An Objectivist's Stance on The Origin of The Universe and The Afterlife

[basimpson22]

Just yesterday I had a meeting with a campuse minister. We discussed the origin of the universe, the afterlife, the evidence of a designer. I would love love love to convert him to objectivism. Or atleast to rack his mind.

Minister's arguments for origin of the Universe:

1) the minister brought up a theory from thermodynamics that all bodies are cooling off. He asked, well if everything naturally cools off, where does the heat come from? Implying that God must be the source

2)Newton's 1st law and expansion of the universe: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. The minister said that the universe, instead of oscillating in size, has been proven to be expanding exponentially or at a growing rate and if Newton's 1st Law holds true the universe must be having a force acting on it in order for it to grow at an increasing rate, implying that God must have been the one who initiated this constant force. Otherwise, in his theory, the universe could only be growing at a constant rate or declining rate. A declining rate would suggest a finite universe since if its declining it must be converging to a limit.

for the afterlife:

his arguments for the afterlife did not have any scientfic basis. He posed a typical argument and that is that its better to live you're life as a Christian in case there is an afterlife since if you don't you're risking an eternity of anguish. I said that the probability of an afterlife is highly subjective. And then he said it was 100% but started talking about how if you decide to live as a christian you will choose the right path 100% of the time. I know! Illogical right?! Completely changed the subject. (Maybe that'll give you an idea of what I'm dealing with. I don't know if that was meant as an intential diversion to what I was talking about or what?

evidence of a designer:

he said that there is a moral code among men that is universal. I really don't have an argument to that. I believe that as an objectivist one can observe that in fact there seems to be a core of morals common among all men. He said that this couldn't have happened by chance, and that this "code" must exist by design. He also talked about the complexity of the human eye and how that couldn't have been the sum of random events. He also said that, since when something is designed it has a purpose, that we (humans) must have a purpose that serves our creator.

Ok, that's the gist of it. I'm hoping to get an abundance of feedback.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Aristocrates

[BaalChatzaf]

Just yesterday I had a meeting with a campuse minister. We discussed the origin of the universe, the afterlife, and mankinds moral code. I would love love love to convert him to objectivism. Or atleast to rack his mind.

Minister's arguments for origin of the Universe:

1) the minister brought up a theory from thermodynamics that all bodies are cooling off. He asked, well if everything naturally cools off, where does the heat come from? Implying that God must be the source

2)Newton's 1st law and expansion of the universe: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. The minister said that the universe, instead of oscillating in size, has been proven to be expanded exponentially or at a growing rate and if Newton's 1st Law holds true the universe must be having a force acting on it in order for it to grow at an increasing rate, implying that God must have been the one who initiated this constant force. Otherwise, in his theory, the universe could only be growing at a constant rate or declining rate. A declining rate would suggest a finite universe since if its declining it must be converging to a limit. Note: he is not a physicist but has an engineering degree(wooptie doo!)

The expansion of the cosmos is currently accelerating.

Eventually the last star will cease to shine and that will be The End.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

delete duplicate

Edited March 4, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

The minister would apparently resort to a god to explain whatever it is that he doesn't understand.

And even if a creator god did exist he wouldn't be a human sacrificing bigot interested in dietary restrictions and what sort of fiber blends you can wear.

Existence had to exist. There was nothing to prevent it.

[basimpson22]

The expansion of the cosmos is currently accelerating.

Eventually the last star will cease to shine and that will be The End.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thanks for your very scientific response....

Edited March 4, 2011 by Aristocrates

[basimpson22]

The minister would apparently resort to a god to explain whatever it is that he doesn't understand.

And even if a creator god did exist he wouldn't be a human sacrificing bigot interested in dietary restrictions and what sort of fiber blends you can wear.

Existence had to exist. There was nothing to prevent it.

Point taken but I'm just interested in a logical argument I could present to the minister with minimum insult to his faith. I just want to appeal to his logic, not attack his faith.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Brant Gaede]

Just yesterday I had a meeting with a campuse minister. We discussed the origin of the universe, the afterlife, and mankinds moral code. I would love love love to convert him to objectivism. Or atleast to rack his mind.

Minister's arguments for origin of the Universe:

1) the minister brought up a theory from thermodynamics that all bodies are cooling off. He asked, well if everything naturally cools off, where does the heat come from? Implying that God must be the source

2)Newton's 1st law and expansion of the universe: Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. The minister said that the universe, instead of oscillating in size, has been proven to be expanded exponentially or at a growing rate and if Newton's 1st Law holds true the universe must be having a force acting on it in order for it to grow at an increasing rate, implying that God must have been the one who initiated this constant force. Otherwise, in his theory, the universe could only be growing at a constant rate or declining rate. A declining rate would suggest a finite universe since if its declining it must be converging to a limit. Note: he is not a physicist but has an engineering degree(wooptie doo!)

The expansion of the cosmos is currently accelerating.

Eventually the last star will cease to shine and that will be The End.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Your assuming less ignorance than you probably have.

--Brant

[basimpson22]

Your assuming less ignorance than you probably have.

--Brant

Please clarify

Edited March 4, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Brant Gaede]

Your assuming less ignorance than you probably have.

--Brant

Please clarify

People who know a little like to come to conclusions that tend to be vitiated over time by more data. Data is hard to accumulate. Scientists do this a lot speculating about the cosmos. Since existence has always existed, it's a great conceit to imagine it going cold without at least then firing up again. Whatever the origin of the perceived and identified universe, there had to have been something before if there was a beginning to it as such. The existence of non-existence is the existence of nothing and a contradiction.

--Brant

[basimpson22]

Your assuming less ignorance than you probably have.

--Brant

Please clarify

People who know a little like to come to conclusions that tend to be vitiated over time by more data. Data is hard to accumulate. Scientists do this a lot speculating about the cosmos. Since existence has always existed, it's a great conceit to imagine it going cold without at least then firing up again. Whatever the origin of the perceived and identified universe, there had to have been something before if there was a beginning to it as such. The existence of non-existence is the existence of nothing and a contradiction.

--Brant

Well, yes, the existence of non-existence is contradictory and the bible doesn't try to disprove that. It acknowledges eternity in both directions. But this is a very profound thought to me. I keep thinking about it and all i can come to is that Existence is greater than God since without it there couldn't be a God. ....blows my mind. Existence is what we should be rejoicing about, not God. And specifically, our own piece of existence.

[Brant Gaede]

Your assuming less ignorance than you probably have.

--Brant

Please clarify

People who know a little like to come to conclusions that tend to be vitiated over time by more data. Data is hard to accumulate. Scientists do this a lot speculating about the cosmos. Since existence has always existed, it's a great conceit to imagine it going cold without at least then firing up again. Whatever the origin of the perceived and identified universe, there had to have been something before if there was a beginning to it as such. The existence of non-existence is the existence of nothing and a contradiction.

--Brant

Well, yes, the existence of non-existence is contradictory and the bible doesn't try to disprove that. It acknowledges eternity in both directions. But this is a very profound thought to me. I keep thinking about it and all i can come to is that Existence is greater than God since without it there couldn't be a God. ....blows my mind. Existence is what we should be rejoicing about, not God. And specifically, our own piece of existence.

Your God premise is confusing. Simply put "God" into the universe and there is no more problem for God disappears. If you don't want that to happen, then become a pantheist. Outside the universe merely posits a bigger reality than we can be aware of.

--Brant

[basimpson22]

Your God premise is confusing. Simply put "God" into the universe and there is no more problem for God disappears. If you don't want that to happen, then become a pantheist. Outside the universe merely posits a bigger reality than we can be aware of.

--Brant

God is not my premise. When I mentioned God I was referring to the Christians concept of God as all-knowing, all-seeing, all-present, all-powerful and eternal. Doesn't that fit the definition of a pantheist type God anyways? What this topic was intended for was to argue the ministers positions and no one seems to be able to give any advise pertaining to that. Why would you even suggest becoming pantheist? Doesn't that go against objectivism since pantheism is a speculative concept.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Aristocrates

[bmacwilliam]

Your assuming less ignorance than you probably have.

--Brant

Please clarify

Whatever the origin of the perceived and identified universe, there had to have been something before if there was a beginning to it as such.

--Brant

Time doesn't work this way. The idea is that time itself began at the big bang. There is no 'before'. There is no north of the north pole.

Bob

[AdamMartin316]

You could argue that the human eye is complex but very certainly not perfect. Follow this link. http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rdmp1c/teaching/l1/evolution/ppt/lecture2/sld006.htm

Actually, our optical nerve traverses the inside of our retina (where rods and cones receive and transmit images to the brain)thus causing the "blind spot". Maybe God doesn't want us to see something. Haha.

The optic nerve of a squid does not traverse its retina so it does not have a "blind spot". So, you could argue that the squid has a perfect eye.

Also, eagles and other raptors have 2 focal points in their eyes, one for seeing objects at short distances and another for seeing things from very long distances.

Wouldn't it be cool to have 2 focal points in our eyes?

[basimpson22]

You could argue that the human eye is complex but very certainly not perfect. Follow this link. http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rdmp1c/teaching/l1/evolution/ppt/lecture2/sld006.htm

Actually, our optical nerve traverses the inside of our retina (where rods and cones receive and transmit images to the brain)thus causing the "blind spot". Maybe God doesn't want us to see something. Haha.

The optic nerve of a squid does not traverse its retina so it does not have a "blind spot". So, you could argue that the squid has a perfect eye.

Also, eagles and other raptors have 2 focal points in their eyes, one for seeing objects at short distances and another for seeing things from very long distances.

Wouldn't it be cool to have 2 focal points in our eyes?

that's a good point in of itself but the minister was just using that as an example of the many complex systems we find in nature. What you said is logically sound and he wouldn't disagree with that nor do I. Eagles see at much greater distances than us human but what I'm interested in is a logical argument that will challenge his beliefs. I know there is one out there. There has to be

Edited March 4, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Brant Gaede]

Your assuming less ignorance than you probably have.

--Brant

Please clarify

Whatever the origin of the perceived and identified universe, there had to have been something before if there was a beginning to it as such.

--Brant

Time doesn't work this way. The idea is that time itself began at the big bang. There is no 'before'. There is no north of the north pole.

Bob

You are right in that time is in the universe, but not that there was no "before." If there was no before then the universe itself is eternal. "Before" would simply be a different, unknowable, frame of reference for time.

There certainly is a north of the north pole: straight up. It's just a different frame of reference.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

There certainly is a north of the north pole: straight up. It's just a different frame of reference.

--Brant

There is no point north of the north pole on the surface of the earth.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

that's a good point in of itself but the minister was just using that as an example of the many complex systems we find in nature. What you said is logically sound and he wouldn't disagree with that nor do I. Eagles see at much greater distances than us human but what I'm interested in is a logical argument that will challenge his beliefs. I know there is one out there. There has to be

I enjoy that "there has to be", btw.

The simple version of an argument to the minister might be that there were a trillion, trillion possible outcomes from the BB onwards, but the one we know about was the one we got here and now; some entities we've named rational animals questioning themselves, inventing a deity, etc.

Literally, the best of all possible worlds.

(But we better watch out for those clever calimari.)

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

There certainly is a north of the north pole: straight up. It's just a different frame of reference.

--Brant

There is no point north of the north pole on the surface of the earth.

I'm not aware there are any morons on OL, Bob.

--Brant

some feel differently

[Mike Hansen]

he said that there is a moral code among men that is universal. I really don't have an argument to that.

I get that one a lot. It's a screwy statement in that it allows him to switch his underlying argument. Following the statement, he'll defend two ideas interchangeably:

(1) There is a moral code which is known intrinsically by all human beings.

and

(2) There is a correct moral code for all human beings (the idea of salvation being open to everybody).

Obviously these are two very different ideas. Before you can argue against his initial statement, you need to ask him to clarify. And then you can deal with the clarified version that he gives you. Statement (1) has no merit (ask him to provide reasoning for it, rather than immediately trying to attack it). Statement (2) is correct, but it's not the christian moral code. It's that Objectivist one!

Mike

P.S. Where do you go to school?

[bmacwilliam]

You are right in that time is in the universe, but not that there was no "before." If there was no before then the universe itself is eternal. "Before" would simply be a different, unknowable, frame of reference for time.

No, time simply does not exist "before" the big bang. There is no such thing as "eternal" - time itself does not exist, period.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

You are right in that time is in the universe, but not that there was no "before." If there was no before then the universe itself is eternal. "Before" would simply be a different, unknowable, frame of reference for time.

No, time simply does not exist "before" the big bang. There is no such thing as "eternal" - time itself does not exist, period.

Bob

The assumption here is that time is a substance, but it's just a measurement of motion. (Never mind the assumption about the validity of the Big Bang.) Time, unlike motion, has no metaphysical significance whatsoever.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Your assuming less ignorance than you probably have.

--Brant

Please clarify

Whatever the origin of the perceived and identified universe, there had to have been something before if there was a beginning to it as such.

--Brant

Time doesn't work this way. The idea is that time itself began at the big bang. There is no 'before'. There is no north of the north pole.

Bob

You are right in that time is in the universe, but not that there was no "before." If there was no before then the universe itself is eternal. "Before" would simply be a different, unknowable, frame of reference for time.

There certainly is a north of the north pole: straight up. It's just a different frame of reference.

--Brant

Equivocated like a true Hindu, turtles all the way down.

[basimpson22]

that's a good point in of itself but the minister was just using that as an example of the many complex systems we find in nature. What you said is logically sound and he wouldn't disagree with that nor do I. Eagles see at much greater distances than us human but what I'm interested in is a logical argument that will challenge his beliefs. I know there is one out there. There has to be

I enjoy that "there has to be", btw.

The simple version of an argument to the minister might be that there were a trillion, trillion possible outcomes from the BB onwards, but the one we know about was the one we got here and now; some entities we've named rational animals questioning themselves, inventing a deity, etc.

Literally, the best of all possible worlds.

(But we better watch out for those clever calimari.)

Tony

They truly are clever. I saw a documentary on them once and it showed how they were one of few of the animals in the animal kingdom to use tools. I do believe they are highly intelligent. Lol, clever calimari

[basimpson22]

he said that there is a moral code among men that is universal. I really don't have an argument to that.

I get that one a lot. It's a screwy statement in that it allows him to switch his underlying argument. Following the statement, he'll defend two ideas interchangeably:

(1) There is a moral code which is known intrinsically by all human beings.

and

(2) There is a correct moral code for all human beings (the idea of salvation being open to everybody).

Obviously these are two very different ideas. Before you can argue against his initial statement, you need to ask him to clarify. And then you can deal with the clarified version that he gives you. Statement (1) has no merit (ask him to provide reasoning for it, rather than immediately trying to attack it). Statement (2) is correct, but it's not the christian moral code. It's that Objectivist one!

Mike

P.S. Where do you go to school?

Thanks Mike. I go to Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, TN. We're considered apart of the Bible belt. And there's good reason for that. I was discussing the origin of the universe with a girl in a coffee shop and toward the end of the conversation this older gentleman chimed in, arguing her creationist theory. Quite frustrating. What is it he said.... he said that since it can be observed that so many cultures have a creation story that there must be some merit to the idea of there being a God. Something to that affect. I just didn't say anything to him.