(1) talks about what (form)

but

(2) talks about what + why (form + purpose/meaning)

I can dig that. The form of the world is interesting to me, but I have a burning desire to know what is the meaning and purpose of life. God seems to provide a much greater explanation of meaning. That being said, it seems awfully presumtuous to say that atheists don't have any purpose to life. Perhaps the meaning is in sustaining life itself because it is "neat". Howevever, the SA said that the whole meaning question was unimportant to him anyway. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I've posted some objections to the validity of the materialist viewpoint on the reason thread. I would be very interested in your take on this.

I came into these debates not to champion theism (which I don't feel qualified to do), but to explore alternate philosophical viewpoints.

I started out with a vague acceptance that there were a number of different viewpoints, some of which could be shown to have validity. I assumed that materialism would be one of these. To my great surprise, the more I examine it, the more flawed it appears!

I guess that this could have something to do with the dictum that "the more dominant a belief is in society, the less challenged, and therefore the more suspect that belief is"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
I say that a quantum fluctuation caused the universe

---

A quantum fluctuation in WHAT?

I am awed by your succinct question. I would have required a couple of paragraphs....

I am content to say "I don't know."

But why does 'meaning' have anything to do with this debate?

Why does everything require a 'meaning'?

Now then, the quantum fluctuation in what? question.

In the not-even-nothingness that was before the Big Bang. Or the other universe that is eternal, or the pink unicorns collarbone. We cannot know at the moment and we may never be able to know, but the fact that teh total energy on the universe appears to be zero requires an explanation. A good one is that the universe was caused by a quantum fluctuation. That explains the evidence very well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
But why does 'meaning' have anything to do with this debate? Why does everything require a 'meaning'?

---

If given a choice between meaning and no meaning I would choose meaning.

quote:

---

Now then, the quantum fluctuation in what? question.

In the not-even-nothingness that was before the Big Bang. Or the other universe that is eternal, or the pink unicorns collarbone.

---

Everyone knows that unicorns are mauve.

SA:

quote:

---

We cannot know at the moment and we may never be able to know, but the fact that teh total energy on the universe appears to be zero requires an explanation. A good one is that the universe was caused by a quantum fluctuation. That explains the evidence very well.

---

Hmmm, you'll pardon me if I'm skeptical, but....fact? What total energy? How was it measured? What assurance do we have that our attempts to measure something so large is in any way accurate for such a quantification? Is the dark energy that cosmologists presently are disagreeing about included in this tally?

Quantum fluctuations as described by present theory, arise from the well-defined, if not well-understood framework of our own space-time. To postulate that the "not-even-nothingness that was before the Big Bang" fill this bill seems contradictory and appealing to an infinite superspace has only changed the subject of the question, not answered the question.

"I don't *know* seems to be as much as anyone can say on the subject.

All I was trying to do was show that there is a reasonable materialistic alternative, not saying that this is exactly how it happened.

As this is reasonable, it does not require faith to accept it as a possibility. It is supported by some evidence, but not much.

What is important about my idea is that it is falsifiable. New measurements could destroy it straight away.

The non-materialistic beginning requires the existence of this creator before anything exists. We are now many billions of years further on and we still have zero OF evidence for this creators existence (and no self respecting unicorn would be seen in mauve!). So, in order to take the non-materialistic view, one must first show that the creator exists or did exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
All I was trying to do was show that there is a reasonable materialistic alternative, not saying that this is exactly how it happened.

---

You are right that there is a reasonable materialistic alternative for the origin of the universe.

My only problem with this alternative is that it does not satisfy my desire for meaning and purpose, which may or may not be important to everyone.

It is certainly reasonable to choose the materialistic alternative. Nor is it unreasonable, coming from that perspective, to look for materialistic evidence for God's existence.

What is unreasonable is when someone fails to acknowledge that a reasonable choice between alternatives is possible, each with its own strengths and drawbacks - and that belief in God is therefore not an irrational choice.

The evidence for God is by definition not material or measurable, since He is assumed to be a spiritual being. Observable phenomena might be taken as evidence, such as near-death experiences, the remarkable self-similarity and order of the universe, or the exquisite feelings connected with romantic love. But all of these have alternative materialistic explanations.

quote:

---

My only problem with this alternative is that it does not satisfy my desire for meaning and purpose, which may or may not be important to everyone.

---

I am curious about how satisfying a desire should have any bearing on whether there is a meaning and reason to the universe.

Either there is a meaning or there isn't. If there is, we should be able to determine it (because an unfathomable reason is so close to no reason to make them indistinguishable).

quote:

---

I am hoping that we can all acknowledge that belief in God is a logical choice between reasonable alternatives, and not simply a leap of faith.

---

I see the creation of the universe as being impossible, according to scientific laws, without control.

Let me summarise:

Thermodnamics
1st Law - Energy is never created or destroyed
2nd Law - All physical systems when left to their own devices will move in a direction from Order to Chaos
3rd Law - Order is max. at -273C, adding raw (uncontrolled...) energy only increases disorder.

Also
The Principle of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

This tells us that that motion in a straight line from an explosion could never give way to spinning motion, as seen in planets, solar systems, galaxies etc.

Or try:
Cause and Effect. (Every cause must have a superior effect)

and

Law of Biogenesis - Life only comes from life.

I'm not going to go into Evolution v's Creationist because this is neither the time or the place. I am just showing you the evidence that I can see for a belief in God to be SCIENTIFICALLY superior to a belief in no God.

You can't have OF evidence for God, but you can have it for scientific beliefs. When these beliefs can only be held to be true in relation to a higher being, I see this to be good evidence.

quote:

---

As this is reasonable, it does not require faith to accept it as a possibility. It is supported by some evidence, but not much.

---

To consider something as a possibility may not take faith per se, but to postulate that the universe came out of nothing and without cause, and to argue that is a reasonable, explanation, smacks of faith.

SA:

quote:

---

What is important about my idea is that it is falsifiable. New measurements could destroy it straight away.

---

Again, pardon my scepticism, but if there is no empirical way to observe or measure "whatever-was-before," it will remain an unprovable hypothesis and therefore unverifiable.

Cosmologists tell us that physical laws, constants, space and time have no validity or meaning before the Big Bang. How then can measurements taken within our space-time framework be seriously considered as empirical evidence for "whatever-was-before?"

"remain an unprovable hypothesis and therefore unfalsifiable."

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Either there is a meaning or there isn't. If there is, we should be able to determine it (because an unfathomable reason is so close to no reason to make them indistinguishable).

---

Great point. And maybe that is really the problem.

My particular hypothesis can be falsified. If there is a new measurement that shows the energy isn't in balance (this is Paul Davies's idea, which I am borrowing) then my hypothesis gets blown out of the water.

Describing it as a theory is my mistake, it isn't one. It is a hypothesis. There is reason for accepting it as a hypothesis.

I see the alternative to a natural beginning a supernatural one. There is no evidence for the supernatural, so a natural explanation is more reasonable.

I really don't understand why people have such a problem with this. I am not saying that I am right or that anyone else is wrong, just that, if there is no evidence for anything but "ordinary" things, then it is reasonable to say that it was started by some "ordinary" thing. If there is no evidence for anything "extraordinary" then to invoke it as an explanation when one does not know the answer is a cop-out.

I don't know what is around other stars in this galaxy. I suspect there are planets around some. This is a reasonable position to take. It is not a position of faith, even though we do not know the answer. I suppose we could say that there are Gods circling them just as easily.

This is what you are claiming about before the universe, we cannot know, but we have no evidence that anything supernatural exists, but because we don't know the answer, it is unreasonable to invoke natural processes an explanation, and so it could just as well be somrthing supernatural.

I think the pivot is causation. You are willing to throw that away to avoid the supernatural. I am willing to consider the possibility of the supernatural to avoid throwing out causation.

What caused the supernatural?

To return to your falsifiability argument: Check my work here. You are saying that because the total energy hypothesis is theoretically falsifiable that makes it valid?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
By supposing the supernatural the causation question is still not answered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
but by being supernatural, does the natural order of cause and effect still hold?

Alan

---

If that is so, then there is no contradiction in an Uncaused Event, and no objectionto be raised to the hypothesis of an uncaused beginning to the Universe.

Which makes asking the question, "Why is there anything?" a meaningless exercise.