***THE ATHEIST CHALLENGE***(cosmology)

[steven84]

So I recently came across a video challenging Atheists and thinkers of the like to give some POSITIVE arguments as to whether:
They believe the universe is eternal?,
Or not?
Why do they believe the universe is eternal?,
Or not?,
If the universe is not eternal then what caused it to exist?,
was it... itself?

They have already begun posting and already I have seen philosophical fallacies and scientific absurdities/contradictions. This really exposes how inconsistent and incoherent their position really is when push comes to shove. So often they play the part of the skeptical "nay sayers" but now they are put on the spot to show THEIR cards and give some positive reasons for THEIR convictions.

Check it all out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3PWGhthC_4

"Let the TRUTH BATTLE begin"

[Tanker]

The reason Atheists disagree on so many issues is the ONLY thing we all have in common is a disbelief in god(s). Everything else is decided by the individual. We have no unifying doctrine, dogma, or book. We are all individuals with individual beliefs who happen to agree that there is no god.

[AlP]

So I recently came across a video challenging Atheists and thinkers of the like to give some POSITIVE arguments as to whether:

I won't make a "POSITIVE" argument. I neither know nor care why there is a universe. As Tanker pointed out, others might disagree.

[Purplez]

I've always said that just because we don't know how the universe was made doesn't mean we should hide behind a book. I am just fine with not knowing

[LoneMateria]

I've always said that just because we don't know how the universe was made doesn't mean we should hide behind a book. I am just fine with not knowing

I tend to go this road too.  I always ask even if I can't come up with a satisfying answer how does that lend credit to a god doing it?  I never get a good answer because it's a god of the gaps argument.

[Renegnicat]

Wait. I thought matter could never be destroyed nor created? Same with energy. Am I missing something here? If the former stands, then the universe is eternal, right?  

[AlP]

Wait. I thought matter could never be destroyed nor created? Same with energy. Am I missing something here? If the former stands, then the universe is eternal, right?  

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss
[youtube:hx6p5dix]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube:hx6p5dix]

Skip Dawkins if he annoys you. Krauss is brilliant.

[Ihateusernames]

Wait. I thought matter could never be destroyed nor created? Same with energy. Am I missing something here? If the former stands, then the universe is eternal, right?  :yay:

[Renegnicat]

Oh please, the universe "is" nothing. Yeah, everythings made up of matter, and matter's made up of energy, but it's only common sense that energy is simply a fluctuation. It's not a fluctuation of anything. it's just a fluctuation.

Given that, to say that something is eternal might not make too much sense, as the line between something and nothing kind of grows fuzzy here, if you know what I mean.  

[Ihateusernames]

Oh please, the universe "is" nothing. Yeah, everythings made up of matter, and matter's made up of energy, but it's only common sense that energy is simply a fluctuation. It's not a fluctuation of anything. it's just a fluctuation.

If energy is "not a fluctuation of anything" then it is a fluctuation of nothing.

Taking your premises, to say ANYTHING, or try to communication, or discourse doesn't make much sense seeing as words, logic, thought, communication...etc are just fluctuations of "nothingness"

Can you explain how nothing can fluctuate? I'd think nothing would do nothing, be nothing, think nothing...etc. after, nothing consists entirely of not things.

you go on to say:

Given that, to say that something is eternal might not make too much sense, as the line between something and nothing kind of grows fuzzy here, if you know what I mean.  

[/quote] emphasis mine.

Sorry, but using your premises again, even the phrase "not make too much sense" does not make too much sense, as words are meaningless fluctuations of nothing.

-Ihateusernames[/quote]

[Ihateusernames]

double post? i think the boards are making "edits" turn into new posts.. :crazy:

[Ihateusernames]

tripple post? this is a first ?

[AlP]

Oh good lord, you've all been posting since I started typing this. This is to try to make up for dissatisfaction with my video link to Krauss...

I'm not a physicist. I hope there aren't many physicists out there trying to prove things in the sense that some people might want. The videos below do not address the original question but they might make what Krauss said in my original link make more sense.

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

It's Richard Feynman on Quantum Electrodynamics. As I remember, he points out pretty early on that the theory does not explain why the universe works the way it does. He simply presents a model of what it seems to do and he admits that the model is absurd.

Beware. These videos go on for hours and the sound quality is terrible. They were made in the 70s when Feynman was still alive. The lectures were made into a book called QED. The book is much better than the videos of the lectures IMHO.

[Whitney]

I've always said that just because we don't know how the universe was made doesn't mean we should hide behind a book. I am just fine with not knowing

I tend to go this road too.  I always ask even if I can't come up with a satisfying answer how does that lend credit to a god doing it?  I never get a good answer because it's a god of the gaps argument.

^ditto

[Renegnicat]

Ihateusernames, I think an example from set theory might help: Essentially, set's contain numbers as items, or sets as items. You would think that at the root of all the sets, however, lies the numbers. But actually, the cardinal numbers, I think it was proved in the 80's, are defined as nothing but sets.

Basically, you have the empty set: {circle w/line}, then you have the set representing 0, the set containing the empty set: {{circle w/line}}, then you have 1, which is the set containing the set containing the empty set, {{{circle w/line}}}, and so on and so on up the scale. I think it turned out to be that the substance originally given to numbers was transferred to the idea that the substance of mathematics relied on the organization and structure of sets, but there was nothing actually of substance at the very bottom: It was simply the empty set, which doesn't even represent 0.

I don't know, but I think there's more to this than meets the idea. It could be that the universe, far from possessing "units" of reality which are fundamentally substantial, is actually composed of a heirarchy of blindingly complex sets, bulding and building upon each other in more than infinite complexity. It could be that at the root of all the organization there is simply nothing: an empty set, in which case, it would be barking up the wrong tree for anyone to ask why something exists instead of nothing, because the line distinguishing the two concepts would be obliterated.

I'm doing my graduate thesis on how sets can be used to impart meaning into computers. It's an interesting program, because it's based on the concept that the meaning of word, represented as a set, does not lay in some data value, but the oprganization of the set itself. What data is actually in the smallest set can be completely arbitrary.

I'll be coding the program next year to test the theory. I'll let you guys know how it works out.