This is a question for the atheists here.
What is more plausible to you: that the natural world (matter and energy) was produced by literally nothing (i.e. nonbeing)--or that the natural world, including all its processes, extends infinitely into the past such that there is no moment where one can say "there was no matter and energy causally prior to this moment."?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The energy in the universe is within the error bars of being zero (in English: it is either 0 or really close to 0); which makes your question about its creation misguided.
"The energy in the universe is within the error bars of being zero (in English: it is either 0 or really close to 0); which makes your question about its creation misguided."
So that just means you believe that the natural world is past-infinite.
I didn't say that; and I don't believe that. Furthermore it was a reference to the first option you listed, so I don't know how you got from there to claiming I'm endorsing the 2nd option you listed.
It's not my fault that you're afraid of just saying what you believe. You said something about the universe's energy being close to zero, without answering the question, followed by baselessly claiming that the question is malformed. I can only go by what you give me.
I don't know the answer, and no one else does either. And there is a lot more than just the 2 options you mentioned.
"I don't know the answer, and no one else does either. And there is a lot more than just the 2 options you mentioned."
No there isn't. Every single explanation comes down to either something coming from literally nothing or something being past-eternal.
Prove me wrong.
The universe is just a simulation started in a different universe.
There, now we have an explanation (perhaps silly) for the universe that does not involve it coming from nothing, and does not involve it being eternal into the past.
"The universe is just a simulation started in a different universe.
There, now we have an explanation (perhaps silly) for the universe that does not involve it coming from nothing, and does not involve it being eternal into the past."
The natural world would encompass a "different universe" and its effects, so it would still come down to did the natural world come from literally nothing or is it past-eternal.
Says you. Maybe it is a "natural simulation"; and maybe we shouldn't appeal to the word natural since it means different things to different people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you keep steering this back to a tautology (by defining things on the fly to produce one), why didn't you just start with one? Something like:
And save us all a bunch of time.
"Says you. Maybe it is a "natural simulation"; and maybe we shouldn't appeal to the word natural since it means different things to different people."
Natural world just means all matter and energy and their behavior. That would include one universe--or an infinite number of them. A simulation from a "different universe" would just be another configuration of matter and energy stemming from a configuration of matter and energy. As a result, you would still be left with the question: did the natural world come from literally nothing or is the natural world past-infinite?
myusernamekthx,
"Every single explanation comes down to either something coming from literally nothing or something being past-eternal."
Did humans exist 100 million years ago? Where did we come from? Did RollsRoyce cars exist 200 years ago? Did Moses eat ice cream?
The universe need not have existed, in its current state. Thus something may have always existed, but not the material universe we see, and not in its current state.
Your question is another of those loaded false dichotomies borne of moronic religious apologetics. As Nyarl said, science is not limited to two answers based on idiotic superstitious religious perceptions that don't grasp current scientific understanding. Your question is risible, and yet again you're too stupid to realise it.
If it is impossible for something to come from nothing, then the natural world must be eternal, and have no creator.
"If it is impossible for something to come from nothing, then the natural world must be eternal, and have no creator."
Why is it impossible for something to come from nothing and why is it possible for an infinite amount of moments to pass before the current moment could be reached?
It is impossible for something to come from nothing in the same way that 0+0 can never equal 1.
If the natural world is eternal, it is a given that an infinite amount of time can pass.
"It is impossible for something to come from nothing in the same way that 0+0 can never equal 1."
All you did here was say that X is possible because Y is possible without explaining the relation between the two--or how this relation gives us good reason to conclude that what is true for X must also be true for Y.
"If the natural world is eternal, it is a given that an infinite amount of time can pass."
All you did here is assume the natural world is eternal, and then use that assumption as an example of an infinite amount of time being traversed. But how would an actually infinite series of moments be traversed? Isn't that a self-contradiction?
So are you trolling or is this really how your mind works?
It is a basic concept of mathematics that an equation must balance. I do not think that really requires explanation.
As it is not possible for something to come from nothing, then it is a given that the natural world must be eternal. There is no contradiction. Time is simply the dimension by which we measure processes that occur within nature. Processes are defined by the laws of nature.
"It is a basic concept of mathematics that an equation must balance. I do not think that really requires explanation."
It doesn't follow that because 0 + 0 doesn't equal 1 that therefore the natural world didn't come from literally nothing. Pretend that people aren't as smart as you and try to explain your reasoning.
"As it is not possible for something to come from nothing, then it is a given that the natural world must be eternal."
You haven't provided a good reason for thinking that the natural world didn't come from literally nothing. All you said was, '0 + 0 doesn't equal 1; therefore, the natural world never came from literally nothing.' Are there some hidden premises to this argument?
"Time is simply the dimension by which we measure processes that occur within nature. Processes are defined by the laws of nature."
So explain to me how an actually infinite number of processes or changes was traversed. How could an actually infinite number of processes or changes be traversed? If a series has been successfully traversed, doesn't that indicate that the series was in fact finite?
I don't see a problem with an infinitely long chain of events happening an infinite number of times. You seem to have a problem with the concept of infinity.
There are many people who believe that time only exists as a measure of processes within the universe, during the duration of the existence of the universe. I have no problem with that view. However, as far as I can see, that only means that the universe originated from another prior universe.
@OP
To be wholly honest with you, I find it easier to believe everything came from nothing than it came from some imaginative sky-faerie.
Ain't you seen the equation ∞ = 0?
rmfr
Either option is unsupported by any facts or legitimate research.
The honest answer is "we do not know, but we are working on an answer".
"Either option is unsupported by any facts or legitimate research.
The honest answer is "we do not know, but we are working on an answer"."
You aren't working on anything. What do you mean by "we"?
That being said, I never asked you if you knew, I asked what is more plausible given what you know about science and logic. The big bang model is a piece of scientific evidence that seems to lean towards the universe coming into being from literally nothing and away from it being past-eternal.
"We", as in mankind, and researchers.
You may have heard of this, it's called science.
And actually, I am contributing, albeit in a very minor supporting role.
""We", as in mankind, and researchers.
You may have heard of this, it's called science.
And actually, I am contributing, albeit in a very minor supporting role."
Yes, there are scientists... and you're not one of them. Your contribution to science is zero. So, no, you are not working on anything.
I am. Not just on your question. However, I and others are working on monitoring one of the largest volcanoes on this Earth. One large enough that if it should explode like it did with the "Huckleberry Ridge Explosion" it would mean the end of all civilization in, at least, the northern hemisphere, perhaps the whole planet for up to 20 to 30 years.
Yes, there are scientists here that actually do do some work.
What field of science are you in?
rmfr
"I am."
No you aren't. I can tell by how dumb you are. If you truly are a scientist, then that just lowers my overall view of scientists.
"However, I and others are working on monitoring one of the largest volcanoes on this Earth. One large enough that if it should explode like it did with the "Huckleberry Ridge Explosion" it would mean the end of all civilization in, at least, the northern hemisphere"
Wow, that's a very scientific explanation. Very technical and couldn't have possibly come from a person who didn't graduate from high school. There's no doubt that you're in fact a scientist. Lolololool
"What field of science are you in?"
Computer science.
I am a volunteer in a very large program to map Mars. Thousands of photographs have been taken, the photos have been processed, but I am one who examines such images to identify features software is not capable of identifying.
It will be long after I am dead, but I will have contributed to man's understanding of Mars. And if we colonize that planet one day, I have contributed to the advancement of mankind. My contribution is exceptionally minor, but it is still a contribution of my personal time for a greater goal.
And when my computer is idle, I am running another science related program that is part of a huge distributed computing effort.
So what do you do on your spare time, drink beer and read Guns & Ammo magazine?
Plausibility?
Is it plausible that a deity would punish you for a thought crime that you have no control over?
Hang on, define your version of 'plausible' and then maybe I'll understand, because I don't think you know what that word means.
"Plausibility?"
Yeah, do you know what the word means?
"Is it plausible that a deity would punish you for a thought crime that you have no control over?"
That's not the topic of this thread. That being said, what thoughts are going on in your mind that you have no control over?
"Hang on, define your version of 'plausible'"
It's the dictionary definition of plausible.
Ah, it seems myusernamekthx has been banned.
I notice that there is some diversity of opinion amongst members here in regards the themes raised in the OP, so I hope that despite the banning of the thread starter, there can still be some fruitful discussions about a perennial topic that has been considered of profound importance although probably has no practical significance whatsoever.
Pages