# Atheists, a question on the origin of the universe **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880 "2009-01-18T19:49:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/121 "2009-01-25T03:33:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Occam’s Razor states that all things considered, the simplest explanation is the best. But it has no opinion on how many elements there should be. If one is insufficient, you are fine with two, If two are insufficient, three are fine, and so on. No this is wrong. Occam’s Razor says that the hypothesis with the fewest new entities or unproven assumptions that completely explains the outcome is probably the best. This is much different than “the simplest” explanation is best. I won’t address any other arguments, but going strictly by Occam’s Razor, the idea of god fails spectacularly. It has the mother of all new entities and unproven assumptions, a magical being that is more complex, more powerful, more intelligent than any other ever known, and which has existed since before the beginning of the universe and still exists outside of the laws of our universe. So you should really quit using Occam in your pro-god argument. It only shows a non-understanding of the entire idea. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/122 "2009-01-25T03:40:41Z")
> [@RJKUgly](#): > > No this is wrong. > > Occam’s Razor says that the hypothesis with the fewest new entities or unproven assumptions that completely explains the outcome is probably the best. This is much different than “the simplest” explanation is best. > > I won’t address any other arguments, but going strictly by Occam’s Razor, the idea of god fails spectacularly. It has the mother of all new entities and unproven assumptions, a magical being that is more complex, more powerful, more intelligent than any other ever known, and which has existed since before the beginning of the universe and still exists outside of the laws of our universe. > > So you should really quit using Occam in your pro-god argument. It only shows a non-understanding of the entire idea. First, I’ve not offered it in support of my position. I’ve simply defended against it. and both arguments add an extraordinary component. Mine adds the existence of a Creator. The other adds the existence of causeless items and introduces the concept of perpetual existence going back in time infinitely. I find mine explanation much more plausible. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/123 "2009-01-25T04:31:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I didn’t say it “has to”. I said I find that option more likely. One possibility is that there was a beginning. Why do you find that so hard to understand. According to Occam’s Razor, your hypothesis is LESS likely. To quote the Razor exactly, it multiplies _entia_ without necessity. It introduces extraordinarily complicated factors for absolutely no reason. > [@](#): > > Occam’s Razor states that all things considered, the simplest explanation is the best. But it has no opinion on how many elements there should be. If one is insufficient, you are fine with two, If two are insufficient, three are fine, and so on. To be precise, Occam’s Razor says _Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem_. “Entities should not be multiplied beyond their necessity.” What that means is that no hypothesis should be introduced without there being a need for it. If a number of elements is already sufficient, then you don’t need to introduce more. > [@](#): > > The logic is that EVERYTHING is created. That’s not logic, it’s pure asssertion and it’s made without any demonstrated necessity. > [@](#): > > When science can’t discern the creating force, we don’t assume “magic”, we assume that there are things at work which we are as of yet unable to see. This is what we’ve been trying to get across to you, but you don’t seem to be able to understand that that the multiverse does not require a “creating force.” > [@](#): > > Science has depended on this notion since Day 1. Now if you, a science-minded individual, believes that, then we should be able to look at any thing or event and assume that it was caused by something else. I don’t assume that at all. > [@](#): > > I think we’re in agreement so far. We’re not. Everything doesn’t need a cause. That’s a religious assumption on your part, not a demonstrated scientific necessity. > [@](#): > > But if you keep turtling back, you’re stuck asking what caused the Big Bang. But let’s say we learn that the BB was caused by a black hole in another universe? That answers the question as far as the BB, but what caused the other universe that is home to the black hole to exist? I’m not stuck at all. It would have to be shown that the other universe required a beginning. The conclusion that THIS universe had a beginning is not assumed simply because the universe exists, but because we can tell it expanded from an original singularity. That doesn’t mean the same has to hold true for _every_ universe or for the underlying quantum matrix beneath a hypothetical multiverse. > [@](#): > > You’re then stuck with two possibilities. One is a perpetual motion machine—a thing that always was. The other is a First Cause. False choice. Newtonian physics do not apply on a quantum level. To simplify , there’s nothing wrong with a quantum “perpetual motion” machine. > [@](#): > > Well, that’s a very egocentric, and wrongheaded, assumption. I claim there is a bicycle in my apartment. Just because I haven’t proven it to you that means it doesn’t exist? It means you haven’t PROVEN it exists and that I cannot assume as a fact that it does. There are many ways you COULD prove it, though, which makes it a poor analogy to sky gods. > [@](#): > > Unless, of course, there is a First Cause. Which you cannot disprove or state with certainty is not the case. It doesn’t have to be DISproven. You’re the one asserting a necessity, you’re the one with the burden of proof. > [@](#): > > The basis is the fact that everything has a cause. If you disagree, please point to ONE THING that has no cause. Your magical creator. 😛 I am not making any positive assertion that a first cause is impossible, I’m saying there’s no demonstrated _necessity_ for it. Your question is fatuous. It is not proven that _everything_ needs a cause, and positing a sky fairy as the causer only begs your own question anyway. > [@](#): > > Which would mean you DO have a preference in this discussion. Thanks for admitting it. Now, try realizing it. No, I’m not exressing a preference for any particular conclusion, only for the _method of seeking_ that conclusion. You simply want to leap there with no steps in between, no necessity, no evidence, no logic, no rational inference and basically no method at all. I want to actually follow the evidence. I don’t care where it goes. > [@](#): > > The old throw out the term “quantum mechanics” and magically all concerns about first cause go out the window. Sorry, you’re using the term like a magical term that automatically renders a first cause argument null won’t cut it. I repeat: please point to ONE THING that you know for certain has no cause. This is just handwaving on your part. Your assertion that everything needs a cause is your own. Prove the quantum field needs a cause. And for like the billionth time, if everything needs acause, then so does your fairy. If your fairy doesn’t need a cause then everything doesn’t need a cause. You can’t have it both ways. > [@](#): > > Very good, you DON"T KNOW. As far as evidence, I would agree that there is no direct evidence Or indirect either. > [@](#): > > and have not claimed there to be. I do think there is indirect evidence: the world of science. Everything that we know of either has or is believed to have (gravity, for instance) a cause. Particles popping in and out via quantum mechanics to not prove otherwise. I find it odd that someone arguing your side argues for “magically created particles” instead of particles that pop in for reasons we do not understand-YET! Pretty funny, dont you think? Yiu are utterly mistaken in your fundamental assumption that everything needs a cause. Particles come out of the quantum field, yes, but there is no prtoof that the quantum field requires a beginning, nor is there any known reason why a a multiplicity or infinity of universes can’t come out of it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/124 "2009-01-25T13:19:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But my point is they’re both leaps of faith. We agree on all science that has been revealed. We agree that much more science will be revealed. We differ on what resides at the end of the road. Again, the problem with First Cause, at the very end of that road, leads me to hold with that possibility more than the other: a perpetual motion. A first cause needn’t be sentient. Just like a river creates the grand canyon without knowing what it’s doing. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/125 "2009-01-25T14:25:07Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > A first cause needn’t be sentient. Just like a river creates the grand canyon without knowing what it’s doing. I’d like to add a first needn’t have any self control either. The Colorado river couldn’t help but make the grand canyon even if it could have a will not to. The canyon is an inescapable consequence of the river existing. In other words a first cause may not be all powerfull nor self aware. It may just be a river digging reality out of the bedrock of something else. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/126 "2009-01-25T14:31:44Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Morality is a consequence of suffering. There will be morality in some form any where there’s social animals. So, what was it called before we specific social animals labelled it ‘morality’? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/127 "2009-01-25T14:36:59Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > So, what was it called before we specific social animals labelled it ‘morality’? Instinct edit: although I don’t have the specific protohuman grunt for it, nor it’s translation in all the languages before english labeled it. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/128 "2009-01-25T15:44:20Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Instinct > edit: although I don’t have the specific protohuman grunt for it, nor it’s translation in all the languages before english labeled it. [QUOTE=wikipedia] Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. [/QUOTE] Didn’t see any mention of ‘instinct’ [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)! :dubious: In fact, ‘instinct’ would seem to be the antithesis of logical thought construction. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/129 "2009-01-25T15:55:38Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Didn’t see any mention of ‘instinct’ [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)! :dubious: In fact, ‘instinct’ would seem to be the antithesis of logical thought construction. Well what enforces your morality in your behavior? Your conscience right? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/130 "2009-01-25T16:04:13Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Well what enforces your morality in your behavior? Your conscience right? I thought we were discussing the morality of non-sentient matter, or absence thereof? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/131 "2009-01-25T16:55:21Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I thought we were discussing the morality of non-sentient matter, or absence thereof? We are, but I was exploring the mechanism behind morality to draw conclusions for that. I submitted that morality is an instinct because it’s psychological enforcer, the conscience, compels them to follow the moral codes they’ve learned. Even if they’re not exactly happy doing it. Absolution of a guilty conscience, and avoiding it in the first place can be an irresistible compelling urge in people, and influence their behaviors in a heaping pile of ways. Sure what is defined as right and wrong is left to how you were raised and your own personal thoughts, but when something does fall in your “wrong” definitions most people will attempt to avoid it without even thinking about why they avoid it. Usually when a species is born with potentially irritable urges to do certain actions we call this an instinct. Rocks don’t have instincts, but animals do and social animals are known to demonstrate codes of conduct for dealing with other. Maybe not learned codes like our morality but maybe protomorality. Although I do believe they’re having problems with juvenal bull elephants in Africa being way too aggressive without older bull elephants for them to model after so maybe there is learned behavior codes in the animal world too. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880/132 "2009-01-25T18:10:30Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Didn’t see any mention of ‘instinct’ [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)! :dubious: In fact, ‘instinct’ would seem to be the antithesis of logical thought construction. Humans are evolved to live in communities, not as individulas. We are social animals. As such, we have evolved certain physiological responses to others of our groups. For instance, we are programmed to bond with and be protective of our own children and to be protectiveof children in general. We are programmed to bond with sexual mates. We also have a physiologically programmed empathic response to seeing others of our groups being harmed. We feel distress when we see someone we know or who we perceive as part of our ingroup being hurt. We feel distress (i.e. “guilt”) when we cause harm ourselves. These purely biological responses form the basis for what we call “morality.” It’s all just brain chemistry. We don’t think it, we feel it, just like ants or bees. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-a-question-on-the-origin-of-the-universe/481880.md?page=6)