@LoopLinndrum
The greatest advice my dad gave us; "Stop Believing. Start Thinking."
I simply don't "believe" anything. I think, and with that I can hold multiple propositions in view at the same time with weighted probabilities of "accuracy". There is no need to believe.
HTH
I used to be the same however psychologically speaking we view the world through the lens of our own deeply held beliefs.
The error is in believing we view the world and that informs our world-view and this is a continually updating one way relationship.
Additionally, I think for the atheist there are 4 major origin problems:
Origin of Existence
Origin of Information
Origin of Life
Origin of Consciousness
Just a few things you may want to start thinking about, if you have time. ✌️
@LoopLinndrum
The religious proposition is even worse, since then add "Origin of the Supernatural/God(s)" to such list.
If invoking the "Always Existed", like most theists do, then it is so much simpler to do that for "Origin of Existence". The others are not fundamental at all, and simply falls under "I don't know...yet".
It was atheists/skeptics who historically argued for the "steady state" universe, the eternal universe that "always existed" until a Catholic scientist proposed the Big Bang Theory which showed a definitive beginning (and therefore a definitive ending) which lined up with the biblical claim. Ironic.
The origin of information is fundamental to both life and consciousness and there's a very good argument (J.A.Wheeler) that consciousness is fundamental to existence.
@LoopLinndrum I have listened to and heard it all.
Kalam -> Circular Reasoning Fallacy. I find it so stupid that I am surprised that anyone brings it up.
Steady State -> Unlike religious dogma, science adjust its view as the evidence presents itself
WLC -> He never replies to objections to his arguments, I mean sermons. He is preaching, nothing else.
Trent Horn; Don't know him on top of my head.
Consciousness required for Existence; No. That is simply stupid.
WLC literally debates people. I recommended a debate with one of the better atheists, CosmicSkeptic. They handle objections to each other's arguments because that's how a debate works.
Interestingly, none of the big atheists accuse or dismiss Kalam as being a fallacious argument due to circular reasoning. Curious.
Interesting too, how you can dismiss Wheeler's research as stupid without having assessed the evidence or given it any genuine thought.
That's all I have time for today.✌️
Wheeler; the thought experiment doesn't touch on consciousness, afair, but the consequences of the apparent oxymoron on the double-slit experiment, entangled particles and to some degree the Schroedinger's Cat.
Keyword "apparent". Personally I think we (science) are missing some insights, akin to General Relativity, that may take the models in a totally different direction. Physics moves slowly.
What point about "always existed" am I supposed to address?
I'm aware of no theory that doesn't posit a pre-existent condition of our universe that necessarily precludes an argument from nothing.
Effectively, every current hypothesis doesn't have a nothingy enough definition of nothing.
If you're arguing from general relativity then time is a bounded dimension to space so necessarily anything transcendent of the universe's condition (post-big bang) must necessarily be outside time (eternal).
Are you familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument... aka Aquinas' Five Proofs?
The modern version of this is particularly knotty for the current crop of atheist debaters to deal with.
There's a very good debate between CosmicSkeptic & William Lane Craig. I would also recommend CosmicSkeptic & Trent Horn.
@LoopLinndrum
Kalam; Ok, I stand corrected. I was mistaken for some other theist argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVyGk3vldMI
And again, "we don't know" is a much more reasonable conclusion than "God did it" (I note that you didn't address the "always existed" point I made).
Theoretically; Is there anti-energy? If so, could energy and anti-energy have spawned from nothing and each creating a universe each? Possibly within my possibility of imagination.
The theist proposition falls short on every front.
Anti-energy is potentially a better name for dark matter, since it isn't matter, as NDT laments.
The hypothesis you're proposing is something along the lines of zero sum using gauge symmetry but it still can't get around the causality problem.
There is no evidence nor good reason to propose a causeless effect as opposed to a causeless cause.
The issue of getting from nothing to anything without an eternal causeless cause is a problem I haven't seen addressed competently anywhere.
1. Quantum mechanics has apparent causeless causes. Whether this is accurate or not remains to be seen/discovered.
2. Anti-energy is not Dark Matter nor Dark Energy. We know that there is a net positive amount of energy in our Universe, just like we know that there is a net amount of matter over anti-matter.
3. AGAIN; What caused the Supernatural/God/whatever?? Avoiding that is the dishonesty I can't stand.
1. Cite your example and demonstrate how this accounts for a finely tuned universe.
2a. I never asserted it was, merely observed that per NDT it would be a better name (as would Dark Energy) than Dark Matter.
2b. Let's assume that is true I am not making the argument against it so I'm not sure what your point is. I'm trying to glean your argument from what you're putting forward.
3. Asking what causes a causeless cause is to fail to understand the argument completely. See: Trent H
1. Many options.
a. The tuning may not exist, it might be that all constants are emergent rather than constants.
b. Observer bias, possibly from (near) infinite number of universes.
c. Our models of universe could be flawed and that the so called "fine tuning" is not nearly as fine tuned as we think is needed.
2. My point; conservation of zero energy (i.e. nothing) could be maintained it. Cause? Again, many speculative options, from multi-verses, to infinite cycles, to random fluctuations that are indeed uncaused.
3. No. It is a rational conclusion. If the theist (you) can claim that God is uncaused, and always existed, then I can equally easily claim the universe/multiverse also always existed.
Special Pleading is a fallacy and I simply dismiss it as such.
2. You'll need to clarify your first statement. Multiverse isn't a solution it just diluted the problem... you still to get from non-existence to existence. Fluctuations in nothing is not nothing. Infinite cycles moves goalpost.
Unless... folding in point 3, you are arguing for an eternal universe without a beginning and an end?
3. Again no serious atheist philosopher calls it special pleading... also, too much evidence for finite universe.
Family engagement now. I'll be back for 1.
I will end it here. You have been respectful and I simply feel sorry for your beliefs.
I simply don't have the energy to explain myself, especially since I know that the person I am talking to are set on the conclusion, ignoring history, ignoring human social evolution and trying to hijack the progress of science to validate the conclusion.
Good Luck with your life.
Ah, so you're not prepared to defend your ideas but instead resort to mischaracterisation and projection... a form of ad hominem.
Well, I won't bother addressing the points under 1 later then.
Have a good one.
also FWIW please check out CosmicSkeptic I think he's the best of the current crop in terms of intellectual honesty
@niclas
So what do you believe?