Why does the universe exist at all?

[Gary]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
In short, no it isn't. It's why the inflation theory was brought in to solve the Horizon problem.

Speed is just an internal measure of course, to use it in relation to the universe as an expanding "bubble" is fraught with problems.

Ah, thanks. The reason I ask is that the prevailing belief seems to be in favour of a "Big Bang" start to the universe, when it seems also agreed it had a 'very small' volume. Also that this "Big Bang" occurred a finite time ago. Putting these 2 things together I was wondering why folk suggested that the universe could be infinite since to achieve infinite size within a finite time presumably requires infinite expansion speed. Which won't be the case if it doesn't even achieve light speed.

(In fact the speed of expansion also gives me problems visualising the idea that light from far away objects indicate what was happening in the far past : far enough and you are looking at near the start of creation. If light from these objects travels faster than the universe expands, then shouldn't have it reached here ages ago ? After all when the universe was an inch diameter anything going light speed would cross the whole distance in 'next to no time'. But that's another topic.)

[Saras]

[child of Thor]

So is an aethist scared of the possibility of there being a creator?
And good posts Whaleboy - when my brain stopped melting at the phrases i was enjoying them

But i'm not afraid of your hypothesis - i think we need to understand that all paths lead to 'god', whatever god may be(could be pure science and relitivism/could be an 'intelligent designer').

what do you think on Sir Martin Rees's take on the universe being too highly tuned for 'chance' to be a mathmatical possibiltiy of creation ever happening?

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/what_we_still_dont_know/textonly/to_arewereal.html#a3

One of the problems imho with taking an absolute stance either for or against either an intelligent creator or a pure chance/evolution method for the universes existence, is that it can shut you off from maybe the chance to understand.

My opinion is that i don't know the answer, as we all cant know the answer. But in our struggle through our lives it doesn't hurt to ponder on it from time to time - its quite fun and probably helps us become better human beings.

That for me is one of the stronger reasons why i think the universe and ourselves exist

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Ah but what I'm suggesting is that he wouldn't ask the question of being alive, and the consequent questions of the meaning of life etc, firstly because of the lack of language, secondly because the lack of a sociological context that thirdly leads to a notion of "life" and "alive". His perceptions would, like a feral child, be animalistic, like a very young child who knows no language.

Regardless the question in the social context the desire for life is. I understand what you are saying but it does not need to be in any context as desire for life is self- evident.

True. It is used as an indictment of atheism by the theists, however I don't think that stands up. I think that it is an interesting conclusion of atheism that follows if you accept the premises of atheism in a scientific fashion as opposed to a political fashion.

It depends on how much you believe in who and what you are. Are you made of the same substance as the universe?

True, but in the situation of our man on the island, his responses would be autonomic and animalistic, the fight-or-flight response that is necessary to the survival of his genome. I doubt very much that one expends much conscious energy in such a situation thinking of the philosophical implications of the predator, and the distinction between ones life and non-life, let alone the distinction between life and non-life of any others. In any case, the reaction between you or I, and our hypothetical man when faced with the same situation would probably not be very different.

That is very true sir. That is my point exactly, all life holds life to be precious in and of itself.

I would take issue with that, I assumed you meant in terms of our consciousnesses. In a metaphysical sense then, the universe is because of a desire of a presumed creator? I'm afraid I can't see how that would boil down to anything more than the First Cause argument, and fall to its standard refutations. You might find more use here by looking into causality, in other words asking the question "does the whole require a cause?" The whole in this case would be necessary, composed of entirely contingent objects. Reminds me of the debate between Russell and Copleston, and with our understanding of chaos theory and determinism, I think Russell's position here is far stronger. That is to say of course, that the question itself "does the whole require a cause" is absurd, and the consequences are infinitely too demanding of the human experience.

I did mean in terms of your consciousness. That is all that can be known or experienced. Anything else is pure conjecture.
You like Occom`s Razor and so do I. It is better than a truth table. We know certain truths as absolute. All other perceptions are discernable and conceptualized from the fundamental truths that are the lowest denominator.

1- I exist
2- I experience
3- My experience is in a state of flux( you have never had an identical meal, day, or experience)
4- I desire to be or to live

If you build on these basic truths, it leads you to the conclusion of the absolute truth of all existence.
Bold statement I know; tis true non the less.

But what of altruism to egoistic ends, where altruism may be better for the individual in given situations?

The pre - programming of win/lose is inferior to the true paradigm of by the means of win/win. The highest form of existence can be found when all sides win either through compromise, sharing, or sacrifice.
Matters not the situation, including the Middle East.

Intriguing idea... that we are all individual macrocosms? Would you say then that we are necessary in the "cogito ergo sum" sense, or that the universe is contingent as a result?

I would say you are the model without projecting into 'others'. I have found as soon as the concept is projected it breaks down. "To lose oneself, to find oneself" - as the scripture said.
Yes the universe is because I is . The question "does the universe exist apart from me?" How could that be?
In the process of dialectic through a socratic method.

Tis true. It's like the idea of the artificial model of God that we all carry suggests... to quote from the Simpsons,
"Some of us prefer illusion to despair".

And who can argue with that?

I am not so sure it is artificial, that would mean I and my reality are a cheap imitation.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by child of Thor
So is an aethist scared of the possibility of there being a creator?

Not this one. What's to be scared of ?

[Heresson]

Why does the universe exist at all?

It does not.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Heresson


It does not.

Occam's Razor used to new lengths.

[Saras]

there is no spoon

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Not this one. What's to be scared of ?

i don't know, i was hoping you could tell me

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by child of Thor
So is an aethist scared of the possibility of there being a creator?

Why such a question?

Originally posted by child of Thor
But i'm not afraid of your hypothesis - i think we need to understand that all paths lead to 'god', whatever god may be(could be pure science and relitivism/could be an 'intelligent designer').

Science is not god - science just tries to understand nature, nothing more.

Originally posted by child of Thor
what do you think on Sir Martin Rees's take on the universe being too highly tuned for 'chance' to be a mathmatical possibiltiy of creation ever happening?

All these talks about fine tuning is just silly, since they are assuming that physical laws and constants and go all over the board with more or less equal chances. However using the Principle of Indifference is unwarranted here.

Originally posted by child of Thor
One of the problems imho with taking an absolute stance either for or against either an intelligent creator or a pure chance/evolution method for the universes existence, is that it can shut you off from maybe the chance to understand.

For atheists gods don't exist because there are no reasons for such beliefs. Things such as "fine tuning" just smack of "god-in-the-gap."

Furthermore, there are all sorts of problems associated with a "creator," such as who created the creator.

Originally posted by child of Thor
My opinion is that i don't know the answer, as we all cant know the answer. But in our struggle through our lives it doesn't hurt to ponder on it from time to time - its quite fun and probably helps us become better human beings.

You don't need a creator for ethical behaviour though. If a person needs a powerful entity to watch over his shoulder for him to act ethically, there is a slight problem.

[Whaleboy]

(In fact the speed of expansion also gives me problems visualising the idea that light from far away objects indicate what was happening in the far past : far enough and you are looking at near the start of creation. If light from these objects travels faster than the universe expands, then shouldn't have it reached here ages ago ? After all when the universe was an inch diameter anything going light speed would cross the whole distance in 'next to no time'. But that's another topic.)

That's one of the problems with using the "speed" of expansion. The universe would have been opaque at such a size of course.

So is an aethist scared of the possibility of there being a creator?

For the most part I wouldn't say so, though I'll go into it in a minute. For the most part, atheism is caused by causes closer to home, the obvious fallacies of religion; and then everything we see in the universe and in science and in logic confirms that. The danger is that the atheist falls into the trap of being fervent... very easy in a world full of BS. It is then that he might become almost religious... bound to his idea, which is unhealthy imo.

Is an atheist scared of the possibility of there being a creator? In terms of a creator in itself, I should say the question is irrelevant. What would matter is if, when the atheist dies, he suddenly discovers that there *is* life after death and that the creator *is* God, who being a fundamentalist Christian judges that his life is one far from God, and thus sends the atheist to Hell. It's a form of Pascal's bet.

One reason for the fallacy of atheistic *belief* (as opposed to concurrence) in atheism is that one can never be absolutely certain either way, for that would defy the point. Of course, there are thousand of conflicting religious ideas, none more consistent than any other that tells us how to guarentee a life in heaven, so arbitrary choice is impossible. What the atheist must do instead is life by what he sees around him, his own rationality and judgement, and lives life in the best way he sees fit... and we all take our individual chances when we kick the bucket. There's no lesser risk for the religious when they die... who knows? God might be an atheist .

i think we need to understand that all paths lead to 'god', whatever god may be(could be pure science and relitivism/could be an 'intelligent designer').

How so?

what do you think on Sir Martin Rees's take on the universe being too highly tuned for 'chance' to be a mathmatical possibiltiy of creation ever happening?

I think that Martin Rees has never read Gottfried Leibniz. If you play the lottery today, in the UK your chances of winning are just under 14 million : 1. If you played last week, and won, your chances of winning last weeks draw today are 1, or 100%.

The anthropic principle says that were the universe a smidgen different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. But we predicate the question by our existence which predetermines that the answer is "the probability of this universe existing is 100%". It is another measure of our "designer" geocentric mentality that we seek to find a cause and intent for this... but the universe was not designed with us in mind... we are an accident of the universe.

Also remember that fantastically simple causes can lead to fantastically complex outcomes. We see an amazingly complex universe, but again our designer mentality thinks in terms of one step to design it. That's not so. An incomprehensible number of small cause -> consequence events forged this universe, and at each small level, it doesn't seem quite so complex or surprising (weak determinism). The complexity as we see it, is a beautiful illusion of our own making.

But in our struggle through our lives it doesn't hurt to ponder on it from time to time - its quite fun and probably helps us become better human beings.

Here here!

That for me is one of the stronger reasons why i think the universe and ourselves exist

I don't think that the reason the atoms coalesce into an atomic scientist is to ask the question "what is an atom?", so to speak... I think we assign our own meanings and purpose to it all. I don't see that we humans are the conscience of the universe... if so, then our plane of existence is running out of oil!

Regardless the question in the social context the desire for life is. I understand what you are saying but it does not need to be in any context as desire for life is self- evident.

Perhaps... all I'm saying is that desire for life is a consequence of life, not a cause. One needs to be alive in order to want to be alive.

If you build on these basic truths, it leads you to the conclusion of the absolute truth of all existence.

Hmmm, I would take the form of your four truths as "'I'... exist/experience/desire" ergo "'I'... exist/experience/desire". In that sense, it's not so much a truth as a tautology. No information as such has gone in, and none can really come out.

Reminds me of the discussion between to philosophers, one who said that the physical world didn't really exist, and the other who kicked a large, heavy rock saying "I refute it THUS!" .

The pre - programming of win/lose is inferior to the true paradigm of by the means of win/win. The highest form of existence can be found when all sides win either through compromise, sharing, or sacrifice.

Hmmm I'm not sure I agree with your use of "the highest form of existence". Certainly it's good for all sides involved, but it's not inherently better... since you might describe the holocaust as win/win providing you exclude everyone who wasn't a fervent Nazi.

Matters not the situation, including the Middle East.

Nuke the Pals! They get to die as martyrs, the Israeli's get an enormous glass lake to skate on!

I would say you are the model without projecting into 'others'. I have found as soon as the concept is projected it breaks down. "To lose oneself, to find oneself" - as the scripture said.

Sounds like Buddhist-like nonpermanance... to eliminate the ego.

The question "does the universe exist apart from me?" How could that be?
In the process of dialectic through a socratic method.

Indeed, but it assumes that existence as seen by one who perceives is dependent upon that persons perception, which I suppose is the point that we are both making, though you would also call it desire?

I am not so sure it is artificial, that would mean I and my reality are a cheap imitation.

Ah not quite... it means that "God" comes from you in your "desire" (sic) to live a moral, happy life... an internal response to the nihilism one would otherwise have to accept. One can't argue with that, because I'd prefer you as a happy, peaceful person than a murdering cannibal.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
One can't argue with that, because I'd prefer you as a happy, peaceful person than a murdering cannibal.

So you are saying that he'd be a murdering cannibal without his god?

[beingofone]

So you are saying that he'd be a murdering cannibal without his god?

[beingofone]

Whaleboy,

Just so you can avoid the strawman here is what I think.

God is not one being among other beings, even a supremely great being, but instead, being itself. Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply. Identical in every way to your state of being and existence.
A necessary state of being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of existence and being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence.

But I repeat myself - LOL

I make no bones about it - I am a Christian, but I am unlike alomost every Christian I have ever known. I am inclined to the thought of Ralph Waldo Trine (In Tune With The Infinite) or Joel S. Goldsmith (The Infinite Way).

In other words if you want to know God - "Know Thyself".

To your post

The anthropic principle says that were the universe a smidgen different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. But we predicate the question by our existence which predetermines that the answer is "the probability of this universe existing is 100%". It is another measure of our "designer" geocentric mentality that we seek to find a cause and intent for this... but the universe was not designed with us in mind... we are an accident of the universe.

Hey - I think this is the first time I have ever seen you contradict yourself... Thats a compliment my good man. It may sound like a slam but I assure you its a compliment.
LOL

The probabilty of the universe existing is 100%. If the universe exists it certainly had you in mind (metaphor) and you are no accident as that would mean the universe in and of itself is an accident.
If you play the lottery the odds are one in fourteen million or some such outrages odds. If you won the lottery last week your odds for winning are 100% last week.

Reminds me of the discussion between to philosophers, one who said that the physical world didn't really exist, and the other who kicked a large, heavy rock saying "I refute it THUS!"

LOL
There is information that has gone in or rather a perception of noumena in the philosophy of Kant.

So the information that comes out is the ground or first cause of existence.

Hmmm I'm not sure I agree with your use of "the highest form of existence". Certainly it's good for all sides involved, but it's not inherently better... since you might describe the holocaust as win/win providing you exclude everyone who wasn't a fervent Nazi.

I don`t think you understood me sir.
Win/win for all parties - including the Jewish folks.
The philosophy of
Buckminster Fullers

Sounds like Buddhist-like nonpermanance... to eliminate the ego.

"The fact is that because no one thing or feature of
this universe is separable from the whole,
the only real You, or Self, is the whole."
- Alan Watts

I respect your intellectual integrity.

I wish atheists would stop seeing all Christians as someone who would hang this sign in their church.

[Whaleboy]

So you are saying that he'd be a murdering cannibal without his god?

No. Moore came up with a system of ethics that are not predicated by a belief in God. I, however, find that it's far easier to have some kind of arbitrary spirituality in order to lead to some moral code, instead of an intellectual pursuit to that end. Most learn morality from parents and preachers after all.

It's not to say, of course, that religion leads to "nice" behaviour... indeed quite the opposite in many cases... but even to Spanish inquisitors, it felt like they were doing the right thing by their internal "moral model"... and it's why I have absolutely no problem with religious people that don't try to force their beliefs on others, or use their beliefs to justify silly things like preaching creationism.

Or God is an ultimate reality to which no concepts truly apply. Identical in every way to your state of being and existence.
A necessary state of being that has its necessity of itself, or the ground of existence and being, or a being whose essence is identical with its existence.

It's a fascinating way of looking at it, but in as far as I can tell, if God is necessary and, as you imply, all lines of inquiry necessarily lead to God, then it implies that all lines of "existence-preceeds-essence" inquiry must reach infinity to achieve "existence=essense" whereas instead they regress. In short, if that is God, then God cannot be knowable, and we cannot be knowable to God.

In other words if you want to know God - "Know Thyself".

I concur with that!

The probabilty of the universe existing is 100%. If the universe exists it certainly had you in mind (metaphor) and you are no accident as that would mean the universe in and of itself is an accident.
If you play the lottery the odds are one in fourteen million or some such outrages odds. If you won the lottery last week your odds for winning are 100% last week.

Ah I can see why you thought it was a contradiction, and it was my fault for not being clear. For the universe to have had me in mind, I would have had to be 100% likely from the point of view of someone (like yourself) standing at the big bang 14 billion years ago. That is of course silly since the universe could have gone any number of ways... but my enquiry now pre-determines that 100% probability... not the other way around.

So the information that comes out is the ground or first cause of existence.

Hmmm... the only information that can come out is the form of the tautology in itself... in other words "I exist therefore I exist", or "I experience therefore I experience" etc. The form of the tautology, and what you might call the ground or first cause of existence, is "I"; the ego-predicate. This might indicate some internalised perception of God as I believe, but cannot be used to say "I exist necessarily therefore the cause of my existence, exists necessarily", since necessity is an ego-predicate.

I wish atheists would stop seeing all Christians as someone who would hang this sign in their church.

A true Christian would offer an XBox