Also..
Religious beliefs -> bottled water??
this thread has quickly turned into a joke.
Anything with sparta posting in it is jokes.
Yeah, I'm actually really really picky about water brands too, lmao.
I only drink kirkland (costco) or purelife (nestle). I tried this one called arrowhead or arrowroot once, and it had this weird sweet/sour taste. Funny story about that one, my dad actually went to the states and told me to try american bottled water, but it turns out that it's from a Canadian spring not too far from here.
Also..
Religious beliefs -> bottled water??
..now, now.
:infract:
[video=youtube;0yvMQsK1rLQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yvMQsK1rLQ[/video]
This was as far as I bothered to go in this thread. This video, I'm sorry to say, is absolutely ****ing retarded. Do you think this actually lends any weight to your argument at all? It was obviously made by someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
For the first "eliminated" argument-- There is no proof whatsoever that it is not. The video didn't so much as attempt to disprove it. All it said was "if you think this you'll wind up dead." Guess what? I don't think it is personally-- I'm still going to wind up dead. The only way to properly disprove this argument would be to spend a while dead. Have you? Has the video creator? If you want to debunk this theory, die. Then get back to me on it.
For the second-- This, then, entirely disproves the religious theory. We then have the same issues for god himself (what brought god into existence from nothing, and how did he then create something from nothing?)
The third-- As you stated, at the very start of the universe, the Natural Laws do not apply. That's because it begins with a singularity which, containing all energy in existence, has infinite gravity. At such point, given that the second law of thermodynamics no longer applies, entropy may progress in reverse, waste heat can once again become other forms of energy and matter.
This, then, implies that the universe is eternal-- as well as cyclical. When Entropy runs its course, all kinetic energy has finally run down against gravity, and the universe once again contracts into a singularity, then proceeding to explode into another Big Bang.
Since two of the three arguments supposedly "defeated," aren't, we can instead apply Occam's Razor. Adding a deity into the mix, to which we would have to subject the same arguments as we do the universe, simply adds an extra unneeded step. It is therefore an easily eliminated possibility.
Tl;dr: Weak.
Unfortunately, my break is over, so I can't read the rest of this thread. Should be an interesting read for later, but I couldn't pass this up. That video was too awful not to tear apart.
But, in regards to the first argument "Reality is an illusion". The video may not explain it, but if reality was an illusion - there is a contradiction.
Illusions require something experiencing the illusion. If we, human beings, were an illusion -how is it that we can experience illusions in our day to day life?
Moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself (an illusion) without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument.
If we're to assume that reality is, in fact, an illusion, this would not be self-defeating in the least. All the rules we can contrive to use, explaining away the possiblity, would thus be products of the reality created by the illusion. Just as it is difficult for us to comprehend the notion of eternity, being mortal, we couldn't fully accept a different sort of existence simply be deign of being human.
For all any of us are to know, we could simply be abstract consciences, or the product of one. Such a thing would be (as far as we know) impossible in our universe, but if the laws of this universe, along with the universe itself, nothing but fabrications, how are we to assume that such a thing would apply to anything that may be experiencing this delusion?
As I said-- I don't believe it is, but I see no concrete reason it couldn't be.
The second argument and your question (What brought god into existence from nothing, and how did he then create something from nothing?)
God (at least in biblical Christianity) was not brought into existence. He is eternal, therefore always existed since the "beginning" (if you could pinpoint a beginning) of time and God will always exist. If a god could die, that wouldn't fit the definition of a god.
My issue with that is that it then becomes hypocritical to assume that God could be eternal but not the universe. If a God's existence can be explained with the concept of it always having been, and will always be, why not the universe itself? Again-- Occam's Razor.
God could create things because of his divine nature. Since, by definition, God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. If you want a scientific approach, God manipulated available energy and created matter. Although not humanly possible, it is theoretically possible via the equation E=mc^2 (Since energy and mass are on opposite sides of the equation)
Energy is matter. If there was existing energy, then by definition there was also existing matter, as they are the same thing. Thus, something existed. Given our approximate definition thereof, that "something" would be the universe-- albeit possibly entirely existing in the form of energy. It is possible to presume, then, that a god could have manipulated a universe comprised of energy and made some of it into matter, but we would still be left with the simple fact that God did not create the universe-- merely changed one into the format we now experience.
As what you said for the third argument ... I can't wrap my head around most of what you said. Since its not within my realm of knowledge, I won't say anything conclusive.
But what I can deduce is that the universe is not eternal as of right now. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the fact that the universe is expanding are two reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
Expansion and the Second Law are essentially the same argument. However, consider it this way-- Expansion is the result of an initial explosion from a singular point of matter. This, in turn, would have been caused by the largest possible supermassive black hole our universe could experience-- one which would consume and compress all matter within the universe into a single point.
When all the matter/energy of the universe was compressed into that single point, gravity becomes infinite, causing the breakdown of all physical laws. In this case, the second law of thermodynamics no longer applies, allowing waste heat energy (the final result of entropy) to become other forms of energy.
When the last insignificant quantity of matter is collected into the black hole, entropy is reset, and the balance is tipped-- the singularity collapses into the Big Bang.
As for expansion-- for the Big Bang to have occurred, the above would have to have happened, meaning the universe did, at some point, contract. Assuming there is no way for energy to be added to our universe, which would have somehow had to have been brought from an outside point, it will contract again. Gravity will eventually overpower the momentum of all matter in the universe and drag it back into the center, making it cyclical. The process repeats for all eternity.
*Phew* Just my two cents. Sorry for the length, but I just felt that I should have written something.
So the question remains, where did the forces come from? How did they originate and come together into balance?
I'm afraid common sense and real physics say otherwise...
The third-- As you stated, at the very start of the universe, the Natural Laws do not apply. That's because it begins with a singularity which, containing all energy in existence, has infinite gravity. At such point, given that the second law of thermodynamics no longer applies, entropy may progress in reverse, waste heat can once again become other forms of energy and matter.
If we're to assume that reality is, in fact, an illusion, this would not be self-defeating in the least. All the rules we can contrive to use, explaining away the possibility, would thus be products of the reality created by the illusion. Just as it is difficult for us to comprehend the notion of eternity, being mortal, we couldn't fully accept a different sort of existence simply be deign of being human.
For all any of us are to know, we could simply be abstract consciences, or the product of one. Such a thing would be (as far as we know) impossible in our universe, but if the laws of this universe, along with the universe itself, nothing but fabrications, how are we to assume that such a thing would apply to anything that may be experiencing this delusion?
As I said-- I don't believe it is, but I see no concrete reason it couldn't be.
The laws of our universe being fabrications?!? I'll admit it's food for thought, but like you I could not believe in the whole illusion possibility.
For everything to be an illusion brings up the question, where is this illusion? Does it extend and apply to our entire universe ... if so then nothing would be real! :no!:
I'm not going to wreck my brain over it anymore. In my opinion, I never considered the possibility to be valid. But, I suppose just like all theories - they are just a theory.
My issue with that is that it then becomes hypocritical to assume that God could be eternal but not the universe. If a God's existence can be explained with the concept of it always having been, and will always be, why not the universe itself? Again-- Occam's Razor.
Well, by definition something eternal is everlasting. It always existed and will always exist. I don't believe its a matter of hypocrisy but a matter of how currently our universe shows signs of not only a "beginning" but of an end. (More on this further down)
Energy is matter. If there was existing energy, then by definition there was also existing matter, as they are the same thing. Thus, something existed. Given our approximate definition thereof, that "something" would be the universe-- albeit possibly entirely existing in the form of energy. It is possible to presume, then, that a god could have manipulated a universe comprised of energy and made some of it into matter, but we would still be left with the simple fact that God did not create the universe-- merely changed one into the format we now experience.
When I meant energy, I didn't mean already existing energy. I'm referring to a "beginning" period with absolutely nothing but God (since God would be eternal). God (a being with unlimited energy/power) would be able to take his own "energy" and create matter. And not only matter, but life. An impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe could have not created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals.
Expansion and the Second Law are essentially the same argument. However, consider it this way-- Expansion is the result of an initial explosion from a singular point of matter. This, in turn, would have been caused by the largest possible supermassive black hole our universe could experience-- one which would consume and compress all matter within the universe into a single point.
When all the matter/energy of the universe was compressed into that single point, gravity becomes infinite, causing the breakdown of all physical laws. In this case, the second law of thermodynamics no longer applies, allowing waste heat energy (the final result of entropy) to become other forms of energy.
When the last insignificant quantity of matter is collected into the black hole, entropy is reset, and the balance is tipped-- the singularity collapses into the Big Bang.
As for expansion-- for the Big Bang to have occurred, the above would have to have happened, meaning the universe did, at some point, contract. Assuming there is no way for energy to be added to our universe, which would have somehow had to have been brought from an outside point, it will contract again. Gravity will eventually overpower the momentum of all matter in the universe and drag it back into the center, making it cyclical. The process repeats for all eternity.
This is all interesting. I never knew thermal energy could be converted into other forms of energy. I suppose anything is possible ... But, in any case. One point is made with the whole expansion, and that is you could trace it back to "starting point of matter." If the universe were eternal, you wouldn't be able to have that starting point (i.e beginning). And this whole expansion/contraction process is not currently happening at this moment. The universe is just simply expanding.
The means of which God could have created the Universe is not the main issue. It could have been the Big Bang or just a *poof* and everything was there. I just believe that science points to a "beginning" of our universe. Not only that, But you can apply the Second Law of Thermodynamics's clause of "Some energy will be lost as heat" to postulate an end to the universe. It is known as the Thermodynamic death or Heat death of the universe. Although it won't be a concern for a very very long time, it does show that the universe will slowly- but surely loose all of its usable energy. Therefore, it cannot be defined as eternal.
Wow. I did the same thing you did lol. It was a very interesting read. But, I'm beat for now :imdead:
The laws of our universe being fabrications?!? I'll admit it's food for thought, but like you I could not believe in the whole illusion possibility.No, I believe in the possibility-- it's just not my opinion on how things really are. If, however, we are illusory, I do think it would apply to the universe as a whole. As for where the illusion is-- again, the need for that answer is a by-product of human perception. We can't comprehend the idea that we could be nothing but the dreams of the void, but I can't fully discount it, since the laws that we use to argue that idea to be nonsensical are entirely because of things that have shaped our world view-- products of the illusion itself.
For everything to be an illusion brings up the question, where is this illusion? Does it extend and apply to our entire universe ... if so then nothing would be real!
I'm not going to wreck my brain over it anymore. In my opinion, I never considered the possibility to be valid. But, I suppose just like all theories - they are just a theory.
Well, by definition something eternal is everlasting. It always existed and will always exist. I don't believe its a matter of hypocrisy but a matter of how currently our universe shows signs of not only a "beginning" but of an end. (More on this further down)However there are no signs to indicate that the beginning, nor the end, are any more than points in a cycle. There's no way for us to calculate the "age" of matter, nor is there a way to determine that it will at some point decay into nothingness.
For what I cut out, I pretty much explained my views on that already. However, for this-- Why not? Take, for argument's sake, my word on the universe being a cycle. Randomized each time by the moments in which no physical laws apply, even the most infinitely unlikely cases will eventually occur in sequence over the course of eternity.
An impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe could have not created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals.
This is all interesting. I never knew thermal energy could be converted into other forms of energy. I suppose anything is possible ... But, in any case. One point is made with the whole expansion, and that is you could trace it back to "starting point of matter." If the universe were eternal, you wouldn't be able to have that starting point (i.e beginning). And this whole expansion/contraction process is not currently happening at this moment. The universe is just simply expanding.All forms of energy and matter can become all other forms. It's all of the same basic building blocks, just differently arranged. As for the starting point of matter-- unless you can date its existence, the so-called "starting point" is merely a point within its existence in which it was all in the same place.
The means of which God could have created the Universe is not the main issue. It could have been the Big Bang or just a *poof* and everything was there. I just believe that science points to a "beginning" of our universe. Not only that, But you can apply the Second Law of Thermodynamics's clause of "Some energy will be lost as heat" to postulate an end to the universe. It is known as the Thermodynamic death or Heat death of the universe. Although it won't be a concern for a very very long time, it does show that the universe will slowly- but surely loose all of its usable energy. Therefore, it cannot be defined as eternal.As I have stated (several times) I know that all energy will eventually become waste heat, causing the heat death of the universe-- that includes the energy of the outward-bound planets/galaxies/whatever. Gravity, then, will overcome them and bring them back to the center forming the singularity which repeats the cycle.
Wait what????? What is this nonsense?
-bashes head into desk-
That "nonsense" is what happens when you condense all existing matter and energy into a single point. Gravity becomes infinite and everything breaks down.
No need to repeat that section.
For some reason, I thought we were discussing the origin of life for a second, instead of the creation of matter in general. Derp. So I stated that it would be nonsense for life to have formed under those types of conditions. I don't know why my brain switched gears like that. I need to get to sleep.