Materialists......

[MRC_Hans]

Both the theist explanation "It was God." and the materialist explanation "There is no explanation, the Universe just exists." are wholly inadequate.

Of course they are. The difference is that the latter has observational evidence going for it. And, of course, your rendering of it is a slight misrepresentation; it should be "the universe appears to exist, but we have yet to find the explanation".

This because I dropped by and read the following:

If I went to a creationist board and launched a sustained challenge to the foundations of their belief system I suspect the result would be "widespread animosity". Why should I expect anything different if I come here and challenge the foundations of materialistic scientism?

So I looked backwards in the thread to find where the foundations of materialistic science were challenged. Didn't read the entire thread, though, so maybe that is the reason I didn't find it.

Hans

 

[DreadNiK]

I'm not stupid, Tricky. If I went to a creationist board and launched a sustained challenge to the foundations of their belief system I suspect the result would be "widespread animosity". Why should I expect anything different if I come here and challenge the foundations of materialistic scientism? Yes, there are plenty of people on this board for whom nothing I say will make the slightest bit of difference apart from creating differing levels of animosity towards me. But there are also plenty of others for which the same cannot be said. I don't care if half the people on this site end up on my ignore list, providing I am still meaningfully communicating with the half that don't.

Your definition of meaningful communication, just like Hammegk and Lifegazer, seems to consist of agreeing with you...

Personally, I think people agreeing with each other all the time is somewhat meaningless...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Of course they are. The difference is that the latter has observational evidence going for it. And, of course, your rendering of it is a slight misrepresentation; it should be "the universe appears to exist, but we have yet to find the explanation".

Yes, but this isn't actually an answer to the question. It is an I-O-U, promising an answer at some time in the future. The problem with this is that I don't believe it is possible to honour this particular I-O-U. Science must accept that the existence of the Universe, as opposed to its potential non-existence, is a brute fact. It is not correct to say "we have yet to find an explanation". No explanation is possible for the following reason: Nothing can come from Nothing. If one starts with absolutely nothing, and that means not even the potential for something, then nothing can ever follow it. It doesn't matter how long you try to find an explanation using empirical science - because what you are trying to do is work backwards to absolute nothingness. This doesn't look like a problem from the POV of materialistic science, because you see no reason why progress in the vague direction required is impossible. But it is a fatal problem if one takes into account the place you are trying to progress to. The only way to answer the question is to open the possibility of a reconception of nothingness, and any such reconception is going to end up being at least partly metaphysical in nature.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Your definition of meaningful communication, just like Hammegk and Lifegazer, seems to consist of agreeing with you...

Personally, I think people agreeing with each other all the time is somewhat meaningless...

I agree. I'd hate to live in a world where everybody agreed. But there are plenty of people here with whom I don't agree but do manage to communicate with. And you'll find I have little I agree with lifegazer about anyway. Rarely have I met a person who was so wrong about so many things.

 

[hammegk]

So I looked backwards in the thread to find where the foundations of materialistic science were challenged. Didn't read the entire thread, though, so maybe that is the reason I didn't find it.

I'd say you, and most Western intellectuals, will never find anything that you would allow to challenge what you have faith in and that are "the foundations of materialistic science".

Which is most real to you? A quark? The math describing one? The thought that "quarks exist"? Or ???

Your definition of meaningful communication, just like Hammegk and Lifegazer, seems to consist of agreeing with you...

Personally, I think people agreeing with each other all the time is somewhat meaningless...

I look for a reason -- I hadn't examined months or years ago and found lacking --as to why you disagree with me. I cannot speak for anyone else.

 

[I less than three logic]

No explanation is possible for the following reason: Nothing can come from Nothing. If one starts with absolutely nothing, and that means not even the potential for something, then nothing can ever follow it.

Just can’t stop can you?

Where do materialist suggest that something came from nothing? If you’re thinking of the Big Bang theory, then you’re only demonstrating your misunderstanding of the theory, albeit an all too common one. It looks like you’re struggling with the concept of time not existing, each of your reasons above depend on chronological events. In order for one thing to “come from” another requires the latter to exist before to the former, and in order for there to be a before requires time. If you’re looking to refute the concepts of the Big Bang theory, you’ll at least need to have a full understanding of it. According to the theory, time did not exist before the Big Bang, thus you’re “come from” analogy is invalid.

It doesn't matter how long you try to find an explanation using empirical science - because what you are trying to do is work backwards to absolute nothingness.

I think you must first prove there was absolute nothingness. Again, if you’re thinking of before the Big Bang, then your reasoning is flawed. You’ll have to create an argument without the use of time.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Just can’t stop can you?

Where do materialist suggest that something came from nothing?

It is implied by materialism because the alternative to something coming from nothing is that existence/being is neccesary - and the existence of a neccesary being would appear to contradict materialism.

If you’re thinking of the Big Bang theory, then you’re only demonstrating your misunderstanding of the theory, albeit an all too common one.

No, I deliberately didn't mention "the beginning of the universe".

It looks like you’re struggling with the concept of time not existing, each of your reasons above depend on chronological events.

No, I haven't failed to account for time, either scientifically or philosophically. There are two different versions of the cosmological argument. One of them, usually called the "Kalam" cosmological argument, is the argument that there had to be a first temporal cause. The other is the argument from contingency. This does not mention temporal causes - instead it is concerend with logical causes otherwise known as "sustaining causes". It is a claim that all of the things in the Universe a contingent and claims that the existence of these contingent things must be traced back to either an infinite series of contingently existing things (which would be an infinite regress) or to a thing which exists neccesarily.

In order for one thing to “come from” another requires the latter to exist before to the former, and in order for there to be a before requires time. If you’re looking to refute the concepts of the Big Bang theory, you’ll at least need to have a full understanding of it. According to the theory, time did not exist before the Big Bang, thus you’re “come from” analogy is invalid.

The argument has nothing to do with big bang theory or the cosmological argument from first cause. I asked "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I didn't ask "What caused the Big Bang?"

I think you must first prove there was absolute nothingness.

No, I don't need to do this. If there was not absolute nothingness then either a neccesary being exists or you have to posit an infinite regress of contingent things. Since I believe in a Neccesary Being, there doesn't seem much point in me trying to prove there was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Its not a problem for me. But it is a problem for materialists. As far as I am concerned there cannot ever have been a state of absolute nothingness, precisely because if there had been, then there would still be nothing. But this implies that existence is neccesary.

Again, if you’re thinking of before the Big Bang, then your reasoning is flawed. You’ll have to create an argument without the use of time.

I never mentioned time. I think our understanding of time is very limited indeed. My own beliefs about the nature of time are a little unusual anyway - I believe there are situations in which the past can change, from our perspective. Stated another way - only the present exists.

 

[Belz...]

It is implied by materialism because the alternative to something coming from nothing is that existence/being is neccesary - and the existence of a neccesary being would appear to contradict materialism.

See, dear reader. Here, Geoff is trying to fool us. On the one hand, he creates a strawman of materialism, and gives it an obviously flawed and ridiculous position, making it impossible to hold. Then, he attempts to assert that the ONLY alternative is a necessary BEIGN, almost sublty introducing his possible motivation behind this thread: God.

The argument has nothing to do with big bang theory or the cosmological argument from first cause. I asked "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

The answer might simply be : "because there has to be". If what "underlies" the universe is a dimensionless, timeless "singularity", then there is only constant chaos there, which, as some of us know, can only result, eventually and at least temporarily, in SOME form of order.

No, I don't need to do this. If there was not absolute nothingness then either a neccesary being exists or you have to posit an infinite regress of contingent things. Since I believe in a Neccesary Being, there doesn't seem much point in me trying to prove there was ever a state of absolute nothingness.

Ah! Now the motivations are clear, dear reader. For indeed, Geoff seems to tell us that, because of his beliefs, he is unable to explore or even consider other possibilities.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If what "underlies" the universe is a dimensionless, timeless "singularity"...

That is exactly what underlies it. A timeless, dimensionless, totally indestructable singularity. A neccesary being, in other words.

 

[I less than three logic]

Just out of curiosity, have you read Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time; more particularly his ideas of finite space/time, but without boundaries?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Just out of curiosity, have you read Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time; more particularly his ideas of finite space/time, but without boundaries?

Yes, I own this book. In Hawking's words the question is "What is it that breathes fire into the model and makes it into a reality which actually exists?"

 

[DreadNiK]

Isn't this now verging on something that you have to do the math for?

 

[hammegk]

The question of math and its' ability to discuss reality was recently discussed by Geoff in a thread here.

I'd say, no, unless you think the representation in higher dimensions than the 3-d analog in Hawking's book provides adds key, otherwise overlooked, ideas.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Isn't this now verging on something that you have to do the math for?

I don't see why, no. Mathematical physics itself stops at the singularity, with the possible exception of infinite set theory (Cantor, Goedel). Once you start asking "Why this Universe, with these physical conditions?" you may need the maths. But asking "Why is there anything at all?", you don't.

 

[I less than three logic]

Yes, I own this book. In Hawking's words the question is "What is it that breathes fire into the model and makes it into a reality which actually exists?"

You write that from memory? Because it’s pretty close, my book says “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” However, I was more concerned with the idea portrayed just two paragraphs above the one that quote was taken.

When we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity, there seems to be a new possibility that did not arise before: that space and time together might form a finite, four-dimensional space without singularities or boundaries, like the surface of the earth but with more dimensions. It seems that this idea could explain many of the observed features of the universe, such as its large-scale uniformity and also the smaller-scale departures from homogeneity, like galaxies, stars, and even human beings. It could even account for the arrow of time that we observe. But if the universe is completely self-contained, with no singularities or boundaries, and completely described by a unified theory, that has profound implications for the role of God as Creator.

I was addressing your assumption that a singularity necessarily underlies the universe. More along the lines of his closing sentences of Chapter 8.

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You write that from memory? Because it’s pretty close, my book says “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

Yes, from memory. I'm not sure there's any real difference between my rendering of it and the proper quote, for which I thank you. I couldn't be bothered to look it up.

However, I was more concerned with the idea portrayed just two paragraphs above the one that quote was taken.

I was addressing your assumption that a singularity necessarily underlies the universe. More along the lines of his closing sentences of Chapter 8.

Hawking's last words in that chapter are "What place, then, for a creator?" I need to distinguish between neccesary being and "God as engineer/creator". Yes, Hawking has a point, but only if you are talking about a deistic creator God rather than a neccesary being. This is the difference between mainstream western theology and religions like Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism. The former tend to require God as being like an engineer who designs the Universes and sets the clockwork running. The latter tend to see God as an impersonal, infinite, eternal, neccesary being but do not neccesarily require that this being designed the Universe or was its temporal cause. It is more like something which underlies and sustains the whole of reality, on a continual basis. It is a foundation, rather than a creator.

I do not believe in a God which can break the laws of physics either, although I allow for the possibility that God can influence the course of events without needing to break them.

 

[Robin]

Materialism is a claim that an external experience-independent physical world exists, even though we could never, ever experience such a thing

But the problem is that everybody agrees that there is an external world

Even the Idealists. The only metaphysic that holds the possibility that the external world does not exist is Solipsism. So unless you are a figment of my imagination then there is an external world.

We do experience it and we can demonstrate that we experience an external world (as I pointed out before you are simply playing on an ambiguity in the word "independent")

Since I have a good argument that Solipsism is not true then I know that other consciousnesses exist and hence that observed objects have an existence independent to those consciousnesses.

Whether we call this independent existence "material" or something else is beside the point - the fact is that we know it to exist.

Your relentless pursuing of materialism really boils down to an objection to the terminology used, rather than the underlying concept.

I do not believe in a God which can break the laws of physics either, although I allow for the possibility that God can influence the course of events without needing to break them.

As I have pointed out before, you are an uber-materialist.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But the problem is that everybody agrees that there is an external world

No they don't. There are plenty of people who are anti-realists with respect to an eternal world.

Even the Idealists.

Some of them.

The only metaphysic that holds the possibility that the external world does not exist is Solipsism. So unless you are a figment of my imagination then there is an external world.

OK, I'm willing to go with that. The question is then "What is the nature of that external world?" or "How does that external world relate to the objects of perception?"

We do experience it and we can demonstrate that we experience an external world (as I pointed out before you are simply playing on an ambiguity in the word "independent")

Since I have a good argument that Solipsism is not true then I know that other consciousnesses exist and hence that observed objects have an existence independent to those consciousnesses.

Whether we call this independent existence "material" or something else is beside the point - the fact is that we know it to exist.

Your relentless pursuing of materialism really boils down to an objection to the terminology used, rather than the underlying concept.

As I have pointed out before, you are an uber-materialist.

Not quite, but I think I know what you are getting at. In a way, you are correct. My position is materialism with bells on, but the bells are important.....

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The argument has nothing to do with big bang theory or the cosmological argument from first cause. I asked "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

There may be no reason. There does not have to be a reason.

Say, isn't log(1) = 0? Yet again I feel a new metaphysic coming on.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There may be no reason. There does not have to be a reason.

That is no more than an admission that you cannot answer the question. This is satisfactory only to atheistic materialists who have little choice but to claim that there is no reason why there is something instead of nothing, and no reason why the Universe exists. It is at times like this that atheists/materialists really do need to think about how their position looks to other people, notably to philosophically-minded theists. You are quite clearly happy to say "Maybe there is no explanation for the existence of the Universe. Maybe there is no reason why there is something instead of nothing." But I hope you realise how weak and ineffectual this response looks to a person with no interest in defending materialism/atheism. I think the theist (or interested agnostic) has every right to consider it an inadequate response.