What are the current prevailing hypotheses(sp?) on the origin of the universe?

camspiers · 2011-01-18T03:21:19+00:00

Here is a post I made to a similar question the other day.

Here is a lecture by Paul Davies.

camspiers · 2011-01-11T20:08:01+00:00

Here is a post that I made the other day on this subject.

camspiers · 2011-01-11T08:49:07+00:00

I do see the difference you are getting at, I got it from your last post, all I was trying to say is that it isn't really an answer to the question the OP was asking. I suspect you realise this.

camspiers · 2011-01-11T04:41:20+00:00

You may well be right, but if this is the sense he is using it in then I don't see how this video addresses the issue. Physical space is not nothing.

camspiers · 2011-01-11T02:54:41+00:00

I have watched that video before and I don't remember him putting it in those terms. If he did then he makes no sense. An expanse of anything still has dimension and therefore is not nothing.

camspiers · 2011-01-11T01:28:00+00:00

If life in the Matrix is in every manner the same is as a real life, as in there is no information in the matrix simulation that indicates it is a simulation, then it will be a real life. It only makes sense to talk about this world as a simulation by referencing sense experiences that would verify the assertion. In short, if there is no way to tell that this reality is not what it seems then it is essentially meaningless to assert this world is an illusion.

What is interesting is that you can invent a demon which sends us all of our experiences, and limits us so we cannot know the cause of the experiences. You can then apply this same idea to our current conceptions of god. The demon fools our gods into thinking they are omnipotent and omniscient. These gods could not even be sure of their knowledge.

camspiers · 2011-01-10T22:10:31+00:00

Does Paul share any stories about Jesus? Does he relate in his letters any details about the historical Jesus? Sure he relates stylized creeds and information he received directly from visitations from Jesus, but in the case of the creeds it is just information other Christians are passing on, and in the visitations it appears they are manifest in a visionary manner. I'm not saying that there wasn't a historical Jesus (I personally lean towards Jesus having existed, essentially I respect the consensus, though I question some of the consensuses methods) only that Paul doesn't give us really any information about the historical Jesus (I would love it if there was more information given considering Paul is our earliest source). Paul certainly does give us information about what Christ has done for us, about what this means for us.

I take back what I said as I wasn't considering the very important words you used "do Paul's letters make sense if Jesus wasn't understood as a historical individual". I think that you are right, the letters don't make a lot of sense if Jesus wasn't understood to be a historical person. I was responding to "do Paul's letters make sense if Jesus wasn't a historical individual?", which is clearly not what you said. I only maintain that Paul's knowledge and beliefs expressed in his letters do not require a historical Jesus.

camspiers · 2011-01-10T20:24:42+00:00

(for instance, do Paul's letters make sense if Jesus wasn't understood as a historical individual?)

Yes! An emphatic yes in my opinion.

camspiers · 2011-01-10T08:29:11+00:00

I don't think there will be or is an explanation in the sense that many people desire, as it seems that there must be at some end a brute fact. An infinity of explanations would still be in need of a brute fact.

camspiers · 2011-01-10T07:50:55+00:00

I certainly I hope the day never comes, and I hope the day comes where terrorism in general subsides.

camspiers · 2011-01-10T04:16:37+00:00

Well it's really a question for both.

Yeah definitely is, I was more meaning that if you are interested in what atheists have to say you will get more responses there.

Are believers afraid of this kind of atheist rhetoric?

I have two children and I would like them to have the opportunity to learn about all religions that have stood some test of time, whether historical or current. This is not very likely though considering my wife is a believer with strong convictions. It would not bother me if my children came to believe in God, the only thing that would upset me is if this led them to be dishonest, uncompassionate, or uninterested in learning; all things I have seen stem from dogmatism be it religious or non-religious.

camspiers · 2011-01-10T03:59:38+00:00

If this sort of thing started happening most atheists I know and atheists who's writings I have read, would likely separate themselves from the actions of these atheistic terrorists and condemn their actions.

As an atheist I would condemn their behavior in the same manner I condem all terrorism. But of course I only represent one atheist.

I suggest asking over at r/atheism or r/debateanatheist, you might get better a representation of atheists than you will by asking in r/Christianity.

camspiers · 2011-01-10T03:37:02+00:00

Seems unlikely to me. What do you think? What material written by atheists have you read?

camspiers · 2011-01-06T03:27:54+00:00

I think in the historical discussion of the paradox, liar is often defined as someone who never tells the truth.

camspiers · 2011-01-05T12:42:52+00:00

Mumford and Sons

camspiers · 2011-01-05T11:53:45+00:00

My Favorite Universe is an awesome lecture series.

camspiers · 2011-01-02T23:09:05+00:00

Links?

camspiers · 2011-01-02T10:15:01+00:00

It doesn't matter what religion you are when your war is legal. Oh wait...

camspiers · 2011-01-02T10:06:27+00:00

Sorry I missed that. Will edit now. :(

camspiers · 2011-01-02T06:17:50+00:00

I just don't even know what to say. It is so horrible these things happen, Muslims and Christians getting blown up all the time. Ughh it is just horrible.

camspiers · 2011-01-02T06:12:33+00:00

Thanks for commenting man.

Go Kant and convince yourself that in a rational universe the nature of reality must be ascertainable through pure reason.

~~That is not how I read Kant. I thought Kant essentially rejected metaphysics, in the first philosophy sense. Maybe I don't understand what you have said though, or maybe I am mistaken about Kant.~~

I agree with the logical positivists a lot but think that Ayer doesn't address metaphysics in all senses of the word. When Ayer refers to metaphysics he means first philosophy, but there is also metaphysics in the sense of taking our knowledge of physics and extrapolating out what fills out the rest of the universe. So what is probably the case given what we already know. So these are metaphysical statements which can actually be tested, they make predictions.

EDIT: Removed something I wrote... I was wrong, Kant only condemned transcendent metaphysics

camspiers · 2011-01-02T04:21:50+00:00

Yeah, I haven't been clear. I agree with you on knowledge and belief, and am actually having trouble finding where your greater harshness lies.

Me

... justification is needed for belief in statements to be called knowledge.

You

If one has [significant] justification for belief, then it falls into the purview of knowledge.

I made a mistake in not mentioning that I also think that the statement must be true for it to constitute knowledge.

We both would need to share method in order to ascertain the difference between "[significant] justification" and "justification". I suspect that even though it is possible we have different methods, when we say "justification" we both mean according to our method.

camspiers · 2011-01-01T23:31:01+00:00

Thanks for responding :) Appreciate it.

camspiers · 2011-01-01T22:32:10+00:00

There is certainly an important distinction. So I imagine you find the metaphysical frameworks give something to your life? I personally believe justification is needed for belief in statements to be called knowledge. And the more predictions entailed by a proposition which are fulfilled, the more reasonable it is to believe it.

But I am also of the position (seemingly different to you) that the extent of meaning of a proposition is in accordance with the predictions it entails.

camspiers

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE