Feed on Posts or Comments 15 September 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 07 Apr 2012 12:48 am

Where did the universe come from?

This video helps to understand where the universe comes from, via Carl Sagan:

Another perspective:

Also helpful:

Science compared to religion

29 Responses to “Where did the universe come from?”

  1. on 07 Apr 2012 at 6:38 pm 1.A said …

    The universe was created by God.

  2. on 07 Apr 2012 at 7:12 pm 2.B said …

    That’s a lovely hypothesis, A. Now back it up.

  3. on 07 Apr 2012 at 9:17 pm 3.DPK said …

    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

  4. on 07 Apr 2012 at 9:27 pm 4.B+ said …

    This video helps to understand where the universe comes from, via Carl Sagan. However, what Carl asserts without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

  5. on 07 Apr 2012 at 9:31 pm 5.alex said …

    “The universe was created by God.”

    even if god did it, humanity’s existence wouldn’t even register in the vastness of time and space. think about it, even if we found other habitable planets, we have to solve the time and distance problem. otherwise, relocating to a distant world is just a fantasy.

    ok, maybe god did create the universe, but so what? this god doesn’t give two shits. a heaven for the righteous occupants of an insignificant speck of dust is laughable.

  6. on 07 Apr 2012 at 10:18 pm 6.alex said …

    “what Carl asserts without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

    fair enough. my answer is: I don’t know. since I don’t know, I don’t have to prove shit.

    if your answer is god, prove it.

  7. on 07 Apr 2012 at 10:32 pm 7.B said …

    Let’s examine the actual claims made by Sagan in this video, since most of them are actually questions, not claims.
    1. “If we want to face the question [of the origins of the universe] courageously, we have to ask the next question: who created God?”
    2. “These are not easy questions (in reference to two scenarios that posit a lack of necessity for God’s existence to explain the universe–not the veracity of those scenarios themselves).”
    3. “Cosmology brings us face-to-face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once only treated with religion or myth.”

    Did you guys arguing about Sagan’s clams “without evidence” even watch the fracking video before spouting off about it?
    1. Um… what evidence is needed to make a claim that asking the question of God’s origins is a courageous way to face the question? I mean, it’s kind of Sagan being nice there, isn’t it? Don’t most kids, say three or four years old, ask this very question before religious grown-ups tell them its impolite and sacrilege to “question God”? Even if we dismiss this claim because it’s not thoroughly backed up, though, that it’s not courageous to ask the question of where God (or gods) came from in all of this origins business, what have we lost? Okay… it’s not courageous to ask that… it’s just, um, normal to wonder.

    2. So you’re suggesting that the questions on our ultimate origins are easy questions because Sagan is claiming that they are not and doesn’t provide evidence for it? Really? I mean, we’ve only been working on it for millennia and only recently, at tremendous expense and through tremendous ingenuity (that God, if he exists, stood in the way of, via his religions) developed the tools that allow us to actually answer that question. I mean, really. Okay… these are easy questions: No proof for God? God doesn’t exist. That’s usually how existence claims work.

    3. Maybe cosmology, the study of our ultimate origins, does not bring us face-to-face with deep mysteries that up until now have only been handled by religion or myth, but, well, frankly, if it doesn’t, what field does? I mean, if cosmology isn’t hard enough and out-there enough for you, why are you stupid enough to believe in magic sky daddies?

  8. on 07 Apr 2012 at 10:43 pm 8.DPK said …

    B. beat me to it.
    B+ , you aren’t much on critical thinking, huh? A. said, ” god created the universe.”. A claim made without evidence. Now, what “claim” did Dr. Sagan make exactly?

  9. on 07 Apr 2012 at 10:43 pm 9.40 year Atheist said …

    ”In every such society there is a cherished world of myth and metaphor which co-exists with the workaday world. Efforts to reconcile the two are made, and any rough edges at the joints are tend to be off-limits and ignored. We compartmentalize. Some scientists do this too, effortlessly stepping between the skeptical world of science and the credulous world of belief without skipping a beat. Of course, the greater the mismatch between these two worlds, the more difficult it is to be comfortable, with untroubled conscience, with both.

    ”In a life short and uncertain, it seems heartless to do anything that might deprive people of the consolation of faith when science cannot remedy their anguish. Those who cannot bear the burden of science are free to ignore its precepts. But we cannot have science in bits and pieces, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it where we feel threatened—again, because we are not wise enough to do so. Except by sealing the brain off into separate compartments, how is it possible to fly in airplanes, listen to the radio or take antibiotics while holding that the Earth is around 10,000 years old or that all Sagittarians are gregarious and affable?

    Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World (1995) P. 297.”

    Sagan, like many Atheists, presumes that there are two separate magesteria a la Stephen J Gould, completely separate and incompatible, one of which is totally factual and rational, the other of which is non-factual and irrational to the point of insanity. Hence this statement:
    ” Of course, the greater the mismatch between these two worlds, the more difficult it is to be comfortable, with untroubled conscience, with both.”
    Never mind that there is no physical, material lump called “conscience” or that there is no scientific experiment capable of providing the morality to tweak the conscience, Sagan declares that there is a moral mismatch, not just a physical or intellectual mismatch between the magesteria. Perhaps his moral statement goes like this:

    ”No knowledge should ever be accepted that is not scientifically derived, whatever that means”

    Now if this statement is a truth statement, and it is, and if it is an imperative, and it is, then there must be a scientific derivation for the statement itself. But of course there is not. The statement, and the Saganesque thinking behind it, is internally contradictory: therefore it is logically false, and intellectually non-coherent.

    But Sagan’s entire career in philosophizing is based on this premise. And Sagan’s entire appeal to Atheists of the world is the fact that he promotes this premise. For the Saganites, science and Materialism are actually moral imperatives. This is an obvious feature of a religion, one which is based on a false ideology.

    But that was just the first paragraph. Let’s move on to the second:

    ” In a life short and uncertain, it seems heartless to do anything that might deprive people of the consolation of faith when science cannot remedy their anguish.”
    Presupposition: the irrational magisterium has a purpose: to provide consolation and remedy anguish.

    Under this assumption there is no rational reason or reasoning involved with the second magesterium; it is predefined as irrational, serving desperate emotional needs that are not assuaged by mere experimental data.
    ” Those who cannot bear the burden of science are free to ignore its precepts.”

    Because the two magesteria cannot overlap in any way, those who engage the bad magisterium must be rejecting science. This presupposition goes counter to the prior sentence which gives an actual purpose to the bad magisterium, a purpose which science cannot fulfill, not a rejection of science but stepping outside of its grasp to access something more. One might presume that Sagan is obliquely referring to creationism / ID here, but that is not what he actually says: his statement refers to the entirety of the non-scientistic realm of intellectual thought.

    Of course on the surface, he is correct. One may safely ignore science as a source of moral instruction, purpose for one’s life, and answers to the question, “what sort of person should be?” But that again is not what he meant. What he meant is that the bad magisterium is a science-free zone, a fact-free zone where only fiction and “myth and metaphor” exist: a zone that is fully fallacious, a zone where one takes leave of one’s sanity if one goes there.

    ” But we cannot have science in bits and pieces, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it where we feel threatened—again, because we are not wise enough to do so. Except by sealing the brain off into separate compartments, how is it possible to fly in airplanes, listen to the radio or take antibiotics while holding that the Earth is around 10,000 years old or that all Sagittarians are gregarious and affable?”

    Those who access the bad magisterium cannot fly in airplanes? Here is the crux of Sagan’s belief, finally surfacing from the deep like a whale breeching and blowing. If a person accesses the bad magisterium, then by Sagan’s lights that person has rejected rationality and science in toto. There is no continuum between technology and a first cause. And to think that there actually is continuity is a violation of scientism, which brings us full circle back to Sagan’s Moral Law:

    ”No knowledge should ever be accepted that is not scientifically derived, whatever that means”

    So deeply embedded is this fallacious entreaty that it is not necessary to state it, even in Sagan’s philosophist articles like these. It is a firmly believed axiom, a moral First Principle for Atheism, Philosophical Materialism, and Scientism. But under the First Principles of Logic – those principles which secretly underlie actual science, logic and rational thought – Sagan’s Moral Law is so obviously a logical failure that its non-coherence place Sagan and Saganism into a separate magisterium yet, a third zone where irrational is declared rational, and not just rational: it is called moral, based on its own irrational moral principles. This magisterium might well be called the Realm of Moral Self-Delusion as Scientific Factism.

  10. on 07 Apr 2012 at 11:17 pm 10.B said …

    I can’t read all that copy-past, Stan, not when there’s so much wrong right from the get go.

    Let’s focus on the non-overlapping magisteria thing. If “most Atheists” believed that, they wouldn’t say quite so much. If your myths would do like good Greek myths did and stay mythos, in which they are considered parabolic at best and *not to be taken seriously as factual accounts of reality* you’d find less argument against theism–though as long as it serves as such an efficient engine of hate and extremism by refusing to revise out disgusting scriptural verses, it still deserves loud-mouthed, unapologetic derision.

    Now… why exactly are you conflating atheism and a scientific worldview, materialism, and “scientism,” which is a new-fangled b.s. term theists use to try to pull a Karl Rove on science? There are atheists out there that are starkly uneducated, not worried about it, and that reject God on purely moral grounds (it’s that easy). You might read John Stuart Mill’s autobiography, the chapter were he covers his father, on that one. Lots of other people work the same way. Many atheists adopt a scientific worldview, and a scientific worldview leads many people away from religious belief, but they’re not actually synonymous. What were you doodling on Venn Diagram day, or do they not cover that in theistic philosophy hack courses?

    I guess we should look at “factism” too. What the hell is that? A bias toward “facts,” ostensibly for decision-making purposes? Enlighten me, genius: how’s that bad?

  11. on 07 Apr 2012 at 11:38 pm 11.MegaByte said …

    Kaaabooommm!!! 40Year just completely blew the atheist silliness right out of the water.

    Let sum up Sagan’s argument in this cut’n paste video. God is eternal why not the universe? That’s it.

    It sounds like he is admitting there is a God, wants to use His attributes, but not give Him the credit. It is the equivalent of multiverse, a way of providing a God with invoking the name. It’s all semantics.

    Well, the majority of scientists say no, it is not eternal for numerous reasons. Second, as 40 has demonstrated, the universe is material. Therefore, if it is eternal, provide the proof. All material explanations require scientific proof.

  12. on 07 Apr 2012 at 11:44 pm 12.B said …

    11.MegaByte said …

    “Kaaabooommm!!! 40Year just completely blew the atheist silliness right out of the water.”

    Really? No. If I had time, I could pick apart at least 80% of the sentences he wrote then the paragraphs on top of those. You’re looking awesome, though, now that you have admitted you find drivel like that the least bit convincing.

  13. on 08 Apr 2012 at 6:31 am 13.Severin said …

    You can use this as a logical proof of non-existence of god, if you want.

    Claim 1: Nothing can exist without being created
    Claim 2: God was not created
    Conclusion: God does not exist

    These two claims can not be both true! Either god was created, in which case he/she/it exists, but created by someone/something else (higher?), or god was not created, and according to the first claim, god can not exist.

    Now, if you suddenly decide that something CAN exist without being created (like, for example god), please try to explain why god can exist without creating and matter/energy can’t?

    WHY?

  14. on 08 Apr 2012 at 6:42 am 14.Severin said …

    11 MB

    When did god create the universe?
    13.7 billion years ago (Big Bang)?
    6000 years ago?
    Sometimes in between?
    Before 13.7 b.y.?

  15. on 08 Apr 2012 at 11:04 am 15.Lou (DFW) said …

    9.40 year Atheist said …

    As usual, theists, in this case 40YOA, NEVER, EVER present THEIR evidence for THEIR imaginary god or that it created the universe. Instead, they create convoluted, dishonest attacks on those with whom they don’t agree.

  16. on 08 Apr 2012 at 11:49 am 16.Lou (DFW) said …

    11.MegaByte said …

    “Kaaabooommm!!! 40Year just completely blew the atheist silliness right out of the water.”

    Except of course, that he didn’t. If he actually “blew [anything] right out of the water” it would be Carl Sagan’s personal philosophy (that 40YOA lied about), not “atheist silliness.” Why didn’t he? Because there is no such thing as “atheist silliness” as he defines it because his definition is a lie. The rejection of theism doesn’t in anyway whatsoever attempt to explain the creation of the universe. It only rejects that god did it.

    “Let sum up Sagan’s argument in this cut’n paste video. God is eternal why not the universe? That’s it.”

    Let’s assume that’s true? So what? Let’s sum up yours – god did it. That’s it.

    “It sounds like…”

    Who cares what it “sounds like” to you? We know that once you use a phrase such as “It sounds like” then the misrepresentations and lies will follow.

    “…he is admitting there is a God, wants to use His attributes, but not give Him the credit. It is the equivalent of multiverse, a way of providing a God with invoking the name. It’s all semantics.”

    No, it isn’t. It’s all about how theists lie about what atheists say. What did Sagan actually say about god?

    “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.”

    11.MegaByte said …

    “Well, the majority of scientists say no, it is not eternal for numerous reasons.”

    You accept that from scientists, but you don’t accept that the majority of scientists “say no” to god did it?

    “Second, as 40 has demonstrated, the universe is material.”

    Thank you, until now none of us realized that the universe is material. Duh! How stupid were we until enlightened by Megabyte’s explanation of 40YOA’s nonsense.

    “Therefore, if it is eternal, provide the proof. All material explanations require scientific proof.”

    Rather than blabbering on about what Sagan (or you) may or may not have thought, why don’t you theists simply present your evidence for your imaginary god? It’s simple – you can’t because there is no such evidence. Therefore, that only leaves you with two choices – withdraw your claim or continue to lie about it. Being the intellectual and emotional cowards that you are, you can only continue to lie to support your deep seated need to believe – a psychological deficiency that you can’t overcome.

  17. on 08 Apr 2012 at 12:03 pm 17.Lou (DFW) said …

    11.MegaByte said …

    “Let sum up Sagan’s argument in this cut’n paste video. God is eternal why not the universe? That’s it.”

    Let’s compare Megabyte’s lie to something similar that Sagan said:

    “In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?”

    The key word here is temporizing – to act evasively in order to gain time, avoid argument, or postpone a decision. Sound familiar?

  18. on 08 Apr 2012 at 7:58 pm 18.Suh said …

    Sagan did not really do anything to help us understand from whence the universe came.

    He stated with we should ask, “from whence did God come from? Then he answers the question for us by stating the obvious that God is eternal.

    The he goes to a fallacy, why not believe the universe is eternal. Why not believe my dog is eternal? Why not believe the moon is made up of cheese?

    I have no problem with questioning God or how He is eternal, but jumping to stupid fallacies is disingenuous.

  19. on 08 Apr 2012 at 8:40 pm 19.Duh said …

    18.Suh said …

    “The he goes to a fallacy, why not believe the universe is eternal. Why not believe my dog is eternal? Why not believe the moon is made up of cheese?”

    Not so good with the “covering all of your options” part of creating an air-tight case for something, are you, Suh? He never implies the universe is eternal. He simply states that if it is, there’s no need to invoke God. Observe that word “if.” We call ideas that follow that word “conditionals.” You might notice that he talks about the other option too. In fact, that was the whole point of the video.

  20. on 08 Apr 2012 at 10:56 pm 20.DPK said …

    “He stated with we should ask, “from whence did God come from? Then he answers the question for us by stating the obvious that God is eternal.
    The he goes to a fallacy, why not believe the universe is eternal. Why not believe my dog is eternal? Why not believe the moon is made up of cheese?”

    Why is it fallacious to claim that the universe is eternal, but it is not fallacious to claim god is? Sagan is not claiming one or the other, he is merely asking, “why accept one idea, and not accept the other? This is exactly the point of the whole post. Once again you have completely missed it with your myopic magic-centered contradictory worldview. Sagan NEVER said he had an answer to where the universe came from. The point of the video is that as a theist, you claim that the universe HAD to have a cause, because NOTHING occurs without s cause. Then you say god exists without a cause… Why? Why is this ok to believe for god, but impossible to believe for anything else?
    Indeed, why not believe your dog is eternal… if you accept that there is a god, he was uncaused and eternal… then yeah… why not? You have the same amount of evidence. Why not believe that the universe was simply the bowel movement of some celestial dragon, or was vomited up by an invisible, transcendent space monkey? Why not? It’s all on equal footing in your world.

    No, what Sagan and other scientists SAY is, “Why not assume the universe is a natural phenomenon, which has a natural, non-magical explanation, even if we don’t fully understand it yet?” Why soul we be predisposed toward THAT idea, instead of evoking the assumption of a magical, transcendent god-creature for which there is no evidence? Well, simple… it has turned out that EVERY OTHER phenomena that in the past has been attributed to gods has turned out to have a natural explanation, and eventually has been understood through the application of science and reason. So, while we have no definitive answers to offer at this moment in time, that doesn’t mean there aren’t any, and it doesn’t mean gods are therefore required to explain it.

  21. on 08 Apr 2012 at 11:01 pm 21.DuhSquared said …

    Suh, fallacy? Which fallacy did Sagan commit and why?

  22. on 08 Apr 2012 at 11:53 pm 22.DPK said …

    Suh’s definition of fallacy, like many of the theists here is, “anything that doesn’t agree with my belief and threatens my eternal life in Disneyland in the sky.”

  23. on 09 Apr 2012 at 4:10 am 23.Lou (DFW) said …

    18.Suh said …

    “I have no problem with [Sagan] questioning God or how [h]e is eternal, but jumping to stupid fallacies is disingenuous.”

    You aren’t particularly bright, are you?

  24. on 09 Apr 2012 at 11:19 am 24.Lou (DFW) said …

    14.Severin said …

    “11 MB

    When did god create the universe?
    13.7 billion years ago (Big Bang)?
    6000 years ago?
    Sometimes in between?
    Before 13.7 b.y.?”

    You’ve been here long enough to know that he, 40YOA, and the rest will not answer because they and their sock-puppets are only here to pontificate about their beliefs while lying about atheists, all the while desperately looking for validation of their delusion.

  25. on 09 Apr 2012 at 1:51 pm 25.Notification said …

    OK, would everybody just stop lying about atheists? Just knock it off, ok? We all grow weary of Lou’s whining.

    The next one of you that expresses any facts/opinions about atheists will have your pads/laptops/phones taken by atheists.

    Reserve all your comments toward the religion of your choice.

    Thank you.

  26. on 09 Apr 2012 at 6:11 pm 26.Lou (DFW) said …

    25.Notification said …

    “Reserve all your comments toward the religion of your choice.”

    Why not simply post evidence for your imaginary god?

  27. on 29 Apr 2012 at 6:13 am 27.John said …

    Reading this the same thing as listening to goldfish trying to understand the transatlantic current.

    This BLOG should be renamed “Parrots and Chimps”. You guys are only good at repeating without understanding or throwing poo at what you don’t like.

  28. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:29 am 28.Lou(DFW) said …

    27.John said …

    “Reading this the same thing as listening to goldfish trying to understand the transatlantic current.

    This BLOG should be renamed “Parrots and Chimps”. You guys are only good at repeating without understanding or throwing poo at what you don’t like.”

    How much poo have you thrown so far without providing any evidence of your imaginary god?

  29. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:26 pm 29.John said …

    28. Lou, what flavor of evolution to do you subscribe to?

    My answer: Information. Information. Oh yeah, Information. A causal agent creating information is a good start as oppose to your childish view that information just made itself.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply