5 ms·

I'm not even bringing feelings or faith into this discussion though. This is pure logic my friend. It is not rational to "believe" that an object, a thing, a

I'm not even bringing feelings or faith into this discussion though. This is pure logic my friend. It is not rational to "believe" that an object, a thing, a complex structure, can come into existence without being intelligently designed in some manner. That something as intricate and complex as the universe just came to be randomly, for no reason, and with no architect of some sort.

ceejayoz 8y ago
Where this line of thinking falls apart is realizing you must, due to the same logic, explain the architect's coming into existence.
- linsistine 8y ago
  All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This source, or point of singularity, is what religious people refer to as 'God'.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    > All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This is an unsupported assertion. The current answer to "what came before the Big Bang" is "we're not sure, and we're not sure that's even the right terminology". If everything needs a creator, that "singularity" has to have one, and its creator, and its creator, and so on and so forth for infinity.
    - linsistine 8y ago
      Name me one thing which has no beginning.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        We see all sorts of weirdness with time, like delayed choice experiments: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-delayed-choice-experiments/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-de... The entire concept of time starts to break down in spots, like within a black hole: https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-black-holes.html https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-blac... It also breaks down when you start talking about pre-Big Bang cosmology. It's not clear there is such a thing as a "beginning" outside of the universe.
        linsistine 8y ago
        What does this even mean?
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        "Time is a weird concept even in our universe at times. It breaks down entirely outside of the known universe."
        linsistine 8y ago
        Yes...but what does this mean?
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        That the idea that "things must have a beginning" may not be the case when talking about physics outside the known universe. Sure, that's hard to wrap your head around, but so's quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. Doesn't change the fact that the universe works in very, very weird ways sometimes. Here's Stephen Hawking on the weirdness of all of this: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html > Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.
  - odorousrex 8y ago
    This is one of the hardest concepts to grasp in theoretical physics/quantum physics/cosmology. (And I'm not saying I fully grasp it) We, as beings who experience time linearly, can't fathom the concept of "No time". Every event we experience has a beginning, middle, and end. Time was created along with the universe. "Before" the Big Bang there was literally "No time". There was no "before". There was nothing you could say was "before" because "before" literally did not exist. Just asking the question "what was before the big bang?" is nonsensical. You can't ask what was before "before" existed. This gets more confusing because we know the Universe has had a finite lifetime. I know this seems like a cop out. And you can say well then whoever/whatever caused the Big Bang was "God". That may or may not be true, it can't be tested of verified, but it seems that the universe is here just because it is here. Which is not a very satisfying answer to most.
- sumnole 8y ago
  When asked what triggered the big bang, an honest answer is "I don't know, have a guess at it". It's true that all roads from there will eventually lead to abandoning the logic and essentially saying "just because". imho the leap of faith in assuming the architect(s) came into existence by divinity (just because) is more satisfying than the one in assuming there is none.
david-gpu 8y ago
> It is not rational to "believe" that an object, a thing, a complex structure, can come into existence without being intelligently designed in some manner. Would you describe a dolphin as a complex structure? It wasn't designed, it evolved through natural selection. I suggest reading a short book titled "Why evolution is true", or "The blind watchmaker".
- linsistine 8y ago
  Belief in a higher power does not counteract the belief, or proof, of the idea of evolution and natural selection. Surely someone can design something to self-heal, self-correct, or evolve/adapt to it's surroundings right? Wouldn't a good designer/architect do that?
  - ykevinator 8y ago
    True but if you think the big bang and god and evolution are all true, then surely you must reject the Bible, right?
  - david-gpu 8y ago
    There's no need to introduce a creator in order to explain evolution. Introducing a creator does not help explain anything that could not be explained without it either. It is not a rational belief.
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Nonsense. Put a bunch of magnets in a box, all spread out. Close it, add energy (shake the box). Open the box - the magnets are neatly organized into stacks. Order from nothing! Its perfectly natural and expected. No architect required.

ceejayoz 8y ago

Where this line of thinking falls apart is realizing you must, due to the same logic, explain the architect's coming into existence.

linsistine 8y ago
All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This source, or point of singularity, is what religious people refer to as 'God'.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  > All creation has an ultimate source though, does it not? A point of singularity. This is an unsupported assertion. The current answer to "what came before the Big Bang" is "we're not sure, and we're not sure that's even the right terminology". If everything needs a creator, that "singularity" has to have one, and its creator, and its creator, and so on and so forth for infinity.
  - linsistine 8y ago
    Name me one thing which has no beginning.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      We see all sorts of weirdness with time, like delayed choice experiments: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-delayed-choice-experiments/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-eraser-de... The entire concept of time starts to break down in spots, like within a black hole: https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-black-holes.html https://phys.org/news/2015-09-law-implies-thermodynamic-blac... It also breaks down when you start talking about pre-Big Bang cosmology. It's not clear there is such a thing as a "beginning" outside of the universe.
      - linsistine 8y ago
        What does this even mean?
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        "Time is a weird concept even in our universe at times. It breaks down entirely outside of the known universe."
        linsistine 8y ago
        Yes...but what does this mean?
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        That the idea that "things must have a beginning" may not be the case when talking about physics outside the known universe. Sure, that's hard to wrap your head around, but so's quantum entanglement and the double slit experiment. Doesn't change the fact that the universe works in very, very weird ways sometimes. Here's Stephen Hawking on the weirdness of all of this: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html > Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.
- odorousrex 8y ago
  This is one of the hardest concepts to grasp in theoretical physics/quantum physics/cosmology. (And I'm not saying I fully grasp it) We, as beings who experience time linearly, can't fathom the concept of "No time". Every event we experience has a beginning, middle, and end. Time was created along with the universe. "Before" the Big Bang there was literally "No time". There was no "before". There was nothing you could say was "before" because "before" literally did not exist. Just asking the question "what was before the big bang?" is nonsensical. You can't ask what was before "before" existed. This gets more confusing because we know the Universe has had a finite lifetime. I know this seems like a cop out. And you can say well then whoever/whatever caused the Big Bang was "God". That may or may not be true, it can't be tested of verified, but it seems that the universe is here just because it is here. Which is not a very satisfying answer to most.
sumnole 8y ago
When asked what triggered the big bang, an honest answer is "I don't know, have a guess at it". It's true that all roads from there will eventually lead to abandoning the logic and essentially saying "just because". imho the leap of faith in assuming the architect(s) came into existence by divinity (just because) is more satisfying than the one in assuming there is none.

david-gpu 8y ago

> It is not rational to "believe" that an object, a thing, a complex structure, can come into existence without being intelligently designed in some manner. Would you describe a dolphin as a complex structure? It wasn't designed, it evolved through natural selection. I suggest reading a short book titled "Why evolution is true", or "The blind watchmaker".

linsistine 8y ago
Belief in a higher power does not counteract the belief, or proof, of the idea of evolution and natural selection. Surely someone can design something to self-heal, self-correct, or evolve/adapt to it's surroundings right? Wouldn't a good designer/architect do that?
- ykevinator 8y ago
  True but if you think the big bang and god and evolution are all true, then surely you must reject the Bible, right?
- david-gpu 8y ago
  There's no need to introduce a creator in order to explain evolution. Introducing a creator does not help explain anything that could not be explained without it either. It is not a rational belief.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Nonsense. Put a bunch of magnets in a box, all spread out. Close it, add energy (shake the box). Open the box - the magnets are neatly organized into stacks. Order from nothing! Its perfectly natural and expected. No architect required.