In the beggining.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2012, 06:00 AM
RE: In the beggining.....
I just registered to reply to this thread, and maybe I'll stay around a bit, so first of all HI!! Tongue

about the centre of the universe issue, the other day I saw a video of Neil DeGrasse Tyson in which he explained it (if I find the video I'll post it) basically he said that everything is in the centre of the universe, because everything was in the centre at the big bang, it seems weird, but we have to understand that the galaxies and everything is not moving away from each other, is the space itself what is expanding hence making the same amount of matter and energy occupy a bigger volume, and thus being further from each other. This means it's no directionality on the rift, it's going in every direction at the same time with no fixed point of reference.

about the beginning thingy... it's a conundrum, and I think the main problem is the Münchhausen trilema, this guy Münchhausen said that there is no way a premiss can be proven completely truth, and we always will fall in one of three possible outcomes, either we fall into a infinte regression, a circular reasoning or a axiomatic argument.
This can be observed in both science and religion, in religion we have an axiomatic argument: everything came from god period. God doesn't need to be proven as it's a fundamental principle. But science also falls into this problems, the big bang theory in the most simple way is also an axiom, the alternatives tend to fall in the other two arguments, what came before the big bang is going back into infinity and nobody will ever see the end of it. The idea of a bouncing universe, big bang then big crunch then big bang and so on is a circular reasoning.
My bet is in an axiomatic reasoning, is the only thing that can be proven (if some first moment ever existed that is) and it seems the most realistic in my mind, I think, and this is only my opinion, is that we make a mistake by assuming that the natural state of things is the nothingness, like something must come out from nothing, and that may not be the case, I believe, that there are two options, either things exist and that's it or there is some intermediate state, some sort of potential state of things in which things aren't but can be or something like that... but that may be just my sleepiness talking Tongue

Whatever is the case, sadly we still don't have any evidence or clue about how things started (if they did) and that will be the last outpost of religion once science figures everything else out.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like nach_in's post
18-02-2012, 06:51 AM
RE: In the beggining.....
Gwynnie did it! Tongue

Causality: entropy determines the arrow of time. We are processors of sequence evolved along the arrow. That's about it. Philosophical causality is a horse's ass, only good for determining agenda.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
18-02-2012, 10:15 AM
RE: In the beggining.....
(18-02-2012 06:51 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Gwynnie did it! Tongue

Causality: entropy determines the arrow of time. We are processors of sequence evolved along the arrow. That's about it. Philosophical causality is a horse's ass, only good for determining agenda.

I know she expands my universe.

Hey-Oh!!!



Oh, and Welcome, Nach! Great first post. Smile

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2012, 12:45 PM
RE: In the beggining.....
(18-02-2012 06:00 AM)nach_in Wrote:  My bet is in an axiomatic reasoning, is the only thing that can be proven (if some first moment ever existed that is) and it seems the most realistic in my mind, I think, and this is only my opinion, is that we make a mistake by assuming that the natural state of things is the nothingness, like something must come out from nothing, and that may not be the case, I believe, that there are two options, either things exist and that's it or there is some intermediate state, some sort of potential state of things in which things aren't but can be or something like that... but that may be just my sleepiness talking Tongue

Whatever is the case, sadly we still don't have any evidence or clue about how things started (if they did) and that will be the last outpost of religion once science figures everything else out.

Nice post and welcome to the forum Big Grin

(18-02-2012 06:51 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Gwynnie did it! Tongue

Case closed Big Grin

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
18-02-2012, 08:30 PM
RE: In the beggining.....
(18-02-2012 12:45 PM)bemore Wrote:  
(18-02-2012 06:51 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Gwynnie did it! Tongue

Case closed Big Grin

The only way philosophical causality calculates - Exodus 3:14 tell them, I am that I am

Black hole without, white hole within; we, too, the Schwarzschild Proton. All philosophical causality reduces to I; last thing that means is that I is everything. Rather one is closest to zero, the lower you go, the farther you see. Me and my Gwynnies once nursed baby universes. It was a day. Wink

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
22-02-2012, 12:24 PM
RE: In the beggining.....
(06-02-2012 02:25 PM)free2011 Wrote:  This is where the Consmological Argument of first cause drives me nuts. They can say the Universe had to have a cause but won't accept that by this logic their creator also had to have a cause. Oh, I forgot, He's beyond space and time. Shoot they got me again.

.

lol, and then theist actually have the nerve to say, "it doesn't apply to god becuse he is GOD! he does not have to adhere to the rules he sets" and some how they think this is logical intelligent thinking.

Give a man a fish ,you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish ,you feed him for a life time,give a man religion,he will die praying for a fish
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: