Anybody else think Stu is a different person posting under the same username? He's much more knowledable about science and logic now. Am I crazy?

bahahahaha don't worry hes not more knowledgeable about science and logic, he just improved his ability to make it seem like he is. think of peter griffin's: shallow and pedantic. shallow... and pedantic.

If anyone wants to buy my twoplustwo account I'd be happy to sell it. I just want to get a little more for it than I paid for it.

But if there isn't a beginning then you're stuck with the thought of the universe which has been generating better and better intelligences for an eternity. In such a universe, what do you expect the most advanced intelligence would look like?

Why would the universe not having a beginning mean that it has been generating better and better intelligences for an eternity? Any of the following could be true:

a) The universe experiences an infinite number of big crunches and big bangs. No intelligence can survive the high-pressure, high-temperature state of these near-singularities.

b) Time is a property of universes. It does not make sense to speak of the beginning here, because that would imply that there was a time before the beginning, when there wasn't. Thus no universe could have a 'beginning'.

c) Inter-solar travel is not possible for living organisms for some unknown reason. Every species, no matter how intelligent, is eventually wiped out when it's sun becomes too cold to sustain life.

d) Time is a purely illusory construct created by our senses. The universe exists in all times at once, it is a stationary 4-dimensional object, as opposed to a 3-dimensional object which changes as we move through 'time'. There is some explanation for the second law of thermodynamics that we do not yet understand. Thus it would not make sense to speak of 'eternity'.

e) You are talking about the multi-verse always existing rather than universes, and there is no possibility of inter-universe travel, and each individual universe eventually suffers heat death. There were some really impressive intelligences out there but we cannot possibly detect them and they eventually died out when their universe did.

My thoughts exactly.

Assuming the existence of such things, they would be classified as metaphysical.

Yes, and all physics academics I know only use the term "universe" like that out of convenience, but would agree that they are using the term incorrectly.

This doesnt make sense to me, what was there 15 billion years ago?

Not really. Intelligence is a fairly persistent pattern that can develops around some carbon/water-based deposits on suitable planets and possibly manifest in other mediums as well. If the universes always existed there is still no reason to suppose the environment was always suitable for intelligence defining patterns to exist or why this should be of any importance or what it has to do with fantasy characters that some humans develop.

things that "always" exist, or exist at one time or another, are in our universe. once you start using language that refers to our experience of time you're talking about our universe.

there's no such thing.

+1 Great post. Pretty much what I was thinking of writing as I read through this thread.

The big bang only refers to the initiation of the current state of the universe, and everything we know about anything is contingent upon this state. To try to speculate about anything beyond this state is simply that: speculation. To ask the question 'what existed before the big bang' is ridiculous at this point in time, as for all we know time itself is simply a property of the current state of the universe (which is the problem with saying 'before the big bang') as well as existence (which is the problem with asking 'what existed').

I do not understand why it would be reasonable to assume that intelligence has always existed just because the universe always has (in this state or in any other state). And if it did, that does not imply that this intelligence necessarily has to be that of a god. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Finally, asking if it is 'a problem for atheists' is ridiculous. Atheists do not share a bunch of beliefs. The only thing they necessarily have in common is they lack the belief in any god. It says nothing about what they do believe. It is quite possible for an atheist to reject the big bang.

It's hard to tell, but I suspect if you go to the north pole and start walking north you'll get a better idea.

http://www.documentary-log.com/d326-...entury-cosmos/

this video will explain the big bang and other cosmology stuff in easy to learn ways.

While intelligent life may not always have existed in an assembled form, the "stuff" of intelligent life no doubt did. The only difference between being alive or dead is the particular combination of particles in the body. When atoms are arranged in a certain way you have something that is alive. When they are arranged in a different way, you have something that is dead. The atoms (or whatever sub-particles are there, quarks, etc.) are always there. They just combine in different ways to make all the things we see out there.

So the component parts to intelligence have always existed, it just took them awhile (at least on our planet) to bond together in the right way to create "life".

+1 Universe

ok but how did it start then, you must have some sort of atoms or something, how can you have nothing? Im not trolling I genuinely cant get my head around this stuff

didnt read this before posting, i get it now, easy game

metaphysical is a secular term, spiritual is the correct term, its beyond the reach of the man who judges things by the 5 senses only.....

I would never use the term metaphysical in regards to anything from the bible because it never is mentioned, spiritual is though.

M theory hasn't really told us much about cosmology yet so I am not sure what you are talking about here. Inflation seems to hint that the universe might be much larger than what we can see, but nothing is certain yet.

I thought about objections like these before I began this thread. I knew it had holes but I think it merits discussion anyways. Some of your objections can be easily overcome, but I must admit that if the universe always existed, that doesn't mean intelligence must have always existed.

Still I do think if the universe always existed the existence of an eternal intelligence is not inconsistent with that. If there is no limit on intelligence then an infinite intelligence is not inconsistent either.

You are right of course: it could be that both the universe and deities (or a deity) have always existed. It could be that the universe existed as a singularity and the deity was needed to start the big bang, kinda a catalyst. In that sense the deity could still have created the universe. Of course, there is no evidence of that. But you are right, the eternity of the universe is not proof against god. However, I do believe it makes the existence of god less likely.

No, metaphysical is *not* a secular term at all. It literally means beyond the physical.

Spiritual "realms" are metaphysical. They would not exist within "the Universe" as it is scientifically defined.

Sorry for being pedantic, but a lot of disagreements or fallacies that occur in these debates are due to misuse/misunderstandings of the terms that are used in the arguments; and if they're used ambiguously, then any conclusions derived are just as ambiguous.

The spiritual realm (if it exists) would not be within the Universe by scientific definition.