"God did not create Universe!", says Hawking.

[Byrthnoth]

lol I'm not even remotely religious and couldn't care less about the existence of god.

You still offend me with your failure to see logic when it slaps you with its dick.

[Max™]

I do, really?

How is the assumption of a purpose towards which things move logical?

Sure, if you assume that things had to have a designed reason behind them, you naturally conclude there must be a designer.

I just wanna know why you assume things had to have a reason, I don't do this, it sure as fuck doesn't sound like a scientific assumption to me, have I missed that somewhere?

[Byrthnoth]

Assume the opposite.
Things move without a meaning -> the world was formed randomly -> humanity evolved randomly -> you exist randomly -> you're a probabilistic phenomenon

Keep in mind I'm unconvinced that Aquinas' argument actually proves God. I also dislike his assumption. I don't disagree with my random occurrence list. Still, for people who accept Aquinas' initial assumption (those who believe the universe has meaning, aka religious people), it's a pretty solid proof.

PS. If you want to refute this argument, look up Hume's version of the refutation, rephrase it, and post it. Your objections are either what I've already said or don't make sense.

[Max™]

Assume the opposite.
Things move without a meaning -> the world was formed randomly -> humanity evolved randomly -> you exist randomly -> you're a probabilistic phenomenon

Things move within logical restrictions determined by the method in which the boundary condition of the universe dissolved.
The world was formed because it was possible, humanity evolved because it was possible, I exist because I am possible.
I am a logically self consistent structure. Lack of reason doesn't mean random, btw, that is an erroneous assumption.

Was the initial state of the universe random? Perhaps, but I could just as easily argue that it was an expression of a possible state, and conclude that there should logically be expressions of every possible state. Thus an infinite range of initial spacetime structures, of which some unfurl in manners that provide an arrow of time, and a distinguishable arrangement of information transfer.

We could only be aware of our existence in such a universe, and oh... look at that, here we are.

We're here, because we're here, because we're here, because we're here...
...because we're here, because we're here, because we're here, because. *to the tune of Auld Lang Syne*

Keep in mind I'm unconvinced that Aquinas' argument actually proves God. I also dislike his assumption. I don't disagree with my random occurrence list. Still, for people who accept Aquinas' initial assumption (those who believe the universe has meaning, aka religious people), it's a pretty solid proof.

So preaching to the choir works, thanks Tom.

PS. If you want to refute this argument, look up Hume's version of the refutation, rephrase it, and post it.

Well, I have to admit something, I never read Aquinas, nor does it seem necessary to me to use Hume's argument. I can form one myself, I'm simply inquiring why this seems like such a sound proof, when it basically requires you to start out assuming your desired result?

[Ashmada]

Aquinas' fifth proof is just the teleological argument. It's merely a more obscure way to enunciate the watchmaker analogy.

In the end, it's the "first cause" argument with a new paintjob, and the answer to it is the same, if less direct, and you end up with an infinite series of ever-more complex designers.

[Egon]

Hawking said pretty much the same thing in his new Discovery channel specials. I agree with everything the man says cept I believe God started the bang.

[zoobernut]

Hawking said pretty much the same thing in his new Discovery channel specials. I agree with everything the man says cept I believe God started the bang.

Good for you.

[Byrthnoth]

So you want to be a probabilistic phenomenon with meaning, Max? I'm glad you've rationalized it using unproven theoretical physics. You might as well be religious.

Don't bother with Descartes (I think this was part of your third line?), "cogito ergo sum" is an argument from ignorance as we will probably understand some day how and why we think. It only really works on a personal level if you have a dualist view to start with, which I'm pretty sure you don't.


Also, The Fifth Way is a teleological argument, but in my opinion it's possibly the best teleological argument. Science regresses all of them back to the big bang, but this one is the most science friendly of the ones I'm familiar with. If "the intelligent design" movement embraced this argument instead of their current one then they wouldn't be rewriting any text books.

[Max™]

So you want to be a probabilistic phenomenon with meaning, Max? I'm glad you've rationalized it using unproven theoretical physics. You might as well be religious.

I never said I need or want meaning, I simply said the random part is not a well founded assumption. It may be random, it may not be, we don't know yet.

I proposed an explanation which emerges from Alan Guth's inflationary model of cosmology, hardly "unproven theoretical physics", yet it is one which allows a non-random explanation for any given type of universe, with the only random portion being which of the many an observer would find themself in.

Naturally observation as we understand it requires a thermodynamic arrow of time, so observers like ourselves must find themselves in a universe fairly similar to this one. If we can show that THIS type of universe is less probable than some other type, that would raise questions, but we can not do that currently.

Don't bother with Descartes (I think this was part of your third line?), "cogito ergo sum" is an argument from ignorance as we will probably understand some day how and why we think. It only really works on a personal level if you have a dualist view to start with, which I'm pretty sure you don't.

I didn't intend a link to Descartes, it isn't an argument from ignorance I'm making, it is an argument based on my understanding of infinite ensembles of structures. Strictly speaking, as this Universe only contains a finite amount of particles, there are only so many possible arrangements which it could take, so even if you assume an infinite number of Universes with the same arrangement of forces/number of particles as this one exist, there MUST be ones in which I am me, exactly like this one. I think there are calculations on how far away the nearest one would be, assuming the boundaries of inflationary regions are adjacent to one another.

Also, The Fifth Way is a teleological argument, but in my opinion it's possibly the best teleological argument. Science regresses all of them back to the big bang, but this one is the most science friendly of the ones I'm familiar with. If "the intelligent design" movement embraced this argument instead of their current one then they wouldn't be rewriting any text books.

True, but it's still a weak argument.

[Thuronn]

How does nothing form everything?


Needs a good "maaaaannn" after it, I think.

[Mizango]

Hawking said pretty much the same thing in his new Discovery channel specials. I agree with everything the man says cept I believe God started the bang.

The fact that you're parents procreated and bore you is proof enough that there is no magic wizard in the sky.

[Pirian]

The fact that you're parents procreated and bore you is proof enough that there is no magic wizard in the sky.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can't fight people's deep seeded beliefs. You can only show them the facts and hope they haven't been so indoctrinated as to disregard tried and tested hypotheses when compared to complete faith. I also find it funny when people accept scientific explinations, but will give credit to god for things that haven't been explained yet by science.

[Chun Liroy]

Miz, should I read these 3 pages?

[bigrougabagel]

pages? what pages? In this universe, threads about existence start at page 6.

[Gadritan]

I'm astounded there haven't been any Matrix references yet. *waits*

[bigrougabagel]

I'm astounded there haven't been any Matrix references yet. *waits*

Something something Colbert, something toyota recalls the matrix, something, they should have recalled the sequels, something something, Favre sucks, something, no final super bowl for him, something.

[Gadritan]

Ah, yes. Perfect. Though I already knew you were going to post that, as I had read it before you posted it when you posted it before you posted it.

[Darus Grey]

I'm more shocked that he's just asserting this now...

I've been talking about spontaneous creation for over a decade and I'm not even a physicist... it's a pretty elementary observation that cause and effect are a human limitation, not a universal one, and that nothing in physics prevents the ability for the universe to create itself.

[bigrougabagel]

Ah, yes. Perfect. Though I already knew you were going to post that, as I had read it before you posted it when you posted it before you posted it.

Wait... which pill did you take?

[Gadritan]

Rohypnol.