such thing as nothing, as long as there is a generation of energy via virtual particle pairs isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of energy. Ergo, it doesn't necessitate the use or manipulation of miracles or supernatural act in order to explain its origins.

In fact, because energy is created all the time, and I use the term "created" very loosely here, through virtual particle pairs. The Universe couldn't have been caused by chance. But by a process that happens with regularity and consistency. Because there can be no such thing as zero energy in the Universe. The Universe also adheres to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Which basically explains that absolute zero is unattainable. This demonstrates there can't be nor ever was nothing in the Universe. The Universe doesn't violate any laws of energy conservation, because the reserved positive energy density of the Universe is equal to the critical density of the Universe. In which positive, kinetic and rest energy are balanced by negative gravitational potential energy.

Energy can be both positive and negative. All the matter in the Universe, is counterbalanced by negative gravitational energy. Since mass/matter is always in a state of attraction. The Universe is always in a state of zero energy. Therefore never violating any law of energy conservation, and requiring no supernatural causation.

It makes utter sense, that the Universe (in the current state that it's in) was created through finite causation. Since it started in disorder and chaos, if it had a supernatural designer or intelligence to it. There's no reason why it wouldn't have initially began in order and complexity.

For more information, I'll defer to author and retired physicist. Victor J. Stenger's books. God: The Failed Hypothesis and The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why The Universe Was Not Designed For Us. I'd also recommend you visit http://www.ScienceBlogs.com/


>Conclusion: either there is an infinite chain of causes, or there was a first cause. That first cause has to have the unique property of being uncaused.

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur, because your first premise is false. Why can't there be an infinite chain of causes? And why is that impossible? Also, how can an unfathomably complex, supernatural and conscious being exist uncaused?

We know from observing organisms on this planet, that complexity arises from simplicity. Through a process of inherited genetic modification (mutations) guided by Natural Selection. What selective pressures did it undergo in order to achieve its complexity? Also, consciousness is a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain, so how can something that exists outside of existence have a brain?


>Since the universe did not exist forever, we can say that infinite regression also did not exist. So how can we have a material explanation for the universe when there was no matter to begin with? Is there a plausible theory that would account for the emergence of something from nothing?

We don't "know" that the Universe didn't exist forever, that's just an erroneous presupposition which you've passively accepted as true. Even though, as I just explained, it is quite probable for energy to always existed in some form. Energy is not nothing. Matter is an organization of energy. Therefore infinite regression can be logically vindicated on that basis.

>But then you might say “this is not a proof”. It is not, I agree. It does, however, keep God, as a theory or a possibility, on the table. For this reason Stephen Hawking said: “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator”.

It isn't proof. As I said, it's just an abstraction, one that has not been corroborated through empirical evidence or reason. It is nothing more than an Argument from Incredulity. It doesn't have explanatory power and only serves to beg the question and complicate it further. I.E., what or who created God?


>God is not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. All it is, is an idea, it's existence is purely conceptual. There has never been a concrete example nor even a meaningful definition of what a "God" is.
>What is so fantastical about God anyway? He is:
>
>1. Conscious
>2. Immaterial
>3. Eternal
>4. Transcendental (outside space and time)
>
>Atheists have no problem with 3 since they are willing to accept that the universe has been in existence since eternity. I do not think they have a problem with 4 either. So, do we have any reason to believe that the first two properties do not, or cannot exist?

You're generalizing here, Atheists do not postulate any and/or all of those qualities about the Universe to be true. Especially 1, 2 and 4. Since consciousness is a product of chemical reactions in the brain. Chemicals are a natural phenomenon, they evolved from nature.

So the Universe can't be conscious because it doesn't have a brain. The Universe can't be immaterial, because if it didn't manifest itself as a material entity, it'd be tantamount to asserting that it never existed at all. Since everything that exists, has existed and will ever exist, is actualized as an expression of material. As for transcendental, anything that exists outside of Spacetime is the equivalent to proclaiming Nonexistence exists. Which is a self-contradictory proposition, and thus impossible.

> the very essence of Space, time and matter consists of energy. And since the Conversation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It stands to reason that such a scenario is highly probable.
>
>You mean in the beginning there was just energy? Ok, What caused it to produce matter? And how? Energy existed since eternity, and then at some point in "time" it just "decided" to take action?

Please scroll up and read the first paragraphs I posted above. Also energy can't "decide" to do anything. It just is.

> the Big Bang model, which by the way, is supported by evidence, explains that the Universe EXPANDED not CREATED from a compressed focal point in which all Space, time and matter was encapsulated under extremely hot, dense pressure.
>
>The Big Bang model does not explain how the whole process started. There has to be a first push. Moreover, our universe is "fine tuned", as they say. The probability of having the right physical constants that would sustain life is extremely low. For this reason, scientist are discussing the possibility of the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, and we just happened to be in the one that worked.

The Big Bang theory isn't suppose explain how the whole process started. Its purpose is to explain how inflation started. Also, the problem with the Argument from Improbability, is that the calculations used to estimate the probability are incorrect. Because the person assumes a priori that there is only one possible functional arrangement.

When an actuality, there may be several types of arrangements. For instance, a deck of 52 cards. The odds of picking a specific card from the deck is 1 in 52. The odds that you'll take the second card out is 1 in 51.

The combined odds of those two cards in order would be 1/52 * 1/51 = 1/2652. Drawing 52 cards from a randomly shuffled deck gives a sequence of odds occurring at 1 in 52. That is 1 in more than 8*10 to the 67 power. Following this logic, it should not be possible to deal out 52 cards.

The The Universe is not "fine-tuned". The fine-tuning claim is repudiated by the fact that some physical constants are contingent upon others, so the anthropic principle may rest on only a very few initial conditions that are really fundamental. It is further invalidated by the fact that different initial conditions sometimes lead to essentially the same outcomes, as with the initial mass of stars and their formation of heavy metals, or that the tuning may not be very fine, as with the resonance window for helium fusion within the sun.


This doesn't preclude the possibility of there being intelligent life elsewhere. In fact, it is very likely, given the vastness of this Universe. Where conditions are stipulated just enough to where life becomes feasible.


> Scientists and Atheists don't place faith in anything. Faith is the belief in something without or in spite of evidentiary support for or against it.

>We have faith that science will explain everything... that there is a material cause behind the origin of the universe... we have faith in our friends, relatives... etc

No we do not. You're misusing the term faith to imply hope. The context in which I am using faith is the belief without proof or reason.

> We Skeptics, Scientists and Naturalists
>
>Are you in the scientific field or majoring in science?

Nope, but I hope to very soon.


> I can disprove the existence of your God using Deductive Reasoning based on the nature of reality.

>I presume you are referring to the Epicurus' argument from evil.

No I'm not, but that's also a very sound syllogism. I call this, The Axiomatical Argument for the Nonexistence of God.

Premise 1: The Abrahamic God is described by some of its adherents as a conscious, immaterial, Atemporal, and/or Aspatio entity.



Supporting Statement 1: Consciousness is presupposed by the axiomatic concept of the totality of existence as a whole.



Supporting Statement 2: Consciousness is contingent upon existence.



Supporting Statement 3: It is impossible for a conscious, immaterial being to exist outside of Space and Time. Because it doesn't abide by the Law of Causality. And violates existence as an Irreducible Primary.



Premise 2: The Abrahamic God exists outside of nature.



Supporting Statement 1: The Nature of existence is only ontologically viable and tenable within the Natural Universe.



Supporting Statement 2: Anything antecedent towards existence itself, cannot exist.



Conclusion: Therefore, the Abrahamic God does not exist.



---------------------


The full topic:



Host: www.insideassyria.com
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:9.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Accept-language: en-us,en;q=0.5
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
Connection: close
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Yes_Arrow_God_Is_Fantasy-KUan.8Qqy.QUOTE
Cookie: *hidded*
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Content-length: 12555



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9