John Galt John Galt

The Origins of the Universe

▼

The Origins of the Universe

from JoeUser Forums
Ok, so it always seems to come down to this one thing with religion and then the religous nuts argue that you just have a belief too, just as they do and you can't be sure you're any more right because of the old chicken and egg.

Chicken and Egg theory... CONTRADICTION.

No matter what belief you have, big bang started the universe or God did, you still have the chicken and the egg. If God created the universe, who created God?

Occam's Razor comes into effect here. (And Christians fall into it by accident with their answer to "who created God?")

The Big Bang theory leaves out "who/what created the matter?"

The answer of course, that is completley non-contradictory and thus correct and the simplist answer (especially when I get to my article disproving the concept of God) is that the energy (matter is a by-product of energy) has always existed.

We have a hard time with infinity. At least in any other context than God, as human beings, but the fact still remains that it is the only answer the question that is non-contradictory. And Christians, saying God did, and then saying God has always been there, is illogical and overly complex, and the universe doesn't do complex.

So be happy, the universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another. Don't bother trying to figure out who/what created all of this, cause the answer is, no-one/nothing did.

Makes life much easier, and far more logical and you don't get that "god I feel small" feeling every time you think about the topic any longer :)
philosophy
12,097 views 29 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
"is because to understand the philosophical equivalent requires one hell of a lot of knowledge that most people are not likely to have becasue they didn't major in philosophy in university,"

This is possibly the most arrogant thing ever posted on ju, and that's saying something, because I have a blog on ju. What JG is saying is that he could prove his point but we're all too dumb to understand him so he won't bother coming down to our level. I have half a major in philosophy JG, try me on. Maybe I'll surprise you.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I just happen to harp on socialists more than right wingers, because they happen to be a greater threat right at this moment,"

You obviously missed the memo about the election results in Australia, USA and the next election in the UK.

"This is precisely the reason why we have the term infinity."

Which 99% of us have a problem coming to terms with, as you have even said yourself. To have a term doesn't mean we can get our heads around it. We might even describe infinity, but it is still beyond our true capabilities to understand it. Plato said something along the lines of his being extremely wise because of his understanding of the limitations of his own knowledge. I agree with him on this.

"An immaterial world cannot affect a material world by definition and thus is irrelivent even if it did exist, which as being part of the material world, you could never direct or indirectly observe or be affected by the immaterial world."

This is an opinion and not a fact. You believe this because of the specific assumptions the theories you subscribe to make and I believe differently because of specific assumptions my theories make. My atheist , Cartesian lecturer ( he subscribes to the theory that Descartes was actually an atheist) actually gave me a high distinction for my arguments that it is actually possible for an immaterial world to affect a material world.

"proven repeatedly since it was first put out for the world's consumption by Kant. "

Actually I don't think much of Kant. I'm more of a Foucauldian.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
'Makes life much easier, and far more logical and you don't get that "god I feel small" feeling every time you think about the topic any longer '

This tickles me hugely. No really, it does. All the debate notwithstanding, this is Mr. Galt's literal 'bottom line'. So let's analyse it. There are three basic arguments presented here in support of his position that 'the universe has always existed and will always exist in some form or another.' They are:

1. It makes life easier.
Just as it would also make life easier if the fridge was always full when we opened the door, or if our memories were always infallible, or if we each had guardian leprechauns to keep us from possible harm. Hmm.

2. It makes life 'far more logical'.
And this from the man whose blog site is entitled 'Rational thought in an irrational world'. ie. He wants to IMPOSE logic on a world that he admits is irrational!

3. It means 'you don't get that "god I feel small" feeling every time you think about the topic any longer'.
Translation: 'I feel uncomfortable when I consider the alternatives.' Just as many religious people feel uncomfortable with the alternatives to THEIR beliefs. This reminds me of that famous quote about quantum mechanics:
"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it." (Niels Bohr)

And that's Mr. Galt's bottom line? I'm afraid so. The rest is just hot air.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
if we each had guardian leprechauns to keep us from possible harm


where do i sign up? (do we also take title to the pot o'gold and a couple boxes of lucky charms?)