It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Explain How and Why the Universe Exists

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, ignoring facts is not wisdom or love of it. It is love of ignorance. Which we deny. Philo Sophia.

This sniper enjoys that no scope game.


If you want to be a sniper matey, Learn to shoot then learn to aim.
You have nothing

The op asked for phililosophy or the reason everything exists
Keep up


As I already said, there is no reason and we are not owed an explanation. I know that's painful for the ego to accept but it doesn't change the facts. There is no reason so invent a purpose to be alive or get busy dying.




posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, ignoring facts is not wisdom or love of it. It is love of ignorance. Which we deny. Philo Sophia.

This sniper enjoys that no scope game.


If you want to be a sniper matey, Learn to shoot then learn to aim.
You have nothing

The op asked for phililosophy or the reason everything exists
Keep up


As I already said, there is no reason and we are not owed an explanation. I know that's painful for the ego to accept but it doesn't change the facts. There is no reason so invent a purpose to be alive or get busy dying.


WRONG AGAIN CZAR! - Purpose is for the intelligent - lack of purpose is for the roaches who hate the light.

Troll all the the posts you want - but you will not block intelligence or the universe from continuing to unfold.


“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein



“There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
― Albert Einstein



“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
― Albert Einstein



“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.”
― Albert Einstein



“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
― Albert Einstein



“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.

—"Old Man's Advice to Youth: 'Never Lose a Holy Curiosity.'" LIFE Magazine (2 May 1955) p. 64”
― Albert Einstein



“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”
― Albert Einstein



posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I matter to God.

Jesus? I matter, well, even more in a way.

And all those people 'recorded before me' - they matter too.

It's not crap, it's not hope.

Jesus is a fact.

And let me pass on one more fact.

There are no atheists in hell - and no, you're not 'crap out of luck' until you land there.

Which I pray you will not.



posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

A fact is a thing that is known or proven to be true.

Show me the evidence please?

If I'm a good person, and try and do more right than wrong, whilst playing the cards that im delt.

I don't imagine i have much to worry about.



posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake
Only what is actually occuring is true.... what else is there??



posted on Oct, 7 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

Another argument is that earth won a cosmic lottery.

In other words, it was by chance, luck, coincidence. It's not really another argument because they are often mentioned together with the phrase (by) 'chance and necessity' (of course that's 2 slightly different causes, but they are often used together like that to refer to an explanation born out of a desire to adhere to philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, they both boil down to 'Nature did it', i.e. 'it's the product/effect of a mindless process' as opposed to purposeful design and creation). My response was primarily about the 'necessity' ("inevitable") part of that argument.

The evidence (the observed facts) however do not support or fit the conclusion that it was 'by chance', a coincidence (in spite of your examples proposed as being evidence for this, but I already know you aren't interested in finding out why, but more interested in seeing your examples as 'evidence that supports it', so I won't go through it in detail again). No matter how often the poor analogy of winning a lottery is used, just because people can be fooled into thinking that it's as easy and inevitable as someone winning a lottery. From the article I quoted from earlier:

...
Either the human mind, with its quest for understanding, was put in place by a superior intelligence, or it arose randomly. Which of these two possibilities seems more reasonable to you?

Another Explanation?

Science, indeed, has told us much about how the cosmos, the world, and living organisms work. For some people, the more science tells us, “the more improbable our existence seems.” Improbable, that is, if our being here were merely a product of evolution [whereislogic: or the product of chance, a coincidence, a mindless process]. However, to use the words of science writer John Horgan, “reality seems awfully designed and, in some ways, too good to be here through pure chance.” Physicist Freeman Dyson similarly commented: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.” [whereislogic: of course, the universe can't know things, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator often attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces, or the "universe" in this case. The way Stephen Hawking does when he's talking about the universe creating itself, apparently when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything, let alone create itself; creating the universe being a godlike power.]

In view of the evidence​—complexity in nature, fine-tuning, apparent design, and human consciousness—​would it not be logical at least to consider the possibility of the existence of a Creator? [whereislogic: I know the OP also doesn't seem to want people here to do that, but don't let him stop you from considering the obvious seriously, perhaps for the first time in your life. Without grasping for straws, straw men, circular reasoning, "wishful speculations" and cop-out excuses to dismiss this potential conclusion, or the mere possibility alltogether; because of the unspecified "principle" quoted in the video below. See full quotation from Franklin M. Harold in the video below regarding my quotation marks used there and Michael Behe's commentary about it up till at least 39:28. Don't want to have to spell everything out.]

Want to see how someone is using the phrase "chance and necessity" in this context? The subject below is the origin of life and its machinery components rather than the origin of the universe though. It's in the quotation of Franklin M. Harold at 30:54 below (arguing against the conclusion of design while making an interesting admission regarding the topic of evolution, or evolutionary philosophies/ideas, stories and mythology, i.e. "wishful speculations" as he puts it, "just-so stories" as Behe puts it, 'maybe-so stories' as I would put it depending on how they are proposed according to what South Park appropiately refers to as the Agnostic Code that promotes ignorance, or the behaviour of conveniently feigning ignorance and denying everything so that one can continue to tell themselves that they are ignorant of the truth of the matter; as expressed in the phrase 'we don't know for sure/certain'):

edit on 8-10-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, ignoring facts is not wisdom or love of it. It is love of ignorance. Which we deny. Philo Sophia.

This sniper enjoys that no scope game.


If you want to be a sniper matey, Learn to shoot then learn to aim.
You have nothing

The op asked for phililosophy or the reason everything exists
Keep up


As I already said, there is no reason and we are not owed an explanation. I know that's painful for the ego to accept but it doesn't change the facts. There is no reason so invent a purpose to be alive or get busy dying.


I am not you tc, I was asked by the op re a philosophical question about the reason we exist
I gave mine

I have a reason, Jesus was clear. I believe we are to look after each other
Get over yourself, you are not everybody, your opinion is not mine

I am not forcing you to believe anything, it’s your choice

As you already said is irrelevant to me, thanks anyway

Believe or not, it’s up to you, it was my opinion



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
In view of the evidence​...​would it not be logical at least to consider the possibility of the existence of a Creator?
...
See full quotation from Franklin M. Harold in the video below regarding my quotation marks used there and Michael Behe's commentary about it up till at least 39:28.

Keypoints in Behe's response regarding the topic I was talking about there (the unspecified "principle") at 32:43 - 34:50. But the rest is relevant regarding the contrast between inductive reasoning with this unspecified "principle" being adhered to and conflated with the label "science" or "the scientific method". Which I earlier described at the start of my comment as "a desire to adhere to philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism", boiling down to "Nature did it" as opposed to purposeful design and creation.

'Nature did it, no matter what the evidence shows or is pointing towards.' 'Screw the evidence, we're just going to say: "It's not science; it's not following the scientific method. It's religious propaganda."' 'We won't even consider it, "a Creator", design and creation, as a viable scientific causal explanation.' That's the general idea and way of thinking here used by philosophical naturalists in their attempts to conflate their philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism*, with "science" and "the scientific method" respectively. *: their 'Nature did it'. Note the response from David Berlinski about that "principle" or way of thinking, attitude towards the argument of induction regarding design and creation, shortly after 3:26:

"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses." (Isaac Newton)

And certainly not evaded by appeals to logically invalid so-called 'principles', that only demonstrates the irrational nature of their excessively arrogant and prideful bias in favor of 'Nature did it'. It must be sold as "science" no matter what the evidence actually shows or is pointing towards, while the argument of induction regarding design and creation (and the logically required minimum of 1 creator with all its logical requirements for the act of creating, corresponding to what exactly was created), must be labeled "not science" as often as people will listen. Basically turning the situation upside-down. Labeling "science/knowledge" (a familiarity with facts) as "not science" and labeling logically impossible and sometimes contradictory "wishful speculations" and 'maybe-so stories' as "science". I call it doing the Isaiah 5:20,21-thingy (especially when one considers the related arrogant prideful behaviour that I mentioned as well, discussed in verse 21, and demonstrated by anyone who argues like Franklin M. Harold does there).

Isaiah 5:20,21

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,
Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,
Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes
And discreet in their own sight!

edit on 8-10-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

Another argument is that earth won a cosmic lottery.

In other words, it was by chance, luck, coincidence. It's not really another argument because they are often mentioned together with the phrase (by) 'chance and necessity' (of course that's 2 slightly different causes, but they are often used together like that to refer to an explanation born out of a desire to adhere to philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism, they both boil down to 'Nature did it', i.e. 'it's the product/effect of a mindless process' as opposed to purposeful design and creation). My response was primarily about the 'necessity' ("inevitable") part of that argument.

The evidence (the observed facts) however do not support or fit the conclusion that it was 'by chance', a coincidence (in spite of your examples proposed as being evidence for this, but I already know you aren't interested in finding out why, but more interested in seeing your examples as 'evidence that supports it', so I won't go through it in detail again). No matter how often the poor analogy of winning a lottery is used, just because people can be fooled into thinking that it's as easy and inevitable as someone winning a lottery. From the article I quoted from earlier:

...
Either the human mind, with its quest for understanding, was put in place by a superior intelligence, or it arose randomly. Which of these two possibilities seems more reasonable to you?

Another Explanation?

Science, indeed, has told us much about how the cosmos, the world, and living organisms work. For some people, the more science tells us, “the more improbable our existence seems.” Improbable, that is, if our being here were merely a product of evolution [whereislogic: or the product of chance, a coincidence, a mindless process]. However, to use the words of science writer John Horgan, “reality seems awfully designed and, in some ways, too good to be here through pure chance.” Physicist Freeman Dyson similarly commented: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.” [whereislogic: of course, the universe can't know things, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator often attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces, or the "universe" in this case. The way Stephen Hawking does when he's talking about the universe creating itself, apparently when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything, let alone create itself; creating the universe being a godlike power.]

In view of the evidence​—complexity in nature, fine-tuning, apparent design, and human consciousness—​would it not be logical at least to consider the possibility of the existence of a Creator? [whereislogic: I know the OP also doesn't seem to want people here to do that, but don't let him stop you from considering the obvious seriously, perhaps for the first time in your life. Without grasping for straws, straw men, circular reasoning, "wishful speculations" and cop-out excuses to dismiss this potential conclusion, or the mere possibility alltogether; because of the unspecified "principle" quoted in the video below. See full quotation from Franklin M. Harold in the video below regarding my quotation marks used there and Michael Behe's commentary about it up till at least 39:28. Don't want to have to spell everything out.]

Want to see how someone is using the phrase "chance and necessity" in this context? The subject below is the origin of life and its machinery components rather than the origin of the universe though. It's in the quotation of Franklin M. Harold at 30:54 below (arguing against the conclusion of design while making an interesting admission regarding the topic of evolution, or evolutionary philosophies/ideas, stories and mythology, i.e. "wishful speculations" as he puts it, "just-so stories" as Behe puts it, 'maybe-so stories' as I would put it depending on how they are proposed according to what South Park appropiately refers to as the Agnostic Code that promotes ignorance, or the behaviour of conveniently feigning ignorance and denying everything so that one can continue to tell themselves that they are ignorant of the truth of the matter; as expressed in the phrase 'we don't know for sure/certain'):


I have no interest in watching a video. If you can't explain it in your own words, then it's not a very good video.

And nothing you said disproved the cosmic lottery idea I suggested. A whole lot of semantic quibbling and nothing else. What was I expecting really. In fact no one here has explained "why" the universe exists except to put the human race at the very center of it. The universe exists because we needed a place to live. And that's all. No other reason. Just a convenient vast unfriendly ocean for some mad genius alien to store its tiny ant farm island in for safe keeping. Am I reading this correctly?
edit on 8-10-2019 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm
The assumption is that there is some thing called 'universe'.

The one unfolding is not a thing.... it is alone/all one.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Double post


edit on 8-10-2019 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
In view of the evidence​...​would it not be logical at least to consider the possibility of the existence of a Creator?

"Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses." (Isaac Newton)

And certainly not evaded by appeals to logically invalid so-called 'principles', that only demonstrates the irrational nature of their excessively arrogant and prideful bias in favor of 'Nature did it'. It must be sold as "science" no matter what the evidence actually shows or is pointing towards, while the argument of induction regarding design and creation (and the logically required minimum of 1 creator with all its logical requirements for the act of creating, corresponding to what exactly was created), must be labeled "not science" as often as people will listen. Basically turning the situation upside-down. Labeling "science/knowledge" (a familiarity with facts) as "not science" and labeling logically impossible and sometimes contradictory "wishful speculations" and 'maybe-so stories' as "science". I call it doing the Isaiah 5:20,21-thingy (especially when one considers the related arrogant prideful behaviour that I mentioned as well, discussed in verse 21, and demonstrated by anyone who argues like Franklin M. Harold does there).

Isaiah 5:20,21

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,
Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,
Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes
And discreet in their own sight!


So, basically, your answer to the OP's question is that a god of some sort brought the whole of physical reality into actual existence.

Okay.

So, what brought that god [or whatever it is] into actual existence? Or are you one that embraces the impossible claim of infinite regression? Keep in mind that if this is your stance, then your board name [whereislogic] suggests that you don't actually believe that logic exists at all. The physical existence of a beginning-less anything whatsoever violates the fundamentals of logic, and the employment of pseudo-logical semantics cannot eliminate that one unalterable dialectic that separates logical argument from any assertion of the existence of a purpose-driven creator entity that brought the whole of physical reality into actual existence.

The OP's question was a good one in that it certainly revealed the fact that - at least [it seems] within this community - unless the answer is "god did it", "the universe doesn't really exist", or "no one can ever know that answer", there's no answer that can be offered that will be taken into consideration. Kinda sad actually.

I've spent years being amazed at the rigidity of both sides [secular and nonsecular] of this debate. Our poor, muddled species is nowhere near emerging from the prison of its self-imposed intellectual dark age. We confuse intellectual adventurism with enlightenment, and anoint our most aggressive speculators as transcendent masters.

All that said, the clues we need to solve these kinds of otherwise intractable mysteries are all around us, with nothing that is impossible to discern if we simply approach each question with no level of cultural predetermination. Obviously, easier said than done.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I said creation is an act of love. I didn't say the creation loves unconditionally.

The creation is corrupting itself with the freedom we've been given, look what WE have done. Yet nature, without us, is still in perfect harmony..... Weird eh.

God is good, we are not.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster

So, what brought that god [or whatever it is] into actual existence?

If something or someone was brought into existence, then that would mean it or that person hasn't always existed, right?

Is that an obvious logical consequence to you?



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Light for the most part. Much of what we see was gone long ago.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Light for the most part. Much of what we see was gone long ago.


The sun proves otherwise.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

And the observable universe proves sligtlyskepticals point.

Our Sun is just one of many, a grain of sand on the beach that is the universe.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

I don't know how and why the universe exists. In fact I don't see any possible way I could ever know how and why the universe exists.

You know what, I'm ok with that. I'm fully understanding, and cognizant of the fact I cannot possibly know or have the answer to everything. I've very much come to terms with this lack of knowledge, and see no benefit or reason why, in absence of that knowledge, I must make up some answer to fill the void.

Religion and science both fail at answering this question, as it's most likely an unanswerable question. Science forever tests, and religion just makes # up and stubbornly insists it's right.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: NorEaster

So, what brought that god [or whatever it is] into actual existence?

If something or someone was brought into existence, then that would mean it or that person hasn't always existed, right?

Is that an obvious logical consequence to you?


The logical dilemma that infinite regress presents has been well known and well examined for quite some time. I'm not alone in my rejection of beginning-less physical existence. So, yes, I have good reason to reject the notion of a creator being that was not ever brought into physical existence.

That said, where the claim of an eternally existent creator clashes logically with its employment as a "first cause" source for what's emerged and evolved into the physical realm that we are all integral to is the equally critical logical requirement that for any actor, agency, or ramification structure [default or otherwise] to be physically capable of influencing, affecting, or initiating a physical environment of any kind whatsoever, that actor, agency, or ramification structure must share [or be the direct result of] a common foundational substrate with said environment. That's not a requirement that can be dismissed or worked around.

In other words, the creating/initiating factor [or factor confluence] must be physically compatible with what has been created/initiated. Now, that doesn't mean that it must be materially based, but it does mean that it cannot possess a being state that is not compatible with the being state of what's been created or initiated.

A forever existent anything inherently possesses a being state that is not compatible with the Relative Being State [this existing relative to that], and it's very clear that we - and everything else that exists alongside us - exist relative to everything else that also exists in a fully identifiable manner. This is the fundamental definition of physical existence; it existing relative to that which is not it.

A truly infinitely existent something [that which could - or does - possess an absolute being state existence] does not [cannot] logically exist relative to anything else, since being state is the foundational substructure of any existent anything. Logically, the obvious existence of the Relative Being State makes the Absolute Being State [the required being state of anything that possesses truly infinite properties of any sort] impossible, but the foundational nature of being state also clashes directly with any claims of physical engagement between any actors, agencies, or ramification structures that do not directly share a common being state.

And, that's not a property restriction that can be overturned by intellectualism regardless of how brilliantly presented.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




Religion and science both fail at answering this question, as it's most likely an unanswerable question. Science forever tests, and religion just makes # up and stubbornly insists it's right.

Science has a stab at understanding at least ie, the big bang theory. Abrahamic religions just believe their god puts a light on and off at will not even explaining our own solar system while, the Vedas read like an early George Lucas script of Star Wars not explaining much of anything but no Ewoks.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join