The Origin of the Universe...

[watsup]

nobody knows

no more than they know where all the matter that the universe is made from came from

Actually, “God” came from human imagination. There is no evidence, never has been, that “God” is anything other than a figment of imagination. We know there was a Big Bang because there is lots of evidence, and that is quite different from just making up stuff.

 

[watsup]

... to believe that all this on earth just all fell into place over millions of years ? that takes exceptional faith

It’s the best explanation at this point. What alternative do you offer?

 

[watsup]

amazing how every civilization has believed in a God isn't it ?

you believe we evolved into people who always for tens of thousands of years have wanted a God in our lives ??? really ?

“God” is a figment of human imagination. Can you show otherwise?

 

[Gozaburo]

The assumption is that it works- in this case to provide you with energy. What more do you need?

From a purely utilitarian point of view, I suppose you don't 'need anything, but I do think it's ignorant to operate with that thinking. This curiosity is what has advanced humankind to where we are now. It's not sufficient for us to ride a bike, pedal, and see that it works. We want to know the 'why'.

Do you see my concern however, that once you go beyond that, these metaphysical assumptions can act as a Trojan horse to unload all sorts of personal opinions and cultural biases?

Isn’t that what happens in the philosophy of people like Dugin, Evola, Yarvin, and other right wing thinkers?

Why would this be restricted to epistemology? Correct ideas are used by bad people all of the time. I don't see why that should stop us from reasoning. We'd still be drawing on cave walls if that were the case.

 

[ataraxia]

i saw something yesterday on electrons, even that wasn't understood

Things in science today are classified as being a universal, until we make observations that they are not. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not.

Sure. Scientists today don’t make any claims on ultimate truth. What they offer are just the most clever models that they can come up with to explain the latest observations.

But contrary to the impression that leaves on scientifically illiterate people,that’s not its weakness- it’s proven to be its strength. That always leaves it open to growth, newer observations, new ideas, and more clever thinking.

No, senator, science can’t do away with models - Risk Frontiers

Our response to COVID-19 pandemic modelling but has a particular resonance with why we make CAT models and how and why they change.

riskfrontiers.com

 

[noonereal]

it does mean something came from nothing as far as matter is concerned.

Why can't you understand? Everything that ever existed always existed. It is the natural state.
All that we are concerning ourselves with is how things change.

Think macro not micro.

 

[watsup]

But it isn't 'magical', it's a reasoned foundation.

Are you saying that “reasoned foundations” can’t also be “magical”? There are lots of examples otherwise, to include the “reasoned foundations” of theists and religionists throughout human history in constructing their imaginary gods.

 

[noonereal]

Nothing isn't anything and can't exist,

And never could.
All that exists always has but in constantly changing forms.
This change is what we call time. Time is just a measurement of change.

 

[ataraxia]

From a purely utilitarian point of view, I suppose you don't 'need anything, but I do think it's ignorant to operate with that thinking. This curiosity is what has advanced humankind to where we are now. It's not sufficient for us to ride a bike, pedal, and see that it works. We want to know the 'why'.



Why would this be restricted to epistemology? Correct ideas are used by bad people all of the time. I don't see why that should stop us from reasoning. We'd still be drawing on cave walls if that were the case.

On the contrary, the scientific revolution in the 17th century started happening when people started laying aside this idea that they need some sort of ultimate foundation for their latest observations, and trusting the more contingent, but always fallible senses to understand the world. The Galileo affair was the first matchup between these world views. Galileo won.

This match up happened again with Darwin. And again, Darwin won.

Those with the metaphysical assumptions always seem to glom onto obsolete ideas, which were eventually shown to be wrong.

Hence my claim that this sort of mindset is not only not necessary to advance and grow scientifically, but actually harmful to the scientific mindset.

 

[Gozaburo]

Are you saying that “reasoned foundations” can’t also be “magical”? There are lots of examples otherwise, to include the “reasoned foundations” of theists and religionists throughout human history in constructing their imaginary gods.

Hard materialists (which I think is what you are) would reject the possibility of abstract reasoning providing evidence for an argument.

But as we've went through before, hard materialism is not really coherent because it does rely on immaterial absolutes to even interpret sense data.

 

[noonereal]

however, everything comes from God and God is everything you need to create a Universe at any point in times.

Nothing has ever been created or ever will be. The natural state of the universe is what we grapple with.

There was no beginning, there is no end. Just change.

 

[Gordy327]

Are you saying that “reasoned foundations” can’t also be “magical”? There are lots of examples otherwise, to include the “reasoned foundations” of theists and religionists throughout human history in constructing their imaginary gods.

What's reasoned about "magical?"

From a purely utilitarian point of view, I suppose you don't 'need anything, but I do think it's ignorant to operate with that thinking. This curiosity is what has advanced humankind to where we are now. It's not sufficient for us to ride a bike, pedal, and see that it works. We want to know the 'why'.

"Why" is a matter of philosophy and otherwise meaningless. Why does there need to be a why? Perhaps things are just as is? Science deals with the how.

 

[ataraxia]

Hard materialists (which I think is what you are) would reject the possibility of abstract reasoning providing evidence for an argument.

But as we've went through before, hard materialism is not really coherent because it does rely on immaterial absolutes to even interpret sense data.

Do you see anything wrong with the philosophies of people like Dugin, Evola, or the Islamic Republic of Iran- who would agree with you that we need such foundations, and then proceeding from there to justify fascistic tendencies and quaint provincial tribalisms?

 

[Gozaburo]

On the contrary, the scientific revolution in the 17th century started happening when people started laying beside this idea of some sort of ultimate foundation for their latest observations, and trusting the more contingent, but always fallible senses to understand the world. The Galileo affair was the first matchup between these world views. Galileo won.

This match up happened again with Darwin. And again, Darwin won.

Not really. This conversation has been going on since the time of the Greeks and has evolved immensely over time. The Linguisitic philosophers (like Wittgenstein) have addressed this very recently. Indeed he more or less concluded that the pragmatic argument is sloppy, and pragmatists should own their game, not ride it insincerely. Wittgenstein specifically totally destroyed Decartes cogito by rightfully pointing out there is meaning in words, which is an insurmountable assumption for Decartes. I don't know where people get the idea we've stopped caring about epistemology or have only embraced pragmatism - this is a position that the most sophisticated and intelligent atheist philosophers would push against.

Those with the metaphysical assumptions always seem to glom onto obsolete ideas, which were eventually shown to be wrong.

Hence my claim that this sort of mindset is not only not necessary to advance and grow scientifically, but actually harmful to the scientific mindset.

Then it sounds like you have a bone to pick with the philosophers you've invoked earlier in the thread. Brute pragmatism has been obsolete and dated since at least the time of Hume. Continuing to encourage it makes you an intellectual luddite.

 

[Gozaburo]

Do you see anything wrong with the philosophies of people like Dugin, Evola, or the Islamic Republic of Iran- who would agree with you that we need such foundations, and then proceeding from there to justify fascistic tendencies and quaint provincial tribalisms?

Whether I see something wrong with their philosophies has nothing to do with whether or not I think exploring epistemology and metaphysics is necessary and useful.

 

[ataraxia]

Not really. This conversation has been going on since the time of the Greeks and has evolved immensely over time. The Linguisitic philosophers (like Wittgenstein) have addressed this very recently. Indeed he more or less concluded that the pragmatic argument is sloppy, and pragmatists should own their game, not ride it insincerely. Wittgenstein specifically totally destroyed Decartes cogito by rightfully pointing out there is meaning in words, which is an insurmountable assumption for Decartes. I don't know where people get the idea we've stopped caring about epistemology or have only embraced pragmatism - this is a position that the most sophisticated and intelligent atheist philosophers would push against.



Then it sounds like you have a bone to pick with the philosophers you've invoked earlier in the thread. Brute pragmatism has been obsolete and dated since at least the time of Hume. Continuing to encourage it makes you an intellectual luddite.

What are your thoughts on John Dewey or Richard Rorty?

 

[ataraxia]

Whether I see something wrong with their philosophies has nothing to do with whether or not I think exploring epistemology and metaphysics is necessary and useful.

But sometimes using specific examples to demonstrate how these abstract ideas work in practice can help clarify one’s positions. I am currently still not very clear on what you’re saying here exactly, and how it applies in practice to the real world. I am thinking maybe using these specific examples might help me understand you a little better.

 

[BabaVoss]

Until it isn't. Then we just change the laws of physics again. The universe isn't "governed by the laws of physics" as you say. The "laws of physics" are just an imperfect means by which we go about trying to understand things. Inductive, probabilistic generalizations.

So you are not a student of science. No surprise there.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

And never could.
All that exists always has but in constantly changing forms.
This change is what we call time. Time is just a measurement of change.

Except war.

War never changes.

 

[Taylor]

So you are not a student of science. No surprise there.

That would be you. You really have to get past the high school stuff and probably most undergrad "science for non-science majors" classses to understand how it all works.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Actually, “God” came from human imagination. There is no evidence, never has been, that “God” is anything other than a figment of imagination. We know there was a Big Bang because there is lots of evidence, and that is quite different from just making up stuff.

does it surprise you .... that in every corner of the planet that humans were evolving .... every single civilization has God/religion ?

almost like it was ingrained isn't it? human imagination all evolved exactly the same you think ?

 

[Gozaburo]

What are your thoughts on John Dewey or Richard Rorty?

I'm more familiar with Rorty than Dewey, but at the risk of mischaracterizing their views I'll let you present an argument if you care to.

But sometimes using specific examples to demonstrate how these abstract ideas work in practice can help clarify one’s positions. I am currently still not very clear on what you’re saying here exactly, and how it applies in practice to the real world. I am thinking maybe using these specific examples might help me understand you a little better.

I would argue that these universal assumptions (and the need for epistemic grounding) is required by anyone doing anything, anywhere. The discussion about the 'right' theology (if one exists at all) is actually a totally separate discussion which can only occur after we acknowledge the original epistemic problem.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

human nature to demand others believe/do what you do I guess

yes, it could be literally anything after we die ... to believe that all this on earth just all fell into place over millions of years ? that takes exceptional faith

There's not a lot of probability when it comes to raw chemistry. Moreover, given the billions of trillions of stars & simultaneous "trials" of planet formation (not sequential) the odds aren't quite as grim as one may intuitively guess.

The difference, also, is that we know the universe & planets exist. There's no need to postulate an even more complex & improbable being - especially, one that is "perfect" which in itself might be the most improbable entity conceivable.

 

[watsup]

does it surprise you .... that in every corner of the planet that humans were evolving .... every single civilization has God/religion ?

almost like it was ingrained isn't it? human imagination all evolved exactly the same you think ?

It is myth and superstition that was “ingrained” into the human psyche. People did not understand the world around them, so they constructed figments of imagination (gods) in order to “explain” those events.

 

[noonereal]

Except war.

War never changes.

Never changes? I have no clue what you mean.