shimmyjimmy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2014, 05:00 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 04:56 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  all the answers can be found within this universe.

But the answer FOR the universe?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:02 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Do you think adding God to the mix gets us somewhere in answering that question? If so, why?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:02 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:00 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 04:56 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  all the answers can be found within this universe.

But the answer FOR the universe?

Within this universe. We need to define the universe as everything that we can see and also cannot see. We need to come up with questions and answers regarding it as a single system.

Otherwise we are just trying to evade the difficult questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:05 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:02 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 05:00 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  But the answer FOR the universe?

Within this universe. We need to define the universe as everything that we can see and also cannot see. We need to come up with questions and answers regarding it as a single system.

Otherwise we are just trying to evade the difficult questions.

Okay, so you assume the answer for the cause of the universe lies withing the universe, correct? But what if it doesn't? Or rather, what if it does, can it still not have been caused by what I am suggesting it was caused by?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:15 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
I think you are missing Mathilda's point: That by definition all things that exist are members of set U, the universe. The big bang is a member of U. The cause of the big bang is a member of U. If there exists a cause for a subset of U then that cause is by definition also part of U. If you define God into existence, it is part of U. God cannot be the solution for "what is the cause of U", as any cause for any member of U must itself be a member of U.

This is the core question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe instead of no universe? Why isn't the universe an empty set? Adding a god to the mix doesn't solve anything. It just adds another thing whose existence we must justify. Adding a god to the mix doesn't answer the question. It makes the question more difficult to answer.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
11-03-2014, 05:16 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
Wot hafnof sez.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:21 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:15 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I think you are missing Mathilda's point: That by definition all things that exist are members of set U, the universe. The big bang is a member of U. The cause of the big bang is a member of U. If there exists a cause for a subset of U then that cause is by definition also part of U. If you define God into existence, it is part of U. God cannot be the solution for "what is the cause of U", as any cause for any member of U must itself be a member of U.

This is the core question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe instead of no universe? Why isn't the universe an empty set? Adding a god to the mix doesn't solve anything. It just adds another thing whose existence we must justify. Adding a god to the mix doesn't answer the question. It makes the question more difficult to answer.

You'd be making an assumption, just as I am, regarding the nature of a supposed God or whatever may have caused the universe.

And I don't much care if something makes the question more difficult to answer, because there is nothing to suggest that any such profound questions must not be difficult (or more difficult than otherwise thought) to answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:30 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
I would be making an assumption that if the god exists he exists? Do you know what definitions mean? Do you understand what sets are?

Making something more difficult doesn't mean that thing is false, but you are presenting God as a solution to the existence of the universe... but all this achieves is to pose the more difficult question of where God comes from. Your suggestion of a God causing the universe has no basis, no explanatory power, and takes us further from an explanation as to why the universe exists. So why make the argument?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
11-03-2014, 05:34 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:30 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I would be making an assumption that if the god exists he exists? Do you know what definitions mean? Do you understand what sets are?

Making something more difficult doesn't mean that thing is false, but you are presenting God as a solution to the existence of the universe... but all this achieves is to pose the more difficult question of where God comes from. Your suggestion of a God causing the universe has no basis, no explanatory power, and takes us further from an explanation as to why the universe exists. So why make the argument?


It doesn't take us farther from explaining the cause of the universe anymore than the idea of Gods didn't took us further from discovering gravity (or anything else for that matter).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 05:41 AM
RE: shimmyjimmy
(11-03-2014 05:21 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(11-03-2014 05:15 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I think you are missing Mathilda's point: That by definition all things that exist are members of set U, the universe. The big bang is a member of U. The cause of the big bang is a member of U. If there exists a cause for a subset of U then that cause is by definition also part of U. If you define God into existence, it is part of U. God cannot be the solution for "what is the cause of U", as any cause for any member of U must itself be a member of U.

This is the core question: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe instead of no universe? Why isn't the universe an empty set? Adding a god to the mix doesn't solve anything. It just adds another thing whose existence we must justify. Adding a god to the mix doesn't answer the question. It makes the question more difficult to answer.

You'd be making an assumption, just as I am, regarding the nature of a supposed God or whatever may have caused the universe.


Assuming that the we should treat the set U as everything means that it gives us a means with which to carry out further investigation to increase our understanding.

Assuming that there is something outside of U means that we are saying that we should not bother investigating or even asking questions. We should accept whatever cultural fantasy most appeals to us regardless of whether it is correct or not.

If you choose the latter, then just admit this to be so, have faith and choose whatever fantasy you want. If you can't do this, in the same way that adults can no longer believe in Santa Claus, then the first assumption is the only one to make if you are going to be sincere in your beliefs otherwise you are deliberately fooling yourself.


(11-03-2014 05:21 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  And I don't much care if something makes the question more difficult to answer, because there is nothing to suggest that any such profound questions must not be difficult (or more difficult than otherwise thought) to answer.

This does not make sense. The ultimate aim is to find the correct answer yes? Or as close to it as possible. In which case why would you choose to make it more difficult for yourself when it is difficult enough as it is?

As an example. The correct answer is "Santa Claus does not exist".

A child with very little knowledge of physics may ask how Santa Claus manages to travel around the world delivering presents in a single night. The assumption being that Santa Claus exists. This assumption makes it more difficult for the child to arrive at the correct answer and they start evoking magic, which by its very definition cannot be explained.

Another child may constrain their reasoning to evidence that is available. This child will find it easier to get to the correct answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: