^^^
Perry proves he's not completely retarded. LOL
Too bad he's clinging to a theory that is contrary to all current evidence. Sad.
Stoicism vs. Materialism
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Perry proves he's not completely retarded. LOL
Too bad he's clinging to a theory that is contrary to all current evidence. Sad.
Exactly the point.
The fact that there seems to be an origin point highlights that the observable universe requires an explanation as to why it happened.
Technically, what happened 13.8 billion years ago was the sudden inflation and expansion of the universe. If the universe was compressed to Planck density prior to that, we don't know how long it existed, because anything at Planck density is beyond our knowledge of physics.
Regardless, it is quite correct to say that the energy and complex matter we see in the universe today is a result of the hot Big Bang 13.8 billion years before present.
Agreed. It also points out the limitations of our language; how do we describe something that happened "before" time began? Yes, the Primordial Atom could have existed for eternity before exploding, but why explode? That, by itself, suggests a "causal factor".
The cause might be beyond our chimpanzee brains to actually comprehend
Frogs can't do long division. Bonobos can't due calculus. There's no reason to believe our brains aren't limited as well.
But we can't throw up our hands and give up. I agree that from our perspective, there was a casual event that caused the big bang and resulted in the rational mathmatical organization we see all around the universe
Limited, yes, but unlike our fellow cousins, humans have the ability to look forward and plan ahead. Including building machines that might do the work. There's a risk that the human race will become the equivalent of Shelley's Dr. Frankenstein and AI our monster, but how else to move forward?
Yakuda
Verified User
So you find a pencil on the side walk and you think the pencil just happened?
This is where the Aquinan "First uncaused cause" ultimately fails. If one proposes an initial cause of the universe then one must pre-suppose something existing outside of and before time. The question then arises what was the origin of THAT THING which caused the origin of the Universe?
This is kind of why this whole topic is nothing but mental masturbation since it really can't be known one way or the other (at least as we understand it now). So when someone proposes that the universe has always existed in some state of inflation/deflation it is no more or less explanatory than "there is some intelligence who designed it and set it into motion". From whence did that intelligence come? What was its origin?
If one believes NOT in some "intelligence" behind the universe then one must STILL come up with an origin for the antecedent of the universe. It's an infinite regress that really can't be solved per se.
If ANYTHING is best approached from an AGNOSTIC POV (per Huxley's original definition), it could best be applied to the origins of the universe. There is likely no way to ever know what is or isn't the origin and as Hawking noted asking what happened "before time" is very close to a meaningless question.
Yakuda
Verified User
Well the dilemma isn't Aquinas to fix. The FACT is nothing creates itself yet here we are. So something or someone outside not space and time had to exist. Now as crazy as that idea may be to you its no where near as finding a pencil and thinking, it just happened, yet that's the alternative argument. Or my other favorite argument, it's nature. Lol that one cracks me up almost as much as multiverse.
But the universe is a "special case". Just like Guanilo's critique of Anselm, it doesn't really apply.
The core question is always going to be: where did the predicate come from? That's how it will ALWAYS play out.
Yakuda
Verified User
I agree that there's a certain logic to observing the lawfulness and mathmatical organization of the universe, a believing it reflects a rational organizing principle, because nothing like that is expected to happen by accident.
On the other hand, our knowledge of reality is still extremely limited, and I don't necessarily think our only two options are it happened by chance, or it happened by some sort of rational agency. There could be aspects of reality we don't understand, or may never comprehend which is related to origin of the big bang
Yakuda
Verified User
Oh course you agree it's demonstrably true.
So you're saying since our knowledge is limited then anything we could possibly conjure up to explain the holes in our knowledge might be true.
We barely understand 5 percent of what is in the universe - atomic matter and conventional energy - and even some of that knowledge is subject to speculation or revision.
We don't have any tangible knowledge about what the other 95 percent of the universe.
Anyone who tells you we have enough knowledge of reality to be 100 percent certain we can nail the origin of the big bang done to two general possibilities is not steeped in the scope of human knowledge.
The fact the Universe is orderly and has understandable rules, even if we don't know or understand them all, does give credence to a creative force behind its existence.
OTOH, looking at the Infinite Monkey Theorem, if an infinite number of universes were created, then some would make sense, such as ours, while others would be gibberish, rules that don't work. DEAD. There'd be everything in between such as some that struggled along before failing.
While that doesn't answer the question "Is there a creator?" it does point out that our Universe may not be unique simply because it works. We might simply have been lucky, not "blessed". Random chance vs. deliberate action.
Simulator
https://tennessine.co.uk/monkey/
It's not an unrealistic position. But it is also a position that holds zero value by any metric. Just because something is not shown to be impossible does not mean it is even marginally likely. This would be like some sort of inverse of "God of the Gaps".
I find a lot of people take the "weirdness" science presents and use it to justify whatever their imagination allows. It's why "quantum" is so popular in the New Age movement. It leverages something no one really groks on a fundamental level to justify whatever woo woo beliefs feel good to the believer. Does NOT mean that they are wrong, but also doesn't mean they are right either.
When it comes to origins of the universe I honestly cannot think of a way to know the real answer. As such any answer is just as good as another. And all are equally valueless.
I think the multiverse is a wonderful thought experiment.
But I tend to not favor explanations that require us to get extremely lucky and win the lottery, so to speak.
It's possible that someday we might find a universal principle that shows the natural laws and universal constants can't be any other way than the way they are. The problem with that is it doesn't rule out a purposeful organizing principle underlying reality.
I agree with you that there is a kind of logic in believing there is rational or purposeful agency to the lawfulness of the cosmos. I can't laugh that off as a possibility.
Yakuda
Verified User
Completely irrelevant.
No one but you had even hinted that anyone knows 100% about anything. What's illogical is to observe the extreme complexity and precision of the universe and suggest it just happened or wasn't designed. If we found a pencil on the ground and had no idea what it was or how it was used we couldn't conclude it just appeared. Maybe we could conclude that but wed be wrong and we are smarter then that even though we understand very little of what is.
So where did the designer come from?
I've never said I favor the idea that the lawfulness and organization of the universe happened to blink into existence by random chance.
That seems highly unlikely to me.
An underlying rational organizing principle is one type of reasonable approach to the question.
I also think there might be other possibilities for the origin of reality our chimpanzee brains can't concieve of. Orangutans can't do integral calculus, and there may also be some upper bound on the human brain to concieve and formulate abstract or transcendental concepts.