Instead its…nothing.
Or “unknown.”
Yes.
No. Atheists don’t believe that anything exists outside of the universe (God). Any explanation which claims that the universe was created by something within the universe (space-time continuum) is absurd.
Meaning does not mean order. The universe has order whether we’re here or not. If tomorrow the entire human race is eliminated, it’s structures will stand for some finite period of time; they will not vanish to one of those alternate universes you fantasize about.
All you’re saying here is that the universe has order, but that this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. I agree. There could be black wholes and paradoxes everywhere, but there aren’t.
You’re creating another fantasy.
This is simply impossible. Matter and energy cannot predate the universe. The universe is comprised of matter and energy (in different forms) against the backdrop of space and time. Before the universe there was neither space nor time. Thus, to say that matter existed before the universe (15 billion years) is to say that something can exist nowhere and never. Are we willing to throw logic out of the window?
I guess I don’t quite understand your argument. If you are willing to accept that something can be infinite, why not accept that there is no creator, but rather that the universe itself is infinite? From my limited knowledge of cosmology, cosmologists have traced back the evolution/expansion of the universe to a “singular point of infinite density.” Anything before that is merely speculation. If you are willing to accept something as having no creator, i.e. god, why not start with the singular point of infinite density, instead?
And you are choosing to simply end the conversation for ideological reasons. It’s a hypothetical to show a point. But somehow you see “You’re creating a fantasy” as a proper response.
That’s not what I’m saying. Here’s a good question to ask instead of “why is there order”. Ask, why does the universe act the way it acts. The universe acting the way it acts does not mean there is order. We exist because of the way the universe acts. We were created because of the way it acts. And because of that, we see order in it. A being who doesn’t see order in the universe it lives in will not be able to survive for long. Thus anything which lives in a universe will see order in it. Like I said, if you see strawberries when a rock is headed toward you, you won’t know to dodge.
Now we both can conceive of a universe where things acted differently, why is it all of a sudden fantasy land when I conceive of a being who lives there? So let us just say that that being somehow came into this universe. That being would no longer see order, it would see chaos.
Come on guy, please make a connection for yourself. There might not be a before the universe. There’s a before the big bang, but that doesn’t necessarily mark the beginning of the universe, nor the creation of every particle in the universe.
(A) nothing in the universe is infinite. It is a series of contingent objects; a contingent series. How does a contingent object (in this case a series) create itself? If you add one apple to another apple you don’t get a truck. (B) it simply doesn’t correspond to the facts. Cosmic back round radiation tells us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding.
The singularity supposedly contained all of the matter and energy in the universe. But there was neither space nor time before the universe, before the “big bang” (some kind of explosion). To say that it existed before the universe is to say that it existed nowhere and never, and that it caused the explosion, or the “big bang.” Now, your best position is that belief in this singularity is no different then my belief in a god. Fine. But I would say that it’s a semantical distinction. But that’s just more speculation.
But there is order. We can use mathematical formulas to figure out the precise dates of supernovas, in the far distant future (billions of years), and which also reveal the orbits of objects, ranging from moons to galaxies.
The universe doesn’t act; it exists. It’s automated. You’re dancing around my question.
The singularity “existed” before the universe.
All you are saying is that the universe acts in a certain way, and that we have assigned structures to represent those actions. Agreed.
Things that exist act. Automations act. And what am I dancing around. I’ve demonstrated multiple ways how order is subject dependent.
And so might the things that caused the singularity, which might have been a previous big bang and collapse.
No. Action action involves choice. Comets don’t “act;” they wonder aimless through space on a fixed trajectory.
Well, we’re back to speculation. Either way, you’re just taking the question one step backwards.
That he used such arguments IS a fact. Just because we think they are unsound doesn’t mean he didn’t rely on such arguments to arrive at his theories. BTW, I’m not advocating taking theism for granted in scientific practice, only that Kepler (and some others) did as a matter of historical record and in this particular case he discovered something important.
And I can take it one step backwards Infinitely. Of course it’s speculation. You said I could not logically hold the position that the universe existed without a first mover. I have to use a hypothetical to show that the position can be held logically. You are speculating that nothing existed before the big bang, I’m speculating that everything existed before the big bang.
I agree that he used them to come to a valid conclusion. All I was saying is that incorrect premises can lead to correct discoveries.
He used an unsound (according to modern sensibilities) argument to come to (what we now think is) an approximately true conclusion. I am in agreement with your second point.
Here’s the Universe. Debate over.
The universe is a doughnut? I like doughnuts.
So you admit that atheism is a religion?
And a state funded one at that?
How is atheism a state funded religion? Any proof?
Go to your local university for all the proof you need.
Are you seriously postulating that efforts to teach biblical Christianity in a state run university, versus efforts to teach atheism in a state run university, would be met with identical results?
I’m sorry but Christianity was and is a state funded religion as well, at least according to that ridiculous definition. It was one of the justifications for compulsory education, so that they could teach the children the proper religion when their parents wouldn’t.
You didnt answer my question.