The Origin of the Universe

[Christopher]

Carl Sagan mentioned something I thought quite clean about the origins of the Universe which I have copied below:

All cultures have creationist theories that are part of cultural mythologies.

Many cultures are therefore moved to say that the creation of the universe must have come from God (or the like).

So before the creation of the universe, there was God.

But what was before God? We do not know.

Since we do not know, why not save a step and simply say that we do not know what was before the creation of the Universe.

Or perhaps God has always been around.

If that is the case, then why not save a step and simply say that the universe has always been around.

[Chris Grieb]

The universe is what we call the sum total of what exists. Existence exists. See Atlas Shrugged. There is no beginning for existence. Existence has always exists.

Next question.

[Selene]

Guys:

This first mover argument can drive the human mind to create a God, who always was, is now and always will be, as I believe the Catholic litany goes.

However, existence always was, is now and always will be as, I think, our litany goes.

The cause and effect imprint that we carry in our hard wiring will not permit us to escape this "logic".

The Dalai Llama book I just finished attempts to blend the concepts.

I do not have an answer, but the "question" as to what came before existence/God and the corollary which is what will follow the non-existence of existence/God remains THE question?

Maybe the rapture...

An eternal question? Wondrous being a human.

Adam

[DeeVee]

Hello,

I attended an anesthesiology conference where the Dalai Llama listened to the presenters, and was then asked to speak. To say the least, the Dalai Llama was "astounded"...and stated that he was leaving the conference with new ideas, one of which was to encourage Buddhists to study the sciences, and especially cosmology.

I am not religious, but am in a couple of forums with Mazdayasna Zoroastrians, whose "prophet" spoke some 3500 year ago, from what appears to be a position of logic and reason. The Zs are divided, with the Mazdayasnins being the intellectuals promoting "science, logic and reason", but some in the Zoroastrian faction, especially "converts" are attempting to weld Zism into a Left Wing socialist and "collectivist" ideology.

There are Ayn Rand Objectivists and Atheists in this forum...and the battle rages on. However, the "truth" is on the side of the Objectivists, because "Good Thoughts" (Science Reason and Logic), Good Words (Active problem-solving expressions), and Good Deeds (Living a life with Reason and Logic) is what Zarathustra taught some 3500 years ago. Zoraastrians, now primarily living in India as Parsis, and in the US and Canada have more PhDs, and physicists per capita than all other religions, because that is what this particular religion or philosophy teaches and creates a happier, fulfilled, life.

Ergo...the battle rages on inside and outside of religion...for Objective Logic and Reason....May the best thinkers win.

Hugs, DeeVee

Guys:

This first mover argument can drive the human mind to create a God, who always was, is now and always will be, as I believe the Catholic litany goes.

However, existence always was, is now and always will be as, I think, our litany goes.

The cause and effect imprint that we carry in our hard wiring will not permit us to escape this "logic".

The Dalai Llama book I just finished attempts to blend the concepts.

I do not have an answer, but the "question" as to what came before existence/God and the corollary which is what will follow the non-existence of existence/God remains THE question?

Maybe the rapture...

An eternal question? Wondrous being a human.

Adam

[Selene]

Hello,

I attended an anesthesiology conference where the Dalai Llama listened to the presenters, and was then asked to speak. To say the least, the Dalai Llama was "astounded"...and stated that he was leaving the conference with new ideas, one of which was to encourage Buddhists to study the sciences, and especially cosmology.

I am not religious, but am in a couple of forums with Mazdayasna Zoroastrians, whose "prophet" spoke some 3500 year ago, from what appears to be a position of logic and reason. The Zs are divided, with the Mazdayasnins being the intellectuals promoting "science, logic and reason", but some in the Zoroastrian faction, especially "converts" are attempting to weld Zism into a Left Wing socialist and "collectivist" ideology.

There are Ayn Rand Objectivists and Atheists in this forum...and the battle rages on. However, the "truth" is on the side of the Objectivists, because "Good Thoughts" (Science Reason and Logic), Good Words (Active problem-solving expressions), and Good Deeds (Living a life with Reason and Logic) is what Zarathustra taught some 3500 years ago. Zoraastrians, now primarily living in India as Parsis, and in the US and Canada have more PhDs, and physicists per capita than all other religions, because that is what this particular religion or philosophy teaches and creates a happier, fulfilled, life.

Ergo...the battle rages on inside and outside of religion...for Objective Logic and Reason....May the best thinkers win.

Hugs, DeeVee

Guys:

This first mover argument can drive the human mind to create a God, who always was, is now and always will be, as I believe the Catholic litany goes.

However, existence always was, is now and always will be as, I think, our litany goes.

The cause and effect imprint that we carry in our hard wiring will not permit us to escape this "logic".

The Dalai Llama book I just finished attempts to blend the concepts.

I do not have an answer, but the "question" as to what came before existence/God and the corollary which is what will follow the non-existence of existence/God remains THE question?

Maybe the rapture...

An eternal question? Wondrous being a human.

Adam

Dee Vee:

A global welcome to OL. The book I just finished was recommended by Rich Engle of this forum. Title is The Universe In A Single Atom - the Dalai Lama may have referenced that precise conference.

At any rate, an excellent book.

Welcome aboard. What part of the planet are you from?

Adam

Edited October 20, 2009 by Selene

[shadesofgrey]

The universe is what we call the sum total of what exists. Existence exists. See Atlas Shrugged. There is no beginning for existence. Existence has always exists.

Next question.

I'm curious to hear responses to the theory that not only matter and space, but time itself began with the big bang. I find myself frequently asking: "Well what was there before that?" since it's counterintuitive that something came from nothing. Unfortunately our standard model has no answer for this quandry.

Seeing as we as humans define "existence" by what we can empirically measure, and at some point in the past there may have been a "time" when there was no measureable matter or space or time, then by our limited definition existence didn't always exist.

[Christopher]

Guys:

This first mover argument can drive the human mind to create a God, who always was, is now and always will be, as I believe the Catholic litany goes.

However, existence always was, is now and always will be as, I think, our litany goes.

The cause and effect imprint that we carry in our hard wiring will not permit us to escape this "logic".

The Dalai Llama book I just finished attempts to blend the concepts.

I do not have an answer, but the "question" as to what came before existence/God and the corollary which is what will follow the non-existence of existence/God remains THE question?

Maybe the rapture...

An eternal question? Wondrous being a human.

Adam

I haven't read the DL book, but I'm beginning to recognize there actually is a difference between Universe and God in terms of human experience. It seems to me that when we humans claim God existed before the universe, in essence we are claiming the existence of consciousness, of an energy of life that permeates reality and is the cause of material reality. For most people the concept "universe" is lifeless, consists of matter without awareness to internal energies of life; therefore, God (consciousness) comes first.

Sagan seems like a man who linked the existence of the universe with spirit, so there was no division to him. Thus, his quote is fitting.

Ken Wilber argues that all matter has interior states, and we as humans recognize the interior states through our consciousness.

Joseph Campbell said God is above categorization and into the mystery. Here Campbell meant that the essence of God is imbedded in the unconscious energies of the psyche.

Overall, it is interesting that concepts of the universe's creation are deeply intertwined with consciousness, with interior-states, with psyche-driven energies. I agree with the feeling and spirit that Creationists embody. We as humans simply cannot escape the presence of life-energy in our awareness, knowledge and wisdom that arises from our unconsciousness. Thus, it seems unwhole to define the universe as merely conceptual stuff. Our mind, convictions, and experiences are far more than mere conceptual stuff. But at the same time, we know of no life-energy that exists apart from matter. Therefore, it seems most likely that consciousness and matter arose into existence simultaneously.

[Selene]

Christopher;

Excellent post. I am glad that we are both looking at the same concepts. I am always amazed by how fearful many individuals are at breaking out of their social and family conditioning.

I found much of my "conditioning" to have tremendous life value. So of the conditioning I changed and some I discarded.

However, my fundamental awe of whatever we call the continuity that weaves energy and matter and unknowns into the reality that permits both you and I to stare at the same sky and wonder, never ceases.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Should my speculations about our evolving organs of perception ever uncover an aspect of reality akin to some kind of meta-awareness (or whatever you want to call it), it would be fair to say that not only is the universe expanding, but so is consciousness. Life in general certainly is expanding through evolution.

This kind of stuff does not fit one premise of Objectivism, but I find it more than reasonable to observe it and speculate about it. This is one area where I am at odds with Rand. I invite my soul to speculate on these things and take great pleasure in doing so. Here is how she put it in notes to herself (Journals, June 19, 1958, p. 698).

"Cosmology" has to be thrown out of philosophy. When this is done, the conflict between "rationalism" and "empiricism" will be wiped out—or, rather, the error that permitted the nonsense of such a conflict will be wiped out.

What, apparently, has never been challenged and what I took as a self-evident challenge (which it isn't) is Thales' approach to philosophy, namely: the idea that philosophy has to discover the nature of the universe in cosmological terms. If Thales thought that everything is water, and the other pre-Socratics fought over whether it's water and earth and fire, etc., then the empiricists were right in declaring that they would go by the evidence of observation, not by "rational" deduction—only then, of course, the whole issue and all its terms are [thoroughly confused]. The crux of the error here is in the word "nature." I took Thales' attempt to mean only the first attempt at, or groping toward, a unified view of knowledge and reality, i.e., an epistemological, not a metaphysical, attempt to establish the fact that things have natures.

Now I think that he meant, and all subsequent philosophers took it to mean, a metaphysical attempt to establish the literal nature of reality and to prove by philosophical means that everything is literally and physically made of water or that water is a kind of universal "stuff." If so, then philosophy is worse than a useless science, because it usurps the domain of physics and proposes to solve the problems of physics by some nonscientific, and therefore mystical, means.

. . .

All the fantastic irrationalities of philosophical metaphysics have been the result of epistemological errors, fallacies or corruptions. "Existence exists" (or identity plus causality) is all there is to metaphysics. All the rest is epistemology.

Paraphrasing myself: Philosophy tell us only that things have natures, but what these natures are is the job of specific sciences. The rest of philosophy's task is to tell us the rules by which to discover the specific natures.

I used to take this stance as a given. As I grow more and read more and inquire more and contemplate more and even live more, I get more and more uncomfortable with this posture.

Can I only learn the specific nature of man from biologists and psychologists, or can I observe myself and learn my own nature—at least to some extent? In Rand's postulation, if I do not consult the sciences, I can only know that I have a nature, but not what it is.

I certainly would not be able to project an ideal man with any degree of "specific nature" unless my efforts spoke to scientific experiments. Yet Rand did so in her fiction, then claimed that these creations were "recreations of reality" according to her "metaphysical value judgments."

And how about mulling over things like Law of Attraction (if you can get past the slick hype), or even Peikoff's statement: "everything in the universe is interconnected" (OPAR, p. 123)?

I especially have difficulty with Rand's posture, such as stated in the ITOE workshops (ITOE, p. 273):

The universe is really the sum of everything that exists. It isn't an entity in the sense in which you call a table, a chair, or a man an entity.

Actually, do you know what we can ascribe to the universe as such, apart from scientific discovery? Only those fundamentals that we can grasp about existence. Not in the sense of switching contexts and ascribing particular characteristics to the universe, but we can say: since everything possesses identity, the universe possesses identity. Since everything is finite, the universe is finite. But we can't ascribe space or time or a lot of other things to the universe as a whole.

In other words, according to Rand's words here, she implies that the universe is a background holding everything that exists and it is also those things that exist. But the background doesn't really exist as a singular existent. Yet it is finite. So how is that background not an entity or singular existent of some sort? Either that, or a consistent background doesn't exist, which means that it's "deuces wild" (to use one of her expressions) for the law of identity of existents.

For the life of me, I cannot get any logical consistency out of any of this. How can you apply laws like identity and finite to something that does not exist as a singular existent? When you start mulling it over, you eventually get to the top without a bottom or bottom without a top problem again. And you don't need science to tell you that you can only have down if there is up and vice-versa.

Thus my disagreement. I do not believe that cosmology should be "thrown out of philosophy," but it definitely should be thrown out of Objectivism.

To be clear about my view and to paraphrase Rand, "Existence exists (or identity plus causality) is all there is to Objectivist metaphysics." Those axioms are correct, but there is more to metaphysics than those axioms.

Michael

EDIT: Interestingly enough, Rand comes close to where I am at later in the workshop (ITOE, pp 290-291):

Prof. E: Could you argue, on metaphysical grounds, that all observed properties of an entity are ultimately explicable in terms of, or reducible back to, properties of their primary constituents?

AR: We'd have to be omniscient to know. The question in my mind would be: how can we [as philosophers] make conclusions about the ultimate constituents of the universe? For instance, we couldn't say: everything is material, if by "material" we mean that of which the physical objects on the perceptual level are made—"material" in the normal, perceptual meaning of the word. If this is what we mean by "material," then we do not have the knowledge to say that ultimately everything is sub-subatomic particles which in certain aggregates are matter. Because suppose scientists discovered that there are two different kinds of primary ingredients—or three, or more? We would be in the same position as the pre-Socratics who were trying to claim that everything was air, water, earth, and fire because that's all they knew.

Prof. E: You see the question is whether the concept of "potentiality" might not be irreducible. That is, whether the ultimate constituents of the universe, if and when we ever reach them, would have to be definable solely in terms of their mode of action.

AR: No, in fact the opposite will be true. The only thing of which we can be sure, philosophically, is that the ultimate stuff, if it's ever found—one element or ten of them—will have identity. It will be what it is. You could not say that it is pure action: the concept wouldn't apply. If you come down to the ultimate particles of the universe and say they are pure action, they don't have any identity, they don't have anything except the capacity for action—the term "action" would not apply. By "action" we mean the action of an entity.

How about another word for what would apply, a New-Age-sounding word for something like that? How about "energy"?

Or how about a part of reality the human being does not perceive because he has not yet evolved the sensory organs?

How about patterns we observe time and time again, but can't quite pin down enough to test under controlled conditions? What if we find elements that control such patterns?

I find it weird that Rand can make statements like "We'd have to be omniscient to know," and observations like the ones above that can logically lead to speculations like mine, then claim as a metaphysical fact that "infinite" does not exist.

My position is that you can speculate that "infinite" does not exist, but you cannot claim it as a fact unless you can verify it somehow. The solely-logic-based switcharoonie, "since everything is finite, the universe is finite," is not the same thing as observed proof.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Overall, it is interesting that concepts of the universe's creation are deeply intertwined with consciousness, with interior-states, with psyche-driven energies. I agree with the feeling and spirit that Creationists embody.

Why do you assume the universe (or Cosmos) was created? Steinhardt and Turok, for instance, have advanced a hypothesis that implies the Cosmos we know and love has always existed, but in various states. The famous Big Bang was just one intermediate state of the never ending being of the Cosmos. And this Cosmos we go to a vanishing state and be again in a never ending quasi cyclical fashion. The Cosmos always was, is and will be. Always. And there is not a god, spirit or ghost to be found in it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

The universe is what we call the sum total of what exists. Existence exists. See Atlas Shrugged. There is no beginning for existence. Existence has always exists.

Next question.

I'm curious to hear responses to the theory that not only matter and space, but time itself began with the big bang. I find myself frequently asking: "Well what was there before that?" since it's counterintuitive that something came from nothing. Unfortunately our standard model has no answer for this quandry.

Seeing as we as humans define "existence" by what we can empirically measure, and at some point in the past there may have been a "time" when there was no measureable matter or space or time, then by our limited definition existence didn't always exist.

Then, what did exist instead?

--Brant

isn't it better to party?

Edited March 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[jeffrey smith]

The universe is what we call the sum total of what exists. Existence exists. See Atlas Shrugged. There is no beginning for existence. Existence has always exists.

Next question.

I'm curious to hear responses to the theory that not only matter and space, but time itself began with the big bang. I find myself frequently asking: "Well what was there before that?" since it's counterintuitive that something came from nothing. Unfortunately our standard model has no answer for this quandry.

Seeing as we as humans define "existence" by what we can empirically measure, and at some point in the past there may have been a "time" when there was no measureable matter or space or time, then by our limited definition existence didn't always exist.

Then, what did exist instead?

--Brant

Before and after imply the presence of time. What we have to think of is a state of being that is outside of time and space--for which not only no time, and therefore no before and no after, exists, but for which none of the seven directions apply--no left, no right, no ahead, no behind, no above, no below, no center. Whatever sort of relationships apply to such a state of being, they can be only analogous to time and space, and we will at best only be able to dimly understand them, because they are so far out of our experience. But that does not mean they do not exist. A thing does not, of necessity, need to exist in time--in a state that includes before and after--nor need to exist in space--in a state whose relations are expressed by the six directions. It's simply that such states of existence will not be comprehensible to us: existing in time and space is a necessity for our comprehension of particular things.

isn't it better to party?

A very good point, Mr. G. In vino veritas.

Jeffrey S.

Edited March 21, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[DavidMcK]

I don't see how you get 7 directions; First is center a direction? I would either reduce it to basically two directions (toward center and away from center) or talk about an infinity of directions; the 360 degrees infinitely divided. Occam's Razor would ask of us that if we can't specify something existing (and if it doesn't exist in a way involving time and space how does it exist?) in a specific way that we refuse to multiply our concepts without regard to necessity.

[tjohnson]

Before and after imply the presence of time. What we have to think of is a state of being that is outside of time and space--for which not only no time, and therefore no before and no after, exists, but for which none of the seven directions apply--no left, no right, no ahead, no behind, no above, no below, no center. Whatever sort of relationships apply to such a state of being, they can be only analogous to time and space, and we will at best only be able to dimly understand them, because they are so far out of our experience. But that does not mean they do not exist. A thing does not, of necessity, need to exist in time--in a state that includes before and after--nor need to exist in space--in a state whose relations are expressed by the six directions. It's simply that such states of existence will not be comprehensible to us: existing in time and space is a necessity for our comprehension of particular things.

Jeffrey S.

Yes, it's true that if only space-time exists, as we are lead to believe via special relativity, then does it make sense to speak about before the existence of space-time??

[BaalChatzaf]

Thank G-D he didn't sing like a whale!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[jeffrey smith]

I don't see how you get 7 directions; First is center a direction?

Yes.

I would either reduce it to basically two directions (toward center and away from center) or talk about an infinity of directions; the 360 degrees infinitely divided.

Your basic idea seems reasonable to me, but I would amend the 360 degrees to reflect the fact that we would need to think not of a 2 dimensional circle, but a 4 dimensional mapping involving horizontal, vertical, and temporal directions.

Occam's Razor would ask of us that if we can't specify something existing (and if it doesn't exist in a way involving time and space how does it exist?) in a specific way that we refuse to multiply our concepts without regard to necessity.

The portion I bolded reflects an unwarranted assumption--that existence necessarily involves time and space. You are, in essence, asserting that to exist, a thing must be comprehensible to the human mind, whereas all one can legitimately say on that point is that for us to make any legitimate statement about an existent, it must be comprehensible to the human mind. Things may exist in a way that does not involve space and time--but we can make no valid statements about them (even that they definitely do or definitely do not exist).

If you assert that comprehensibility (at least in potentio) is a necessary trait of anything existing, you are actually making a Kantian style argument--the difference being that where he applied his categories to epistemology, you are applying them to ontology. You may be correct that all things existent are of necessity comprehensible, but it is a bit odd to have Kant revived even if revised under the Objectivist umbrella.

Jeffrey S.

[Brant Gaede]

The portion I bolded reflects an unwarranted assumption--that existence necessarily involves time and space. You are, in essence, asserting that to exist, a thing must be comprehensible to the human mind, whereas all one can legitimately say on that point is that for us to make any legitimate statement about an existent, it must be comprehensible to the human mind. Things may exist in a way that does not involve space and time--but we can make no valid statements about them (even that they definitely do or definitely do not exist).

Isn't it better stated that time and space necessarily involve existence--i.e., existents? After all, they themselves are not existents.

--Brant

[dan2100]

Occam's Razor would ask of us that if we can't specify something existing (and if it doesn't exist in a way involving time and space how does it exist?) in a specific way that we refuse to multiply our concepts without regard to necessity.

The portion I bolded reflects an unwarranted assumption--that existence necessarily involves time and space. You are, in essence, asserting that to exist, a thing must be comprehensible to the human mind, whereas all one can legitimately say on that point is that for us to make any legitimate statement about an existent, it must be comprehensible to the human mind. Things may exist in a way that does not involve space and time--but we can make no valid statements about them (even that they definitely do or definitely do not exist).

If you assert that comprehensibility (at least in potentio) is a necessary trait of anything existing, you are actually making a Kantian style argument--the difference being that where he applied his categories to epistemology, you are applying them to ontology. You may be correct that all things existent are of necessity comprehensible, but it is a bit odd to have Kant revived even if revised under the Objectivist umbrella.

Jeffrey S.

I agree with you here. The view that existence would have to conform to the needs of consciousness is know, for Objectivists, as "primacy of consciousness," no?

[DavidMcK]

I don't think multiplying entities without regard to necessity implies the primacy of consciousness. If you say that there is something that exists but you can't say in what form, or how it exists that the only thing you know is that it exists and isn't matter or energy you only have to ask how you know it exists. And I think Brant's comment is very good: "Isn't it better stated that time and space necessarily involve existence--i.e., existents? After all, they themselves are not existents."

[dan2100]

I don't think multiplying entities without regard to necessity implies the primacy of consciousness. If you say that there is something that exists but you can't say in what form, or how it exists that the only thing you know is that it exists and isn't matter or energy you only have to ask how you know it exists. And I think Brant's comment is very good: "Isn't it better stated that time and space necessarily involve existence--i.e., existents? After all, they themselves are not existents."

To be sure, I believe Ockham's Razor is about keeping consciousness in line with the world -- in other words, it's a tool for objectivity. But it only works in terms of not positing more entities than are needed to explain a given set of evidence. It doesn't exactly tell us about the world.

Also, as regards Brant's comment, two things can be said. One, he seems to be saying that there are existents, but not commiting to them existing in space and time, but rather that if they do have something do something to do with space and time it's that the latter are properties or relations of existents. This leaves open the door for existence that do not have spatial or temporary relations, properties, or parts.

Second, there are spacetime substantivalists are. I'm only bringing them up because I find the idea interesting and think it'd be good to understand what they believe rather than just dismiss it out of hand. In their case, they actually do seem to believe space and time are or spacetime is some sort of existing thing. (Objectivists tend toward "relationalism" in terms of this issue. This is the view that space, time, and spacetime are relations between existents and not in themselves existing.) Perhaps the best way to think of this view is if the universe were emptied of all other objects, the substantivalists, if I understand them correctly, believe there would still be something there -- space and time or spacetime.

While he's not actually a substantivalist -- and probably not a relationalist either -- Lawrence Sklar makes a pretty good case for it in his Space, Time, and Spacetime.

By the way, Aristotle seems to have had something similar to Ockham's Razor in his Physics. See Physics 1.4.188a17-18,

6.189a14-15, and 8.6.259a10-12. Of course, Ockham never claimed to have invented this and he did write a commentary on Aristotle's Physics.

[jeffrey smith]

I don't think multiplying entities without regard to necessity implies the primacy of consciousness. If you say that there is something that exists but you can't say in what form, or how it exists that the only thing you know is that it exists and isn't matter or energy you only have to ask how you know it exists. And I think Brant's comment is very good: "Isn't it better stated that time and space necessarily involve existence--i.e., existents? After all, they themselves are not existents."

To be clear about this--what I am saying that it is possible that there are existents that don't exist in time and place--but that it is impossible for us, as existents that exist in time and space, to know anything about them. We can't say that they actually exist; but we also can't say that we know they don't exist. The same bar that keeps us from knowing anything about them also keeps us from knowing that they don't exist--and therefore to state, rather categorically, that nothing can exist outside of time and space is to make an invalid statement.

If time and space are seen as types of relationship, than they are linked inextricably with existents. You can't have a relationship without at least one existent--and generally, there are at least two.

Jeffrey S.

[anonrobt]

I don't think multiplying entities without regard to necessity implies the primacy of consciousness. If you say that there is something that exists but you can't say in what form, or how it exists that the only thing you know is that it exists and isn't matter or energy you only have to ask how you know it exists. And I think Brant's comment is very good: "Isn't it better stated that time and space necessarily involve existence--i.e., existents? After all, they themselves are not existents."

To be clear about this--what I am saying that it is possible that there are existents that don't exist in time and place--but that it is impossible for us, as existents that exist in time and space, to know anything about them. We can't say that they actually exist; but we also can't say that we know they don't exist. The same bar that keeps us from knowing anything about them also keeps us from knowing that they don't exist--and therefore to state, rather categorically, that nothing can exist outside of time and space is to make an invalid statement.

If time and space are seen as types of relationship, than they are linked inextricably with existents. You can't have a relationship without at least one existent--and generally, there are at least two.

Jeffrey S.

No - to say that one can't say that something actually exist is to say that for you they do not exist [they may be suppositions or 'mind games', but nothing more] - to say you cannot say they don't exist is an invalidation on the face of it , as one does not prove a negative, for the burden of proof is to the one who says 'it is'... anything else is playing to fantasyland... on what basis can you make a claim 'it is possible'?

Edited March 23, 2010 by anonrobt

[Peter]

Christopher wrote:

Carl Sagan mentioned something I thought quite clean about the origins of the Universe which I have copied below:

“All cultures have creationist theories that are part of cultural mythologies . . .”

End quote

Sagan also said at the Symphony of Science site:

We have acquired great soaring passionate intelligence . . . Somewhere, something wonderful is waiting to be known.

Our place in the Cosmos,

co-written by Carl Sagan

With every century

Our eyes on the universe have been opened anew

We are witness

To the very brink of time and space

We must ask ourselves

We who are so proud of our accomplishments

What is our place in the cosmic perspective of life?

The exploration of the cosmos

Is a voyage of self discovery

As long as there have been humans

We have searched for our place in the cosmos

Are there things about the universe

That will be forever beyond our grasp?

Are there things about the universe that are

Ungraspable?

One of the great revelations of space exploration

Is the image of the earth, finite and lonely

Bearing the entire human species

Through the oceans of space and time

Matter flows from place to place

And momentarily comes together to be you

Some people find that thought disturbing

I find the reality thrilling

As the ancient mythmakers knew

We're children equally of the earth and the sky

In our tenure on this planet, we've accumulated

Dangerous evolutionary baggage

We've also acquired compassion for others,

Love for our children,

And a great soaring passionate intelligence

The clear tools for our continued survival

We could be in the middle

Of an inter-galactic conversation

And we wouldn't even know

We've begun at last

To wonder about our origins

Star stuff contemplating the stars

Tracing that long path

Our obligation to survive and flourish

Is owed not just to ourselves

But also to that cosmos

Ancient and vast, from which we spring

End quote

Isn’t that intriguing? I hold that "obligation to survive" almost mystically.

I find no magical solace in logical syllogisms, or seeing a dilemma wondering “which came first.” And I have no belief in “Intelligent Design, ” when that hoaxing theory quotes, but contains no verifiable science.

I do like to feel a sense of awe because that is a satisfying, inspirational emotion.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[BaalChatzaf]

Christopher wrote:

Carl Sagan mentioned something I thought quite clean about the origins of the Universe which I have copied below:

"All cultures have creationist theories that are part of cultural mythologies . . ."

End quote

Sagan also said at the Symphony of Science site:

We have acquired great soaring passionate intelligence . . . Somewhere, something wonderful is waiting to be known.

....... portions not quotes .......

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

You left out the part where he sings like a whale.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Leonid]

Sagan's position is somewhat agnostic. One cannot treat concepts "God" and "Universe" as epistemic equals. Universe is self-evident, easily observable existent. God is arbitrary concept.

Not only God is unperceivable, the whole concept of God as omnipotent, omnipresent infinite indefinable non-entity which exists beyond existence and creates it, represents a tangle of irresolvable contradictions.