That’s not my objection. Entropy establishes a winding down of sorts from an initial event. The big bang was the initial matter and energy source according to our best evidence. The question is why did the big bang happen?
Life exists because we have an outside source, the sun, feeding us energy. Even life is subject to entropy though. It takes many snakes to keep one hawk alive because energy is lost. 10 hawks eats 100 snakes that ate 1000 mice that ate 1,000 pounds of wheat that grew in a collective 10,000 hours of sunlight per 100 square cm plant area or the energy of the sun striking 10 kilometers for 1 hour. The numbers are fudged, but you get the example.
If hawks could harvest the solar energy directly instead of using the food chain how many more hawks would 10 kilometer’s worth of solar energy support? More then 10? If so where did the rest of the energy go? That’s entropy.
The sun, our outside energy source, stops and our food production stops, and we freeze to death or die from starvation. The sun will stop some day too. Most it’s energy is radiated away into space, and it will run out. That’s entropy. It’s winding down and running out of fuel to make energy to compensate for what’s lost/ Without another energy source life on earth will die, if it survives that long. Which it won’t, but that’s a side track of steller evolution.
In order for everything to have existed forever the laws of physics would of had to have been different at some point to wind us up. That may be possible, but how do we tell? What are the meta rules by which the universe’s rules are defined and redefined? what defines the meta rules? How are the rules of physics enforced? This is why the question is so astounding. It implies things beyond our cause and effect, and definition based understanding. What those things are I can’t guess, but they must exist or it’s turtles all the way down.
Nobody is arguing that “nothing exists outside the universe” (or multiverse). The argument is that there is no evidence for anything outside of material existence, and that hypothesizing a magical creator for anything material is neither warranted by observation, nor does it have any valid explanatory power.
You’re also mistaken in your assertion that no evidence exists for a multiverse.
As for “moral principles.” nobody is arguing that those don’t exist either. They exist as evolved physiological, chemical responses to stimuli and serve to bind populations and foster their survival.
Science is interested in anything that has any testable effect within our grasp. That has nothing to do with the size or circumstances of the universe. We aren’t just going to stop if there’s still more to know out there.
Now I’m not saying that God exists in any way that we could eventually discover him, but if you believe he is real, then you must believe that it’s just as plausible that one day we will discover him. If the very definition of his being is as something which cannot be found via objective reality, then like I said, you don’t believe in God.
If you can produce another candidate, by all means feel free. You can assert that magical orcs and goblins invented it, but it would behoove you to produce an orc and a goblin in that case. I, on the other hand, can provide evidence of humans, and the great works of literature we create expounding on morality and ethics.
I don’t think you understand the structure of a circular argument. I made no such assumption. I simply am following the evidence where it leads. I am not arguing that nothing exists outside our universe, just that we have no evidence of it, at least not yet. Since we have nothing to indicate any entities exist outside our universe, the correct, default assumption is they have no bearing on things such as morality and ethics.
Hubris, huh? How about if we just don’t consider fantastical, magical possibilities until we see some credible evidence to suggest they might be real. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. Otherwise, I will have to note the amazing hubris you display by dismissing the fact that invisible pink flying skymonkeys are really inside of Barack Obama’s brain controlling his actions, while the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Zeus were dancing together at the Inaugural Ball last night. I mean, logically you can’t say it didn’t happen, right?
The Universe arising from nothing? Perfectly plausible. For what is nothing? Why, it’s a perfect balance between matter and anti-matter. A random fluxuation in a tiny space of nothing results in a supremacy of matter in a tinzy spot and WHAM- Big Bang with all that entails. (Therefore, it stands to reason that a “evil twin” anti-matter Universe was created at the same time…)
Perfectly plausible, a simple explanation - no need for The Big P.I. In The Sky to create anything… How someone can elect the magical fire-breathing Jahve theory over this, I’ll never understand.
If there were no humans, would you accept there is no need for a god…or morality? You’re going to need a very good explanation if you disagree. I wont ask you to locate god, but I will ask you for a single morality issue prior to humans appearing on this planet.
Morality is a consequence of suffering. There will be morality in some form any where there’s social animals. Game theory, if your decedents aren’t as mean to each other and more likely to help each other out they’ll do better then the sociopaths next door. It’s instinct, sure it’d defined in varying amounts by how you’re raised but your conscience is an instinct. It compels you to do stuff if even if sometimes you don’t want to. What else could it be?
Take out conscience actors and you’re left with rocks. Can a rock be immoral?
Well, I know Rock is sinful. It turns our 1950s teenagers into animals!
If morality is a mechanism formed by evolution, I’d guess that any sufficiently complex animal might display the broad strokes - don’t kill others of your kind, don’t steal from others of your kind, etc.
We simply don’t know. However, the fact that we currently do not have a definite answer for your question in no way necessitates the need for a Creator. Why can’t some people just accept that our puny brains can’t know all the answers? Why can’t they understand that although our brains may be “puny”, we are advanced enough; are sophisticated enough as a civilization that we don’t have to make shit up anymore.
It is true that there has been/is a deep psychological need for explanations of the unknown/unknowable so primitive humans created myths to stand in for facts. Parts of current civilization are past that stage of our collective development–we eagerly await the rest of y’all.
I really don’t think your site answers the larger question. I just shows that things can pop in and out of our world. That is best described by a change of location. If I’m at a big party and one room has 100 people in it and I walk into that room and out again, I’ve changed the composition of that room, but not of the party itself. Let’s say there are, indeed, multiple universes, your site can be most easily explained by the analogy I just offered. Quantum mechanics may shed some light on what is happening in the one universe (room), but it is mum on the larger issue: where did this “stuff” originally come from? While matter and energy can can be transformed into each other, why does anything exist that can be transformed? So you’re back to the larger question, where did "stuff’ come from, to which there are two possible answers: 1) stuff always was present or 2) it was willed into existence from nothing. Both answers play with our minds. I personally find it more logical to conclude we were created—that there had to be a First Cause (non-denominational). Claiming there are things that are infinite and that they had no First Cause, requires at least as much a “leap of faith” as coming out on the Creator side.
If there are multiple universes, then the “stuff” doesn’t have to come from anything. No beginning is required. There is no “larger question,” and there doesn’t have to be a “why.” The multiverse has always been here. The end. No need for a magic fairy.
That’s nonsense. Let’s say there are multiple universes; let’s say one universe can birth other universes and/or matter/energy from one can “visit” another, that information doesn’t answer the question “where did the original stuff come from (matter, energy)?” any better than if there is one universe. And if you were able to read what I wrote, you’d see that I allow for the possibility of a non-creator universe. I pointed out that I favor the created universe and why. You should be able to see that we’re both making leaps of faith. If you don’t, well, I’m not surprised. You’re response is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming “I don’t want to talk about it—I don’t even want to THINK about it.”
Which may be the best course of action for all involved.
I doubt Dio has a preference, and hence he is not making a leap of faith. Or if there is a preference it will be that there will be a physics/mechanical answer to the question, which will likely be based on the observation that historically this has always been the answer for all scientific discoveries. That’s Occam’s Razor, not a leap of faith.
Keep in mind that Occam argues for the simplest explanation, no more AND no less. And there is the also the problem of First Cause, as I had mentioned. And I’m sure he does have a preference. He probably the one poster who jumps on this stuff, all afroth, most consistently.
The difference between the Bible and science is that the Bible purports to be a big book of answers to the questions of life. Science, on the other hand, promises no answers to any particular question, because science is a process, not a collection of answers.
The correct answer to the OP is, “We do not understand the creation of the universe itself, but we’re confident that the scientific method is the best way to determine it over time.”
There are lots of questions science still can’t answer, and a lot of scientific ‘answers’ that will turn out to be wrong. That’s why scientists, unlike theologians, do not make absolute statements of fact. We tell you what the evidence suggests, and what the current best hypothesis is for the way things behave. We build up a framework of hypothesis, each building on the other. As the pieces fall into place and predictions are met, we feel more and more comfortable that various hypotheses are firmly grounded. But even then, our minds are open to the possibility that something we thought we understood is wrong or incomplete.
Theologians seem to think that if science can’t answer a question, it means science has failed and religion must hold sway. That’s thinking like a theologian, and not like a scientist.