What or who created the universe?

[greg]

No one will ever know. It's hopeless. No one should have even started asking the question, it only leads to a mess.

[Renfield]

No one will ever know. It's hopeless. No one should have even started asking the question, it only leads to a mess.

Right, let's scrap this philosophy business then, and go drinking.

[jlaurson]

It was written by Al Moritz:

Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else. In the case of the theist it is God, in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter (that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere). The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh my ass off. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".

I'm not sure if the argument is by Al Moritz, and I've read it in a more concise form, too: Namely: "The unmoved Mover." 

And no scientifically minded atheist would ever confuse the science aspect of, say, creation, and atheism, per se. First of all: the two are unrelated - it is not the goal of science to disprove God nor the intent of "Atheism" to explain the world. Secondly, once cannot disprove a negative, and so there is not even a claim to somehow scientifically prove that God doesn't exist (or wasn't necessary). Science doesn't exist to disprove G_d, it exists to give explanations of how things work.  Philosophically speaking, science cannot answer the question of "why", only of "how". (Although at enough distance, the two can become confused.)

But if you don't mind the confusion of science & religion, the Southpark episodes dealing with this (all available for free on www.southparkstudios.com are quite funny.

[Opus106]

Hi opus67, you come here as well

Yes, sir, I post here too.

Can I just ask how would you describe the idea of 2 dimensions of time,
And the possibility of 6 or 7 dimensions, what I mean is :  is this a half baked idea ??  How would you describe it?

I don't have all the "credentials"/technical know-how to judge what is happening at the forefront of theoretical physics, but there are some people who vehemently voice their opinions against certain theories which predict warped multiple dimensions - I'm specifically referring to the various forms of String Theory, which I assume is what you were alluding to when you said "the possibility 6 or 7 dimensions." Check in particular Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong, a blog and a book of the same name, and Lee Smolin's book The Trouble with Physics. The two were released within a short period of each other and caused quite a stir. These guys are respectable professionals in their respective fields -- Woit is actually a mathematician -- although some string theorists, naturally, would beg to differ.

Oh, BTW, I haven't come across the idea of two time dimensions. Do you have a link or something?

[greg]

Right, let's scrap this philosophy business then, and go drinking.

Yeah, because the whole universe could really just be like the Matrix. Even if people got to figure out who or what created the universe by time-travelling back to see(which would be nice), you never know if the universe is part of something else, or some sort of virtual reality. And then, that could be part of something else, too. Doesn't hurt to know as much as you can, but there will always be more.......

existence is all just an illusion...........

[Opus106]

Will I get to hear Bach outside the Matrix?

[greg]

Will I get to hear Bach outside the Matrix?

I've never been outside the Matrix, but........
i'm sure the creatures steal music from Our Universe for their own entertainment. I suppose you could get a hold of a few recordings, but not without risks.

[Renfield]

Yeah, because the whole universe could really just be like the Matrix. Even if people got to figure out who or what created the universe by time-travelling back to see(which would be nice), you never know if the universe is part of something else, or some sort of virtual reality. And then, that could be part of something else, too. Doesn't hurt to know as much as you can, but there will always be more.......

existence is all just an illusion...........

You'd be surprised how many people have come up with this concept so far.


As for outside the Matrix, I bet the machines produce some killer Electronica!

[greg]

As for outside the Matrix, I bet the machines produce some killer Electronica!

So that's where it came from! 
Their world must be creeping into ours....... the apocalypse is near.

[Renfield]

So that's where it came from! 
Their world must be creeping into ours....... the apocalypse is near.

[Kullervo]

Wir sind die Roboter? *doot, doot doot doot*

[DavidW]

Fair enough, so what is the difference between an unproved theory and an educated, informed speculation 

There is no such concept of proof in science.  You have evidence that supports or falsifies assertions, no more, no less.  What do you mean by educated or informed?  You can't use appeal to authority in science, either you have supporting evidence or you do not.  Even the greatest minds of science will not have their opinions taken on good faith.

[DavidW]

The two were released within a short period of each other and caused quite a stir. These guys are respectable professionals in their respective fields -- Woit is actually a mathematician --

No actually Woit is a physicist.  His research area was in high energy theory, he simply teaches as a mathematics professor, but he is a physicist.  I think the problem with both Smolin and Woit is that they are not insiders, Smolin works in fringe areas of quantum gravity and Woit hasn't been engaged in research in quite awhile.  I think that they are qualified to write what they have written, but it's certainly true that their credibility has been attacked at every turn.

I'm not a fan of string theory, I don't consider it science... but I have to say that I've read both books and I do not think think that they are well written.

[DavidW]

Here is the clearest and most concise argument for the existence of a supreme being that I've read on this forum. Well, I at least find it very convincing.

Actually it's simply retarded.

Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else.

That assertion itself is highly debatable, and is taken as an axiom for the rest of the argument.   The entire argument thus collapses like a house of cards.

in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter

? what? The sheer stupidity of this claim is mind boggling!  (a) Attributing a positive belief to a group of people only unified by a negative belief, (b) obviously contradicts modern physics, (c) I've never heard an atheist speak this way, AND I AM AN ATHEIST!

(that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere).

The unmoved mover is an argument only fit for children and naive simpletons.

Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".

Once the strawman is constructed, the fool now gets to smugly laugh at the absurd conclusion!  Oh how delightfully insipid!

If that's all you had Pinkie, come back when you have something actually intelligent to say.

[Opus106]

No actually Woit is a physicist.  His research area was in high energy theory, he simply teaches as a mathematics professor, but he is a physicist.

Ah, my bad.

[karlhenning]

It's always been there! So simple! 

An interesting statement of faith! 

Do you contest the Big Bang, then?

[Homo Aestheticus]

If that's all you had Pinkie, come back when you have something actually intelligent to say.

Fine, but remember what I wrote:

"Well, I at least find it very convincing"

There was no need for you to be impolite as you demonstrated the weakness of that argument.

[karlhenning]

I think We'd all be better served if we all go look for the answers in the music we listen to rather than "discussing" it here. I think it is in opening notes of Langgaard's Music of the Spheres.

I like that!

[karlhenning]

I would suggest that our brains are not wired to understand these things just as a Worm cannot understand physics etc. enjoy life while you can. 

Underneath wry witticism, is truth.  We may never get all the answers.  The idea that, if we ask long enough, and ask the right questions, we will possess all the answers, is a kind of faith, too.

[karlhenning]

I was watching an episode of 'The Universe' done by the History channel the other night about parallel universes and multverses. The whole thing seemed so hard to believe at times(eg, it mentioned cosmic bubbles--each containing a universe--colliding and as a result creating our universe), but it all seems so fascinating, regardless.

I was reading a chapter in manuscript, which touched briefly on multiverses, too