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.
I’m not sure if your post is directed at me, but I’ll just point out that I’ve not been talking about religion in any manner. To me, the argument that points to a creator is not one of theology, but one of metaphysics. It is born of the problem of First Cause. The answer to the question will never be known, I think. But for me, logic points to a creator. To be clear, I don’t argue for any particular flavor of creator. And I fully accept that this creator needn’t be concerned with us humans in the least.
Jumping on leaps of faith is the point of the Straight Dope message board. And again, if there is a preference, I would bet you $50 that it errs on the side of provable reality and our experience with scientific discovery to date.
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.
The original stuff didn’t doesn’t have to come from anywhere. There doesn’t have to be a beginning. Why is that so hard to understand?
You’re not tracking this discussion particularly well. I suspect you’re inexperienced at it.
First, your magical creator, aside from being unwarranted by any observable evidence, violates Occam’s Razor and basically attempts to answer a question (a question that doesn’t even need to be asked, by the way) with a much MORE complicated question. Any creator fairy has to be more complex than the universe and therefore requires an explanation of its own. If you want to say the creator fairy is uncreated, then you have to explain why the multiverse can’t be uncreated or why any of the original quantum “stuff” needs to “come from” anything. It’s always been here.
I am taking nothing whatsoever on faith. I am taking the position that nothing exists until you prove it exists. There is nothing in the universe which implies a necessity for a magical creator, therefore it’s irrational to hypothesize one.
Sorry, but yes you have. You are positing a supernatural explanation for something which doesn’t require one.
There is no difference between religion and metaphysics. They are the same thing.
There is no “problem of first cause.” The necessity doesn’t exist, but even if it did, a magical creator only regresses the question, it doesn’t answer it.
I have made no leap of faith whatsoever. I have merely made the purely objective observation that nothing in the observable universe requires a magical creator.
I don’t know what lies at the end of the road. I only know there’s no evidence for a magical creator.
There is no problem with first cause, and Newtonian physics does not apply on a quantum level.
And as it has been said a thousand times, a creator doesn’t solve the problem of the First Cause. An uncaused creator isn’t any better than an uncaused universe. I could also make up the hypothesis of an uncaused “there must be something rather than nothing” law.
Again, what on earth (or in the multiverse) makes you think that an uncaused creator solves the issue of the First Cause? It just arbitrarily adds another layer (so, Occam is out of the picture, too).
Really, your position seems completely absurd. You’re saying :
“Everything must have a cause, so something uncaused must exist”
It’s a completely nonsensical and self-contradictory statement. Please, explain to me how it can possibly makes sense to you.
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.
:rolleyes: You’re not being very civil in this discussion. I suspect you’re inexperienced at being able to debate while remaining polite.
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.
The logic is that EVERYTHING is created. 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. 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 think we’re in agreement so far. 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? You’re then stuck with two possibilities. One is a perpetual motion machine—a thing that always was. The other is a First Cause. This allows, or mandates actually, that the First Cause not be subject to the laws of the universe as we know them. He/It would operate outside of time. A snap of the finger and the Big Bang happened. Even if ours was BB # 4,689,523.
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?
Unless, of course, there is a First Cause. Which you cannot disprove or state with certainty is not the case. The basis is the fact that everything has a cause. If you disagree, please point to ONE THING that has no cause.
Which would mean you DO have a preference in this discussion. Thanks for admitting it. Now, try realizing it.
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.
Very good, you DON"T KNOW. As far as evidence, I would agree that there is no direct evidence, 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?
It makes perfect sense. Please read what I just posted to Dio. I would then say that the First Cause would have to operate outside the laws of the universe He/It created. If he is the FIRST Cause, that implies a timeline, right. So, time in this instance, begins at the Creator’s first act of creation. Therefore, the Creator must exist outside of time as we know it. Think of there being two realms. One is subject to the laws of the universe as we know them, in which everything is caused. The other realm is not. This is the realm of the creator. The creator is that which was not caused; that which is timeless.