This may come as a surprise but the universe is not a pen.

Why not the same?

 

Let me give another example. A shoe. The shoe's existence depends in an outside explanation and that is the shoemaker. A pen is the same as the shoe etc. so why we avoid the idea that a pen is also the same as the universe?

Edited May 22, 20178 yr by Randolpin

Why not the same?

 

Let me give another example. A shoe. The shoe's existence depends in an outside explanation and that is the shoemaker. A pen is the same as the shoe etc. so why we avoid the idea that a pen is also the same as the universe?

 

?

 

What does that even mean?

Why not the same?

 

A pen, or shoe, is a thing in the universe. The universe is... well, everything. It is difficult to infer properties of the universe from a pen or shoe.

 

 

Again, i'll ask: if you can imagine something you call god as being without a cause, then why not the universe? Why invent something (god) to explain a problem (first cause) which you then admit is no problem (because god is uncaused). It seems like some vague sleight of hand to get around your own disbelief.

 

I've asked this of many theists who forward the argument from design, but none choose to answer, even in the usual vague terms.

Why not the same?

 

Let me give another example. A shoe. The shoe's existence depends in an outside explanation and that is the shoemaker. A pen is the same as the shoe etc. so why we avoid the idea that a pen is also the same as the universe?

 

 

Because you know that a shoe (pen, watch, battleship, etc) is made by people.

 

There is no evidence that the universe is made at all, let alone an intelligence.

 

Your argument seems to be: "I believe god created the universe, so the most likely explanation for the creation of the universe is god."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

A pen, or shoe, is a thing in the universe. The universe is... well, everything.

 

 

 

I can appreciate this too, Prometheus: everything that exists in our universe is, in essence, a different expression of, and from, the same source. Some things occur naturally, others are man-made fabrications, but everything from a pen to a shoe, from a daffodil to a lobster, from an amoeba to a coral-reef, from an eyelash to Enceladus, even the universe itself ,has this common source, whatever that source is, or however science and/or religion try to explain that source. Nothing that exists is separate from the universe, and all exist in the same moment of time and space, and each part of the universe is the universe, just as each drop of sea-water is the sea, so i think we can be justified in saying that a pen or a shoe, or anything else is, in essence, the universe, regardless of scale. If i look at you and you look at me, isn't that the universe looking at itself? So, in this respect, i can agree with Randolpin and his ballpen.

 

 

 

I've asked this of many theists who forward the argument from design, but none choose to answer, even in the usual vague terms.

 

I think there is a " Catch 22 " situation here: if you believe in a god, you have to believe unconditionally that he created the universe, otherwise he cannot be god. Religiously-minded people may therefore see science as a threat to their belief-system, while scientists may see religion as irrelevant to the search for scientific understanding, so there is a conflict of interests. For myself, i think of life itself as being the religious experience and science is a part of that, but science cannot give all the answers and religion cannot give all the reasons, and some things may always be a mystery. Religion can't hide behind blind faith but science musn't reduce life to nothing but it's functions - " unweave the rainbow ", as the poet John Keats said. Another poet, Walt Whitman, in " Leaves of Grass ", wrote of how he left a tiring lecture on astronomy, wandered off into the night and "Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars ". Science can tell us how the stars came to be, but cannot tell us why we find them beautiful.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by goldglow

For myself, i think of life itself as being the religious experience and science is a part of that, but science cannot give all the answers and religion cannot give all the reasons, and some things may always be a mystery. Religion can't hide behind blind faith but science musn't reduce life to nothing but it's functions - " unweave the rainbow ", as the poet John Keats said. Another poet, Walt Whitman, in " Leaves of Grass ", wrote of how he left a tiring lecture on astronomy, wandered off into the night and "Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars ". Science can tell us how the stars came to be, but cannot tell us why we find them beautiful.

Isn't life rather a philosophical experience?

 

I can appreciate this too, Prometheus: everything that exists in our universe is, in essence, a different expression of, and from, the same source. Some things occur naturally, others are man-made fabrications, but everything from a pen to a shoe, from a daffodil to a lobster, from an amoeba to a coral-reef, from an eyelash to Enceladus, even the universe itself ,has this common source, whatever that source is, or however science and/or religion try to explain that source. Nothing that exists is separate from the universe, and all exist in the same moment of time and space, and each part of the universe is the universe, just as each drop of sea-water is the sea, so i think we can be justified in saying that a pen or a shoe, or anything else is, in essence, the universe, regardless of scale. If i look at you and you look at me, isn't that the universe looking at itself? So, in this respect, i can agree with Randolpin and his ballpen.

 

I can somewhat agree with what you have just said while disagreeing with Randolpin's first cause argument.

 

Whether we see a drop of water as the ocean or a drop of water is part of the ocean is a matter of perspective. At the perspective we are talking a drop is different to an ocean - if you don't believe me try to breathe in a drop and try to breathe in an ocean and tell me if it feels the same.

 

To say a shoe must be made, therefore the universe must be, makes the same mistake.

 

At another perspective we are not caused by the big bang - we are the big bang.

 

 

 

I think there is a " Catch 22 " situation here: if you believe in a god, you have to believe unconditionally that he created the universe, otherwise he cannot be god. Religiously-minded people may therefore see science as a threat to their belief-system, while scientists may see religion as irrelevant to the search for scientific understanding, so there is a conflict of interests. For myself, i think of life itself as being the religious experience and science is a part of that, but science cannot give all the answers and religion cannot give all the reasons, and some things may always be a mystery. Religion can't hide behind blind faith but science musn't reduce life to nothing but it's functions - " unweave the rainbow ", as the poet John Keats said. Another poet, Walt Whitman, in " Leaves of Grass ", wrote of how he left a tiring lecture on astronomy, wandered off into the night and "Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars ". Science can tell us how the stars came to be, but cannot tell us why we find them beautiful.

 

Science might be able to tell us why we find the stars beautiful - what neural pathways and chemicals are being stimulated or suppressed by the vista and a reason why we evolved to so respond. This doesn't interfere with us enjoying the show, quite the opposite.

 

 

But i take your general point about unweaving the rainbow. However, science should reduce things to it's functions, if it can, because that is what science does: it doesn't pretend to seek meaning for humanity in what it does, it is simply a practice that tests theories.

 

If it seems that science sterilises your life, do not blame science: it is up to you to bring meaning to your life, and it's delightful to do so within the . So science tells us the Santa Claus doesn't actually exist - that doesn't stop us enjoying Christmas. Likewise the sooner Christians and Muslims and put aside Jesus, Mohammed and god the better.

 

Our science is far more advanced than our spiritual practice, and in large part that is due to various religions clinging to bronze age war gods. The answer is not to neuter science, but to advance our spiritual practice. This will require us involve putting away childish things.

I think Keats was being an idiot when he said that. When you understand how a rainbow works, it is even more amazing!

I think Keats was being an idiot when he said that. When you understand how a rainbow works, it is even more amazing!

 

I agree. William Blake was another who said similar things. But they do have a point.

 

There are some people who will use science to try to say that we are merely a bunch of atoms, or that love is merely a chemical condition. These things may be true, but to say they are merely such is an added value judgement. It seems to denigrate existence, as if to say 'pah, that is all it really is', with the expression of having swallowed a bee.

 

What the authors have failed to realise that it is not science that says things are merely this or that, but some people. Science is neutral to our reaction to it, one way or another. People are also free to say 'wow, so love is a chemical condition, isn't it amazing that atoms can come together to feel anything at all, let alone something as wondrous as love'.

 

People are also free to say that love is so good that it can only come from something they call god. Not only are they very likely wrong, but by focusing on the ethereal they miss out on the wonder right in front of their noses.

Prometheus said:

 

"Again, i'll ask: if you can imagine something you call god as being without a cause, then why not the universe? Why invent something (god) to explain a problem (first cause) which you then admit is no problem (because god is uncaused). It seems like some vague sleight of hand to get around your own disbelief.

 

I've asked this of many theists who forward the argument from design, but none choose to answer, even in the usual vague terms."

 

God is uncaused. Imagine this:

1. Nothing produces nothing.

2. If something exist,it must be eternal.

 

God is eternal, therefore He is uncaused.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Randolpin

WHY though!? Just saying doesn't make it real.

 

There is nothing observable to support this that cannot be explained in other ways.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by DrP

God is uncaused. Imagine this:

1. Nothing produces nothing.

2. If something exist,it must be eternal.

 

God is eternal, therefore He is uncaused.

The Universe is uncaused. Imagine this:

1. Nothing produces nothing.

2. If something exist,it must be eternal.

 

The Universe is eternal, therefore it is uncaused.

[Therefore god doesn't exist.]

 

(But your argument looks like the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.)

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Strange

The Universe is uncaused. Imagine this:1. Nothing produces nothing.2. If something exist,it must be eternal.The Universe is eternal, therefore it is uncaused.[Therefore god doesn't exist.](But your argument looks like the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.)

The big bang model and the mainstream cosmology clearly states that the universe has a beginning.

 

Even if we consider that the universe is eternal, questions still arises, why the universe exist or why there is something rather than nothing? Why this is the type of universe we have?

It has a beginning as we know it - we don't know what was about before that.

 

We know that it is, we do not know why.

The big bang model and the mainstream cosmology clearly states that the universe has a beginning.

It very clearly does not.

 

It describes the ongoing evolution of the universe from an early hot dense state.

Isn't life rather a philosophical experience?

 

For certain, we can philosophize about life, and philosophy has been a great help to me in my own life. Philosophers, poets and scientists, too, have long been trying to to give a clear, satisfying explanation for, and a description of, Life; but however sound the logic, however beautiful the poetry, however clever the science, the description is never actually the the thing described: the word " table " is not the table.

 

Perhaps i should have been clearer when using the words " religious experience ". I didn't mean " religious " as in belonging to a religion,but " religious " as it derives from the Latin " religare " which, in one sense, means "bound together ". So when i say Life is the religious experience,i mean that i see Life as one whole movement in time and space, inclusive of everything. Yes, then,philosophy is a part of that experience, but is not the be all and end all of it. These are just my thoughts, though; i certainly don't see myself as an authority in these matters.

It has a beginning as we know it - we don't know what was about before that.

 

We know that it is, we do not know why.

I think this belongs to my point 2. " God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe."

I think this belongs to my point 2. " God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe."

 

 

Except there is no evidence for any such origin.

And even if there were, god is no explanation at all.

 

And if there were evidence for the origin of the universe, then that evidence would almost certainly be a better explanation than "magic!"

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Strange

We must not only rely on external arguments because the answer is on ourselves.

I think Keats was being an idiot when he said that. When you understand how a rainbow works, it is even more amazing!

 

Keats was actually complaining about philosophy, not science, when he wrote that: " Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings........and .....unweave a rainbow. " He also studied medical science for many years so i think we can give him some credence. I certainly wouldn't call him an idiot.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by goldglow

We must not only rely on external arguments because the answer is on ourselves.

 

 

What?

 

Keats was actually complaining about philosophy, not science, when he wrote that: " Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings........and .....unweave a rainbow. " He also studied medical science for many years so i think we can give him some credence. I certainly wouldn't call him an idiot.

 

 

Sorry, just hyperbole for dramatic effect!

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, just hyperbole for dramatic effect!

 

You're forgiven. Ha ha! Please don't get me wrong - i love science, but a purely scientific interpretation of the physical world just isn't fulfilling enough for me.

It's fine to add colour to existence, but let's just be clear on what is the canvas and what our hand has added. It will help us appreciate both.

Yes.Thanks. To me, the canvas is our daily life, and whatever we are inside ourselves is what we add to that canvas - for better or worse. Thanks, too, for the Feynman post: he talks a great deal of good sense.

Thanks, too, for the Feynman post: he talks a great deal of good sense.

Indeed. It's fun to imagine: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL04B3F5636096478C