<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 24 2005, 06:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 24 2005, 06:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 24 2005, 12:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 24 2005, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what formed the early universe? I hate to take a dive into intelligent design here but isn't it true, out of nothing, nothing comes? What created the ball of energy or mass or matter that "banged" and created the universe? And what caused this previously stable "ball" to go unstable?
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, in quantum physics, there are many particles that jump in and out of existence at random.
I shall use an example from the one of the wikipedia links.
Take a little chamber, and suck all of the air out of it, creating a vaccum. (AKA where there is nothing in there.)
With that in mind, scienctists have conducted experiments that show on the quantum level (read sub atomic) particles pop in and out of existence at will. The particles are called quarks which make up protons and neutrons.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles' target='_blank'>List of current known subatomic particles</a>
Now going from here is all strictly what "could" have happened. Since the univerese supposedly started as one of these subatomic particles, just with more mass. It wasn't able to be held together by the "strong nuclear" force that binds the protons and neutrons together. Thusly we have a big bang and it exapands from there.
One issue with that, and yes please do leave "Intelligent Design" out of it, is how it works. Sadly, we do not know and probably won't for a while. We are making consistant progress with antimatter, and fusion technologies, but even then we are only scrapping the surface of what is possible with such unlimited energies.
After all if we were able to perfect some form of fusion (preferrably at a more effiencent level then now) there would be no need for oil, natural gas, nor wind power. Ahh well.. I hope I helped a little bit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've put some thought into this "where did the Big Bang come from" argument in the past, and I think I can explain it a bit more clearly then DarkATI.
We think we can roughly describe the early history of the universe dating all the way back to a few really small fractions of a second after the big bang. Moving backwards in time, all matter was compressed into a very tiny ball...which occupied the entire universe, because space was heavily compressed as well. Extrapolating a little further backwards, around t=0 seconds we've most likely got a point mass occupying a point space universe.
So what was at t=-1? Was the point mass (or ultra compressed mass if thats the case, either way) already there, just not exploding yet? Or was there nothing at all---no mass, no space, just true nothingness?
If you had true nothingness, how on earth did a universes worth of matter, not to mention a space to put it in, spontaneously spring forth from nothing simultaneously?
If the point mass was already there, how long had it been sitting there? Theres only two answers to this question...X amount of time, or infinite time. If X, what happened at t=-X? What was before that? And now you're back to the original question. If infinite, then what natural process could run for an infinite amount of time without acheiving any result, and THEN cause a previously stable pointmass to explode? We know of lots of natural processes that can take X amount of time to make something unstable (radioactive decay), and can theorize new ones that might be powerful enough to make a universe-point mass unstable after X time, but we can't even imagine a force that could take infinite time to acheive a result.
...with one exception. A <i>sentient</i> force could decide to WAIT any amount of time, and then DECIDE that now was the correct time to create and/or make unstable a point-mass universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you want to learn more about evolution, then read one of Richard Dawkins' books. He does an excellent job at writing for the layman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think I will. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 24 2005, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 24 2005, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...with one exception. A <i>sentient</i> force could decide to WAIT any amount of time, and then DECIDE that now was the correct time to create and/or make unstable a point-mass universe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What created the sentient force?
To simplify my mass of arguments from before, the origin of existence basically comes down to one of two possibilities...
A) There was nothing (true nothing, not just a vacuum), and then suddenly there was something without any cause whatsoever. Difficult to support with logic, since it is inherently illogical.
B) Something always was, without being created. This something must be eternal, timeless, and must have some attribute that allows it to wait an infinite amount of time doing nothing, and THEN decide to do something. This implies sentience.
Case B is not easy to wrap your mind around, but when you compare it to case A, you start to wonder if B just might be possible after all. I challenge anyone to come up with a Case C.
Particles, yes...but these particles require energy to create, and they occur in a preexisting space. Neither of which is available in Case A, where you have True Nothing, which is much different than a mere vacuum.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 12:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 12:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you want to take the next step? Ok then...
To simplify my mass of arguments from before, the origin of existence basically comes down to one of two possibilities...
A) There was nothing (true nothing, not just a vacuum), and then suddenly there was something without any cause whatsoever. Difficult to support with logic, since it is inherently illogical.
B) Something always was, without being created. This something must be eternal, timeless, and must have some attribute that allows it to wait an infinite amount of time doing nothing, and THEN decide to do something. This implies sentience.
Case B is not easy to wrap your mind around, but when you compare it to case A, you start to wonder if B just might be possible after all. I challenge anyone to come up with a Case C. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I remember reading a Scientific American article about a possible case where the universe is in an infinite loop of being created and destroyed, causing by interactions or collisions, or something, between multiple universes. I don't remember the specifics, but I don't think you can assume that Case B implies sentience. If anything, Case A implies sentience just as much.
In both of these cases, you still have to explain the origin of sentience, if it exists.
Um...if time started at t=0, you can't really ask what came before that. There was no time, therefore "forever" might as well mean "never".
Also, there have been theories about what exactly caused the Big Bang, but they all involve multi-dimensional physics and/or brane theories, which I don't even pretend to understand well enough to explain. Wikipedia has been less than enlightening on this area, but perhaps I just suck at searching. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I didn't say that time started at t=0, I was just using that as a reference point for the beginning of the universe. Of course, its entirely possible that time DID start at t=0, but that still requires an origin for time, which must by definition be extra-temporal.
@TheClam--
The one theory I'm not well-versed enough to dispute is Oscillating Universe theory. I don't really know the points either for or against it, since there aren't that many proponents for it. However, accepting Oscillating Universe theory still requires accepting that the stuff composing these Oscillating Universes always was, with no origin at all. If you're going to do that anyway, you've already gotten past the only difficult part of accepting Case B, so why not take it instead? It's substantially simpler, and thus would win out in an Occam's Razor challenge.
As for the origin of sentience...the whole point of Case B is that this force HAS no origin. Whatever it is, it always was, and most likely always will be.
The one theory I'm not well-versed enough to dispute is Oscillating Universe theory. I don't really know the points either for or against it, since there aren't that many proponents for it. However, accepting Oscillating Universe theory still requires accepting that the stuff composing these Oscillating Universes always was, with no origin at all. If you're going to do that anyway, you've already gotten past the only difficult part of accepting Case B, so why not take it instead? It's substantially simpler, and thus would win out in an Occam's Razor challenge.
As for the origin of sentience...the whole point of Case B is that this force HAS no origin. Whatever it is, it always was, and most likely always will be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Is there actually any evidence at all for a sentient force?
In an Occam's Razor contest, a universe without sentient force would win, since you still have to account for the mechanics of the universe and the mechanics of creating the universe. Then, the creator seems superfluous. Mechanics of the Universe is simpler than Mechanics of the Universe + God
Case B is sort of like deism, God creates a universe and all the mechanics of the universe, but leaves it completely alone. What's the point of God? What's the evidence that God even exists. On a more germane note, you can apply the same analogy to intelligently designed evolution. If God uses the mechanism of evolution to create humanity, then God is just an extraneous element.
I've always thought that Occam's Razor worked against intelligent design theory.
Until we understand more about the nature of time you cannot decide what is logical and what is not on the subject. Time might have 'started', it might have always been or perhaps it is just an illusion that we have. As we have absolutely no idea we can't discuss the matter.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In both of these cases, you still have to explain the origin of sentience, if it exists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sadly this question can't be fully answered without religion being brought up and it has been requested that religion stay out of this argument.
It is my <i>opinion</i> that there is great "evidence" for a sentient being or force. I just can't accept that all <b>this</b> was an accident. <- Just my opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Apr 25 2005, 08:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Apr 25 2005, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In both of these cases, you still have to explain the origin of sentience, if it exists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sadly this question can't be fully answered without religion being brought up and it has been requested that religion stay out of this argument.
It is my <i>opinion</i> that there is great "evidence" for a sentient being or force. I just can't accept that all <b>this</b> was an accident. <- Just my opinion.
Oh and yes, an 'accident' makes perfect sense to me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 02:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In an Occam's Razor contest, a universe without sentient force would win, since you still have to account for the mechanics of the universe and the mechanics of creating the universe. Then, the creator seems superfluous. Mechanics of the Universe is simpler than Mechanics of the Universe + God [snip] I've always thought that Occam's Razor worked against intelligent design theory.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, but you missed something. If you start with God, you don't really have to account for the mechanics of the universe at all, since you can assume that he made them. That makes it: God has no origin, creates universe vs stuff has no origin, is part of a universe, universe collapses but manages to create a new universe, repeat ad infinitum
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there actually any evidence at all for a sentient force?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Outside of Oscillating Universe theory, yes. Because if we assume that Case A is impossible (ie, there has always been SOMETHING, regardless of what that something is), that means that whatever force that produced us has been operating for an infinite time. A nonsentient force could be set up so as to produce a universe immediately, or after a year, or after a millenia, or whatever, but only a sentient force could wait literally an eternity before creating a universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Case B is sort of like deism, God creates a universe and all the mechanics of the universe, but leaves it completely alone. What's the point of God? What's the evidence that God even exists. On a more germane note, you can apply the same analogy to intelligently designed evolution. If God uses the mechanism of evolution to create humanity, then God is just an extraneous element.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say he left it alone afterwards. I have quite a few ideas on what he did afterwards, I just didn't want to clutter up the discussion with what God did <i>next</i> before we've established whether or not he even exists.
According to wikipedia there are a few different levels of a vacuum. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum' target='_blank'>Vacuum</a>
So yes, in a vacuum there is nothing, which is true nothingness.
Who said that suddenly a particle so small appeared with huge quanity of potential energy and finally overcame the strong nuclear force causing the "big bang" and expanding into what we know today as the universe.
That little tid bit (not saying its correct), put together with rough (very rough) quantum physics background sounds more plausable to me, then "it was just there."
If that is what happened, perhaps as we experiment with vacuums more, we could accidently set off another big bang and kill everyone. Yay?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 04:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 02:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In an Occam's Razor contest, a universe without sentient force would win, since you still have to account for the mechanics of the universe and the mechanics of creating the universe. Then, the creator seems superfluous. Mechanics of the Universe is simpler than Mechanics of the Universe + God [snip] I've always thought that Occam's Razor worked against intelligent design theory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, but you missed something. If you start with God, you don't really have to account for the mechanics of the universe at all, since you can assume that he made them. That makes it: God has no origin, creates universe vs stuff has no origin, is part of a universe, universe collapses but manages to create a new universe, repeat ad infinitum <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Every single thing that God (assuming He exists) has ever done, that has been recorded by science, has had observable effects that follow the mechanics of the universe (although there are some things that don't match our current theories; it just means that our theories aren't perfect, rather than that God doesn't follow the mechanics of the universe). Why would the creation of the universe be different than the universe itself in this respect?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there actually any evidence at all for a sentient force?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Outside of Oscillating Universe theory, yes. Because if we assume that Case A is impossible (ie, there has always been SOMETHING, regardless of what that something is), that means that whatever force that produced us has been operating for an infinite time. A nonsentient force could be set up so as to produce a universe immediately, or after a year, or after a millenia, or whatever, but only a sentient force could wait literally an eternity before creating a universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I will admit that in certain hypothetical models of the universe, a deity is required to exist. That doesn't constitute evidence, however.
<!--QuoteBegin-BloodySloth+Mar 18 2005, 07:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BloodySloth @ Mar 18 2005, 07:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good lord, enough consecutive posts? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's still not a record, though mabye a record number of consecutive post for this forum, it's not the most I've seen.
No, that was the courtesy of Malak vs. tehwannawannabe spammage on the Knight Online Forums on a thread, in the Clanz forum if I remember correctly. Malak won before the lock, er rather crashing the forum server first, at 207 posts in about the span of 5 to 10 min. Interstingly, he and the other 6 or 7 who spammed 'till crash only got a 48-hr ban.
I suppose the difference is that all of your posts were legit whereas theirs were all spam. So I don't think there is any reason for any of us to be rude to you, you should just know that it is is considered to impolite forum ettiquette to do anything more than double posting. That's all. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~back on topic~
Abiogenesis is not a synomym for evolution. You can be a "creationist" and still believe in abiogenesis. You hear craetionism vs. evolution but that's always a badly opposed setup. Creationism tends to be more at odds with abiogenesis, but even then I personally find them not entirely at odds mainly because of my definition of God. I have not doubt about evolution or the ability for life to come out of just the right settings (with the odds in the almost infinite extreme), and I have no doubt that God is constantly creating and modifying life as is the rest of creation. For me the extreme odds and that a sentient lifeform could eventually evolve from inorganic compounds seems to support stongly as proof for the existence of God.
This is another debate which seems silly and wrong to pit science and religion at each other. I think they both confirm the same thing even if the wording and perspectives are different.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 25 2005, 05:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 25 2005, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> According to wikipedia there are a few different levels of a vacuum. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum' target='_blank'>Vacuum</a>
So yes, in a vacuum there is nothing, which is true nothingness. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> According to your link: <!--QuoteBegin-Wikipedia+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wikipedia)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In physics, a vacuum means the absence of matter in a volume of space.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that is not even close to what I am talking about. I am not talking about an absence of matter in space. I am talking about an absence of space in which to have matter, and an absence of any energy or force which could act on this non-existant space. In fact, lets go one step further and postulate an absence of the laws of physics which might govern such a space, were it to be created. Anything less doesn't count as true nothing.
Once you've reached this level of <i>true</i> nothing, I think even you would have to agree on the impossibility of anything forming from this nothing.
If you haven't yet reached this level of true nothing, then you can always go another step backwards in time. And eventually, you must either run into the true nothing (Case A), or something which had no origin (Case B), whether that something is God or an eternally existing pointmass or even just membranes. Then I get to argue that of the various possibilities for the un-originated eternal force, God is the only one that can wait around eternally before deciding to make himself a universe.
<!--QuoteBegin-the x5+Apr 25 2005, 08:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the x5 @ Apr 25 2005, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For me the extreme odds and that a sentient lifeform could eventually evolve from inorganic compounds seems to support stongly as proof for the existence of God. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do you think that? If you accept that life can come out of inorganic compounds and that life can evolve, then it's not a great stretch at all to say that, over billions of years, it is likely evolution will favor intelligence to a degree that would result in a sentient life form.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 07:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Every single thing that God (assuming He exists) has ever done, that has been recorded by science, has had observable effects that follow the mechanics of the universe (although there are some things that don't match our current theories; it just means that our theories aren't perfect, rather than that God doesn't follow the mechanics of the universe). Why would the creation of the universe be different than the universe itself in this respect? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, for one thing, its quite difficult to follow the mechanics of a universe before those mechanics or that universe exists. Almost by definition God would have to operate outside the mechanics of the universe in order to CONSTRUCT the mechanics of the universe.
But I find your evidence here to be sketchy. What you are basically saying is, "Science has never recorded a miracle". First of all, science (of the level required to actually confirm or deny a miracle) has only been around for at best 2-300 years. So obviously any miracles that occurred before that would have gone unrecorded by science. And after that time, there have been no end of claims of miracles that occurred while the scientific instruments were looking somewhere else. I have no doubt that many of these are fabrications, but you seem quite confidant in asserting that exactly 0 of them are true. In fact, some of them actually have a substantial level of scientific evidence to support them. For example, people suffering from grave illnesses and mysteriously recovering between one doctors visit and the next, with no apparent explanation. I am not trying to convince you that there are miracles with 100% certainty, merely to point out that you can not claim that there <i>aren't</i> miracles with 100% certainty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will admit that in certain hypothetical models of the universe, a deity is required to exist. That doesn't constitute evidence, however.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted. But we have now found one hypothetical model of the universe where a deity is required to exist (Case B, for lack of a better name), and one hypothetical model where he may not, but no one seems to know enough about it to really discuss it (Oscillating Universe). All other models seem to be impossible. Would you then concede that there is at least a real <i>possibility</i> for the existence of a sentient God?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 07:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Every single thing that God (assuming He exists) has ever done, that has been recorded by science, has had observable effects that follow the mechanics of the universe (although there are some things that don't match our current theories; it just means that our theories aren't perfect, rather than that God doesn't follow the mechanics of the universe). Why would the creation of the universe be different than the universe itself in this respect? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, for one thing, its quite difficult to follow the mechanics of a universe before those mechanics or that universe exists. Almost by definition God would have to operate outside the mechanics of the universe in order to CONSTRUCT the mechanics of the universe.
But I find your evidence here to be sketchy. What you are basically saying is, "Science has never recorded a miracle". First of all, science (of the level required to actually confirm or deny a miracle) has only been around for at best 2-300 years. So obviously any miracles that occurred before that would have gone unrecorded by science. And after that time, there have been no end of claims of miracles that occurred while the scientific instruments were looking somewhere else. I have no doubt that many of these are fabrications, but you seem quite confidant in asserting that exactly 0 of them are true. In fact, some of them actually have a substantial level of scientific evidence to support them. For example, people suffering from grave illnesses and mysteriously recovering between one doctors visit and the next, with no apparent explanation. I am not trying to convince you that there are miracles with 100% certainty, merely to point out that you can not claim that there <i>aren't</i> miracles with 100% certainty. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right, I was mistaken when I said that the creation of the universe isn't different. Still, when we really examine a "miracle," we often find that everything about the miracle followed the mechanics of the universe, or that we have a gap in our knowledge about the miracle or in our understanding of the universe. I think that gaps in our knowledge are just that, not a supernatural force. That kind of thing has happened countless times in our own history. Ancient people prayed to the rain gods to bring water to their crops. We now have partial knowledge of how weather works and we don't think rain gods have anything to do with it. Ancient people thought that our sun was a god. Now we know that it's just a really big, really hot, ball of gas, really far away. As for your specific example, about people with fatal illnesses, we know that the placebo effect can be very powerful at times.
I think that it is much more likely that we will eventually be able to explain seemingly supernatural events, than that there actually are supernatural events. Additionally, I think that if God does act in the universe, it is likely that he does it in ways that follow the mechanics of the universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will admit that in certain hypothetical models of the universe, a deity is required to exist. That doesn't constitute evidence, however.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted. But we have now found one hypothetical model of the universe where a deity is required to exist (Case B, for lack of a better name), and one hypothetical model where he may not, but no one seems to know enough about it to really discuss it (Oscillating Universe). All other models seem to be impossible. Would you then concede that there is at least a real <i>possibility</i> for the existence of a sentient God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe that the probabilities of the existence of God and the existence of miracles are both greater than zero. However, since I don't see any conclusive evidence of their existence, I will assume that they don't exist.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 09:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 09:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Still, when we really examine a "miracle," we often find that everything about the miracle followed the mechanics of the universe, or that we have a gap in our knowledge about the miracle or in our understanding of the universe. I think that gaps in our knowledge are just that, not a supernatural force.
[snip] Additionally, I think that if God does act in the universe, it is likely that he does it in ways that follow the mechanics of the universe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted. Actually, my belief isn't so much different from that...I suspect many "miracles" work exactly as you have described, while many more require only a very small "adjustment" due to supernatural forces before natural forces will take over and acheive the desired result. And many times, I suspect God works his results using no supernatural forces at all, but using other people instead, completely within the natural physical framework of the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe that the probabilities of the existence of God and the existence of miracles are both greater than zero. However, since I don't see any conclusive evidence of their existence, I will assume that they don't exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm making progress! Now I just have to go do some research on Oscillating Universe Theory (which is your current theory of the origin of the universe, right?).
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm making progress! Now I just have to go do some research on Oscillating Universe Theory (which is your current theory of the origin of the universe, right?). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet.
You really are arguing with people rather poorly equipped to discuss these subjects scientifically, cxwf. If you would look at the thread title, we're all far more knowledgeable on biology than physics, especially since there is a lot less guesswork when it comes to biology. Physics changes fast enough these days that you can be an expert one month and horribly outdated the next. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 10:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 10:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm making progress! Now I just have to go do some research on Oscillating Universe Theory (which is your current theory of the origin of the universe, right?). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Now backsliding...
Let's recap. I split the potential origins for the universe into two classes. One class (regardless of what mechanisms are used to get there) ultimately reduces into Case A, and the other into Case B. You then pointed out the third class which reduces into Oscillating Universe Theory. This covers all possible origins of existence.
We then arrived at a fairly good agreement that Case A was impossible. Next, you admitted that Case B requires the existence of a sentient God. Next, you claimed that you still considered the existence of said God improbable. That implies that you must support the third class, Oscillating Universe, right? There isn't anything else left.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 11:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 10:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 10:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm making progress! Now I just have to go do some research on Oscillating Universe Theory (which is your current theory of the origin of the universe, right?). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now backsliding...
Let's recap. I split the potential origins for the universe into two classes. One class (regardless of what mechanisms are used to get there) ultimately reduces into Case A, and the other into Case B. You then pointed out the third class which reduces into Oscillating Universe Theory. This covers all possible origins of existence.
We then arrived at a fairly good agreement that Case A was impossible. Next, you admitted that Case B requires the existence of a sentient God. Next, you claimed that you still considered the existence of said God improbable. That implies that you must support the third class, Oscillating Universe, right? There isn't anything else left.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And I say to condense a subject as broad and open to interpretation as physics down to 3 "classes" is over simplification. Considering the fact that we know nothing of what a brane is, it's rather hard to argue where exactly they came from, however the theory that a collision of branes resulted in the creation of our universe still exists. Obviously physicists have found evidence of processes beyond our understanding, processes that might actually allow a "class A" creation of the universe.
Also, you didn't quite force theclam to rely on the Oscillating Universe theory. If I may quote: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will admit that in certain hypothetical models of the universe, a deity is required to exist. That doesn't constitute evidence, however.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Granted.<b> But we have now found one hypothetical model of the universe where a deity is required to exist (Case B, for lack of a better name)</b>, and one hypothetical model where he may not, but no one seems to know enough about it to really discuss it (Oscillating Universe). All other models seem to be impossible. Would you then concede that there is at least a real possibility for the existence of a sentient God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I believe that the probabilities of the existence of God and the existence of miracles are both greater than zero. However, since I don't see any conclusive evidence of their existence, I will assume that they don't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The bolded part is where you made your mistake. Theclam never said that all "class B" universes require the presence of God, just that <i>some</i> obviously need a God to exist, and there is a chance that a God would exist in all of them, even where He's not necessary.
I believe there's a God, I just don't want you to pigeon-hole someone's position. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 11:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 10:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 10:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm making progress! Now I just have to go do some research on Oscillating Universe Theory (which is your current theory of the origin of the universe, right?). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now backsliding...
Let's recap. I split the potential origins for the universe into two classes. One class (regardless of what mechanisms are used to get there) ultimately reduces into Case A, and the other into Case B. You then pointed out the third class which reduces into Oscillating Universe Theory. This covers all possible origins of existence.
We then arrived at a fairly good agreement that Case A was impossible. Next, you admitted that Case B requires the existence of a sentient God. Next, you claimed that you still considered the existence of said God improbable. That implies that you must support the third class, Oscillating Universe, right? There isn't anything else left. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe that I addressed Case A, because I don't know enough physics to address your points regarding it. I didn't say that Case B requires a deity, I said that there are certain models of the universe that would. I also don't know enough to say that there isn't a Case C.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 11:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 11:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 11:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 25 2005, 10:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 25 2005, 10:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 25 2005, 10:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm making progress! Now I just have to go do some research on Oscillating Universe Theory (which is your current theory of the origin of the universe, right?). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now backsliding...
Let's recap. I split the potential origins for the universe into two classes. One class (regardless of what mechanisms are used to get there) ultimately reduces into Case A, and the other into Case B. You then pointed out the third class which reduces into Oscillating Universe Theory. This covers all possible origins of existence.
We then arrived at a fairly good agreement that Case A was impossible. Next, you admitted that Case B requires the existence of a sentient God. Next, you claimed that you still considered the existence of said God improbable. That implies that you must support the third class, Oscillating Universe, right? There isn't anything else left. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't believe that I addressed Case A, because I don't know enough physics to address your points regarding it. I didn't say that Case B requires a deity, I said that there are certain models of the universe that would. I also don't know enough to say that there isn't a Case C. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I beat you to defending yourself ^_^
Let me rephrase myself, as I have made a small number of mistakes (as illustrated both by your points and the research I am now doing on oscillating theories). I'll start from the beginning so there won't be any confusion due to prior language.
Though there are many theories for the precise nature of the origin of the universe, they can all be categorized and broken down into 3 categories. These 3 categories should hold not only for all extant theories, but for any possible future theories.
Category A theory: Any theory where, at some point in the distant past, there was True Nothing™. Any sort of time period may have interceded between the initial origin of reality, and the origin of our current universe, any method may be proposed for that intermittent period or the original creation, but if the Prime Point of Origin started with True Nothing™, then its a Category A.
Category B theory: Any theory where, at some point in the past, we encounter a being or natural force that has always existed, without origin, and which is responsible for the creation of those things which do have a traceable origin.
Category C theory: Any theory where there is no ultimate origin, but all of the components of our universe have always been, flowing from universe to universe for eternity.
The problem with category A is that even if you postulate a mechanism by which something might arise from nothing, that mechanism counts as something and you wind up having to reclassify into one of the other categories anyway. So that means all theories of the origin of our particular universe have to be constructed in such a way as to eventually meet the requirements of either category B or C. If you haven't met either of those categories, then the theory hasn't yet reached an explanation for the origin of reality...it might explain other things, but it won't explain the ultimate origin. (actual discussions of B and C class theories to be left for another post)
(Do I have a talent for hijacking threads or what?)
Ok now...Class B. Under a Class B theory, most observable things have origins. But if you trace these origins far enough back you will eventually find the Un-Originated One, an Eternal force of some sort that has existed for infinite time, and at some point carried out some action that eventually led to us.
The "Infinite Time" part is the key here. If this eternal one hadn't been around for infinite time, you could theoretically trace back to its origin, and either find nothing (changing to Class A), or some earlier something (meaning you haven't found the Ultimate Original yet). So once you find the Ultimate Original, it <i>must</i> have existed for an infinite time. Now here's the kicker...this Ultimate Original somehow managed to wait an infinite time, and THEN create our univrse (or whatever led to our universe). This suggests sentience. While an unsentient Ultimate Original Force could certainly create a universe, this creation would require a specific amount of time. I can't even begin to guess as to how much time that would be, it might even be random, but it would be an amount. Lets call it X. But when you go look at the creation of a new universe by the Ultimate Original Force....it hasn't been operating for X time. It's been operating far longer than that...in fact an infinite time. So why now? I attest that only a sentient Ultimate Original could simply <i>decide</i> to do it now rather than some other time.
Edit: Doing some very interesting research on Class C theories, but I'll have to wait until tomorrow (at the least) in order to post it in any coherent fashion. But as a preview, what I'm probably going to arrive at as a conclusion is that Class C cannot be ruled out conclusively, but still requires an origin external to our own universe, as the observed laws of our universe do not permit a Class C theory totally internal to our universe.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The early universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So what formed the early universe? I hate to take a dive into intelligent design here but isn't it true, out of nothing, nothing comes? What created the ball of energy or mass or matter that "banged" and created the universe? And what caused this previously stable "ball" to go unstable?
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, in quantum physics, there are many particles that jump in and out of existence at random.
I shall use an example from the one of the wikipedia links.
Take a little chamber, and suck all of the air out of it, creating a vaccum. (AKA where there is nothing in there.)
With that in mind, scienctists have conducted experiments that show on the quantum level (read sub atomic) particles pop in and out of existence at will. The particles are called quarks which make up protons and neutrons.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles' target='_blank'>List of current known subatomic particles</a>
Now going from here is all strictly what "could" have happened. Since the univerese supposedly started as one of these subatomic particles, just with more mass. It wasn't able to be held together by the "strong nuclear" force that binds the protons and neutrons together. Thusly we have a big bang and it exapands from there.
One issue with that, and yes please do leave "Intelligent Design" out of it, is how it works. Sadly, we do not know and probably won't for a while. We are making consistant progress with antimatter, and fusion technologies, but even then we are only scrapping the surface of what is possible with such unlimited energies.
After all if we were able to perfect some form of fusion (preferrably at a more effiencent level then now) there would be no need for oil, natural gas, nor wind power. Ahh well.. I hope I helped a little bit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've put some thought into this "where did the Big Bang come from" argument in the past, and I think I can explain it a bit more clearly then DarkATI.
We think we can roughly describe the early history of the universe dating all the way back to a few really small fractions of a second after the big bang. Moving backwards in time, all matter was compressed into a very tiny ball...which occupied the entire universe, because space was heavily compressed as well. Extrapolating a little further backwards, around t=0 seconds we've most likely got a point mass occupying a point space universe.
So what was at t=-1? Was the point mass (or ultra compressed mass if thats the case, either way) already there, just not exploding yet? Or was there nothing at all---no mass, no space, just true nothingness?
If you had true nothingness, how on earth did a universes worth of matter, not to mention a space to put it in, spontaneously spring forth from nothing simultaneously?
If the point mass was already there, how long had it been sitting there? Theres only two answers to this question...X amount of time, or infinite time. If X, what happened at t=-X? What was before that? And now you're back to the original question. If infinite, then what natural process could run for an infinite amount of time without acheiving any result, and THEN cause a previously stable pointmass to explode? We know of lots of natural processes that can take X amount of time to make something unstable (radioactive decay), and can theorize new ones that might be powerful enough to make a universe-point mass unstable after X time, but we can't even imagine a force that could take infinite time to acheive a result.
...with one exception. A <i>sentient</i> force could decide to WAIT any amount of time, and then DECIDE that now was the correct time to create and/or make unstable a point-mass universe.
I think I will. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
What created the sentient force?
To simplify my mass of arguments from before, the origin of existence basically comes down to one of two possibilities...
A) There was nothing (true nothing, not just a vacuum), and then suddenly there was something without any cause whatsoever. Difficult to support with logic, since it is inherently illogical.
B) Something always was, without being created. This something must be eternal, timeless, and must have some attribute that allows it to wait an infinite amount of time doing nothing, and THEN decide to do something. This implies sentience.
Case B is not easy to wrap your mind around, but when you compare it to case A, you start to wonder if B just might be possible after all. I challenge anyone to come up with a Case C.
Quite often to particles jump in and out of existance... as I have given links to earlier. :-)
To simplify my mass of arguments from before, the origin of existence basically comes down to one of two possibilities...
A) There was nothing (true nothing, not just a vacuum), and then suddenly there was something without any cause whatsoever. Difficult to support with logic, since it is inherently illogical.
B) Something always was, without being created. This something must be eternal, timeless, and must have some attribute that allows it to wait an infinite amount of time doing nothing, and THEN decide to do something. This implies sentience.
Case B is not easy to wrap your mind around, but when you compare it to case A, you start to wonder if B just might be possible after all. I challenge anyone to come up with a Case C. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I remember reading a Scientific American article about a possible case where the universe is in an infinite loop of being created and destroyed, causing by interactions or collisions, or something, between multiple universes. I don't remember the specifics, but I don't think you can assume that Case B implies sentience. If anything, Case A implies sentience just as much.
In both of these cases, you still have to explain the origin of sentience, if it exists.
It's turtles all the way down...
Also, there have been theories about what exactly caused the Big Bang, but they all involve multi-dimensional physics and/or brane theories, which I don't even pretend to understand well enough to explain. Wikipedia has been less than enlightening on this area, but perhaps I just suck at searching. <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
@TheClam--
The one theory I'm not well-versed enough to dispute is Oscillating Universe theory. I don't really know the points either for or against it, since there aren't that many proponents for it. However, accepting Oscillating Universe theory still requires accepting that the stuff composing these Oscillating Universes always was, with no origin at all. If you're going to do that anyway, you've already gotten past the only difficult part of accepting Case B, so why not take it instead? It's substantially simpler, and thus would win out in an Occam's Razor challenge.
As for the origin of sentience...the whole point of Case B is that this force HAS no origin. Whatever it is, it always was, and most likely always will be.
The one theory I'm not well-versed enough to dispute is Oscillating Universe theory. I don't really know the points either for or against it, since there aren't that many proponents for it. However, accepting Oscillating Universe theory still requires accepting that the stuff composing these Oscillating Universes always was, with no origin at all. If you're going to do that anyway, you've already gotten past the only difficult part of accepting Case B, so why not take it instead? It's substantially simpler, and thus would win out in an Occam's Razor challenge.
As for the origin of sentience...the whole point of Case B is that this force HAS no origin. Whatever it is, it always was, and most likely always will be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is there actually any evidence at all for a sentient force?
In an Occam's Razor contest, a universe without sentient force would win, since you still have to account for the mechanics of the universe and the mechanics of creating the universe. Then, the creator seems superfluous.
Mechanics of the Universe
is simpler than
Mechanics of the Universe + God
Case B is sort of like deism, God creates a universe and all the mechanics of the universe, but leaves it completely alone. What's the point of God? What's the evidence that God even exists. On a more germane note, you can apply the same analogy to intelligently designed evolution. If God uses the mechanism of evolution to create humanity, then God is just an extraneous element.
I've always thought that Occam's Razor worked against intelligent design theory.
Sadly this question can't be fully answered without religion being brought up and it has been requested that religion stay out of this argument.
It is my <i>opinion</i> that there is great "evidence" for a sentient being or force. I just can't accept that all <b>this</b> was an accident. <- Just my opinion.
~ DarkATi
Sadly this question can't be fully answered without religion being brought up and it has been requested that religion stay out of this argument.
It is my <i>opinion</i> that there is great "evidence" for a sentient being or force. I just can't accept that all <b>this</b> was an accident. <- Just my opinion.
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't be fully answered <b>yet</b> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh and yes, an 'accident' makes perfect sense to me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Mechanics of the Universe
is simpler than
Mechanics of the Universe + God
[snip]
I've always thought that Occam's Razor worked against intelligent design theory.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but you missed something. If you start with God, you don't really have to account for the mechanics of the universe at all, since you can assume that he made them. That makes it:
God has no origin, creates universe
vs
stuff has no origin, is part of a universe, universe collapses but manages to create a new universe, repeat ad infinitum
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there actually any evidence at all for a sentient force?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Outside of Oscillating Universe theory, yes. Because if we assume that Case A is impossible (ie, there has always been SOMETHING, regardless of what that something is), that means that whatever force that produced us has been operating for an infinite time. A nonsentient force could be set up so as to produce a universe immediately, or after a year, or after a millenia, or whatever, but only a sentient force could wait literally an eternity before creating a universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Case B is sort of like deism, God creates a universe and all the mechanics of the universe, but leaves it completely alone. What's the point of God? What's the evidence that God even exists. On a more germane note, you can apply the same analogy to intelligently designed evolution. If God uses the mechanism of evolution to create humanity, then God is just an extraneous element.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say he left it alone afterwards. I have quite a few ideas on what he did afterwards, I just didn't want to clutter up the discussion with what God did <i>next</i> before we've established whether or not he even exists.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum' target='_blank'>Vacuum</a>
So yes, in a vacuum there is nothing, which is true nothingness.
Who said that suddenly a particle so small appeared with huge quanity of potential energy and finally overcame the strong nuclear force causing the "big bang" and expanding into what we know today as the universe.
That little tid bit (not saying its correct), put together with rough (very rough) quantum physics background sounds more plausable to me, then "it was just there."
If that is what happened, perhaps as we experiment with vacuums more, we could accidently set off another big bang and kill everyone. Yay?
Mechanics of the Universe
is simpler than
Mechanics of the Universe + God
[snip]
I've always thought that Occam's Razor worked against intelligent design theory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, but you missed something. If you start with God, you don't really have to account for the mechanics of the universe at all, since you can assume that he made them. That makes it:
God has no origin, creates universe
vs
stuff has no origin, is part of a universe, universe collapses but manages to create a new universe, repeat ad infinitum <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every single thing that God (assuming He exists) has ever done, that has been recorded by science, has had observable effects that follow the mechanics of the universe (although there are some things that don't match our current theories; it just means that our theories aren't perfect, rather than that God doesn't follow the mechanics of the universe). Why would the creation of the universe be different than the universe itself in this respect?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there actually any evidence at all for a sentient force?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Outside of Oscillating Universe theory, yes. Because if we assume that Case A is impossible (ie, there has always been SOMETHING, regardless of what that something is), that means that whatever force that produced us has been operating for an infinite time. A nonsentient force could be set up so as to produce a universe immediately, or after a year, or after a millenia, or whatever, but only a sentient force could wait literally an eternity before creating a universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will admit that in certain hypothetical models of the universe, a deity is required to exist. That doesn't constitute evidence, however.
It's still not a record, though mabye a record number of consecutive post for this forum, it's not the most I've seen.
No, that was the courtesy of Malak vs. tehwannawannabe spammage on the Knight Online Forums on a thread, in the Clanz forum if I remember correctly. Malak won before the lock, er rather crashing the forum server first, at 207 posts in about the span of 5 to 10 min. Interstingly, he and the other 6 or 7 who spammed 'till crash only got a 48-hr ban.
I suppose the difference is that all of your posts were legit whereas theirs were all spam. So I don't think there is any reason for any of us to be rude to you, you should just know that it is is considered to impolite forum ettiquette to do anything more than double posting. That's all. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~back on topic~
Abiogenesis is not a synomym for evolution. You can be a "creationist" and still believe in abiogenesis. You hear craetionism vs. evolution but that's always a badly opposed setup. Creationism tends to be more at odds with abiogenesis, but even then I personally find them not entirely at odds mainly because of my definition of God. I have not doubt about evolution or the ability for life to come out of just the right settings (with the odds in the almost infinite extreme), and I have no doubt that God is constantly creating and modifying life as is the rest of creation. For me the extreme odds and that a sentient lifeform could eventually evolve from inorganic compounds seems to support stongly as proof for the existence of God.
This is another debate which seems silly and wrong to pit science and religion at each other. I think they both confirm the same thing even if the wording and perspectives are different.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum' target='_blank'>Vacuum</a>
So yes, in a vacuum there is nothing, which is true nothingness. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to your link:
<!--QuoteBegin-Wikipedia+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wikipedia)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In physics, a vacuum means the absence of matter in a volume of space.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that is not even close to what I am talking about. I am not talking about an absence of matter in space. I am talking about an absence of space in which to have matter, and an absence of any energy or force which could act on this non-existant space. In fact, lets go one step further and postulate an absence of the laws of physics which might govern such a space, were it to be created. Anything less doesn't count as true nothing.
Once you've reached this level of <i>true</i> nothing, I think even you would have to agree on the impossibility of anything forming from this nothing.
If you haven't yet reached this level of true nothing, then you can always go another step backwards in time. And eventually, you must either run into the true nothing (Case A), or something which had no origin (Case B), whether that something is God or an eternally existing pointmass or even just membranes. Then I get to argue that of the various possibilities for the un-originated eternal force, God is the only one that can wait around eternally before deciding to make himself a universe.
Why do you think that? If you accept that life can come out of inorganic compounds and that life can evolve, then it's not a great stretch at all to say that, over billions of years, it is likely evolution will favor intelligence to a degree that would result in a sentient life form.
Well, for one thing, its quite difficult to follow the mechanics of a universe before those mechanics or that universe exists. Almost by definition God would have to operate outside the mechanics of the universe in order to CONSTRUCT the mechanics of the universe.
But I find your evidence here to be sketchy. What you are basically saying is, "Science has never recorded a miracle". First of all, science (of the level required to actually confirm or deny a miracle) has only been around for at best 2-300 years. So obviously any miracles that occurred before that would have gone unrecorded by science. And after that time, there have been no end of claims of miracles that occurred while the scientific instruments were looking somewhere else. I have no doubt that many of these are fabrications, but you seem quite confidant in asserting that exactly 0 of them are true. In fact, some of them actually have a substantial level of scientific evidence to support them. For example, people suffering from grave illnesses and mysteriously recovering between one doctors visit and the next, with no apparent explanation. I am not trying to convince you that there are miracles with 100% certainty, merely to point out that you can not claim that there <i>aren't</i> miracles with 100% certainty.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will admit that in certain hypothetical models of the universe, a deity is required to exist. That doesn't constitute evidence, however.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted. But we have now found one hypothetical model of the universe where a deity is required to exist (Case B, for lack of a better name), and one hypothetical model where he may not, but no one seems to know enough about it to really discuss it (Oscillating Universe). All other models seem to be impossible. Would you then concede that there is at least a real <i>possibility</i> for the existence of a sentient God?
Well, for one thing, its quite difficult to follow the mechanics of a universe before those mechanics or that universe exists. Almost by definition God would have to operate outside the mechanics of the universe in order to CONSTRUCT the mechanics of the universe.
But I find your evidence here to be sketchy. What you are basically saying is, "Science has never recorded a miracle". First of all, science (of the level required to actually confirm or deny a miracle) has only been around for at best 2-300 years. So obviously any miracles that occurred before that would have gone unrecorded by science. And after that time, there have been no end of claims of miracles that occurred while the scientific instruments were looking somewhere else. I have no doubt that many of these are fabrications, but you seem quite confidant in asserting that exactly 0 of them are true. In fact, some of them actually have a substantial level of scientific evidence to support them. For example, people suffering from grave illnesses and mysteriously recovering between one doctors visit and the next, with no apparent explanation. I am not trying to convince you that there are miracles with 100% certainty, merely to point out that you can not claim that there <i>aren't</i> miracles with 100% certainty. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right, I was mistaken when I said that the creation of the universe isn't different. Still, when we really examine a "miracle," we often find that everything about the miracle followed the mechanics of the universe, or that we have a gap in our knowledge about the miracle or in our understanding of the universe. I think that gaps in our knowledge are just that, not a supernatural force. That kind of thing has happened countless times in our own history. Ancient people prayed to the rain gods to bring water to their crops. We now have partial knowledge of how weather works and we don't think rain gods have anything to do with it. Ancient people thought that our sun was a god. Now we know that it's just a really big, really hot, ball of gas, really far away. As for your specific example, about people with fatal illnesses, we know that the placebo effect can be very powerful at times.
I think that it is much more likely that we will eventually be able to explain seemingly supernatural events, than that there actually are supernatural events. Additionally, I think that if God does act in the universe, it is likely that he does it in ways that follow the mechanics of the universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will admit that in certain hypothetical models of the universe, a deity is required to exist. That doesn't constitute evidence, however.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted. But we have now found one hypothetical model of the universe where a deity is required to exist (Case B, for lack of a better name), and one hypothetical model where he may not, but no one seems to know enough about it to really discuss it (Oscillating Universe). All other models seem to be impossible. Would you then concede that there is at least a real <i>possibility</i> for the existence of a sentient God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe that the probabilities of the existence of God and the existence of miracles are both greater than zero. However, since I don't see any conclusive evidence of their existence, I will assume that they don't exist.
[snip]
Additionally, I think that if God does act in the universe, it is likely that he does it in ways that follow the mechanics of the universe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted. Actually, my belief isn't so much different from that...I suspect many "miracles" work exactly as you have described, while many more require only a very small "adjustment" due to supernatural forces before natural forces will take over and acheive the desired result. And many times, I suspect God works his results using no supernatural forces at all, but using other people instead, completely within the natural physical framework of the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe that the probabilities of the existence of God and the existence of miracles are both greater than zero. However, since I don't see any conclusive evidence of their existence, I will assume that they don't exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm making progress! Now I just have to go do some research on Oscillating Universe Theory (which is your current theory of the origin of the universe, right?).
Be back when I have some more data... =)
I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet.
I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now backsliding...
Let's recap. I split the potential origins for the universe into two classes. One class (regardless of what mechanisms are used to get there) ultimately reduces into Case A, and the other into Case B. You then pointed out the third class which reduces into Oscillating Universe Theory. This covers all possible origins of existence.
We then arrived at a fairly good agreement that Case A was impossible. Next, you admitted that Case B requires the existence of a sentient God. Next, you claimed that you still considered the existence of said God improbable. That implies that you must support the third class, Oscillating Universe, right? There isn't anything else left.
I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now backsliding...
Let's recap. I split the potential origins for the universe into two classes. One class (regardless of what mechanisms are used to get there) ultimately reduces into Case A, and the other into Case B. You then pointed out the third class which reduces into Oscillating Universe Theory. This covers all possible origins of existence.
We then arrived at a fairly good agreement that Case A was impossible. Next, you admitted that Case B requires the existence of a sentient God. Next, you claimed that you still considered the existence of said God improbable. That implies that you must support the third class, Oscillating Universe, right? There isn't anything else left.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I say to condense a subject as broad and open to interpretation as physics down to 3 "classes" is over simplification. Considering the fact that we know nothing of what a brane is, it's rather hard to argue where exactly they came from, however the theory that a collision of branes resulted in the creation of our universe still exists. Obviously physicists have found evidence of processes beyond our understanding, processes that might actually allow a "class A" creation of the universe.
Also, you didn't quite force theclam to rely on the Oscillating Universe theory. If I may quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I will admit that in certain hypothetical models of the universe, a deity is required to exist. That doesn't constitute evidence, however.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Granted.<b> But we have now found one hypothetical model of the universe where a deity is required to exist (Case B, for lack of a better name)</b>, and one hypothetical model where he may not, but no one seems to know enough about it to really discuss it (Oscillating Universe). All other models seem to be impossible. Would you then concede that there is at least a real possibility for the existence of a sentient God?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->I believe that the probabilities of the existence of God and the existence of miracles are both greater than zero. However, since I don't see any conclusive evidence of their existence, I will assume that they don't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The bolded part is where you made your mistake. Theclam never said that all "class B" universes require the presence of God, just that <i>some</i> obviously need a God to exist, and there is a chance that a God would exist in all of them, even where He's not necessary.
I believe there's a God, I just don't want you to pigeon-hole someone's position. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now backsliding...
Let's recap. I split the potential origins for the universe into two classes. One class (regardless of what mechanisms are used to get there) ultimately reduces into Case A, and the other into Case B. You then pointed out the third class which reduces into Oscillating Universe Theory. This covers all possible origins of existence.
We then arrived at a fairly good agreement that Case A was impossible. Next, you admitted that Case B requires the existence of a sentient God. Next, you claimed that you still considered the existence of said God improbable. That implies that you must support the third class, Oscillating Universe, right? There isn't anything else left. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe that I addressed Case A, because I don't know enough physics to address your points regarding it. I didn't say that Case B requires a deity, I said that there are certain models of the universe that would. I also don't know enough to say that there isn't a Case C.
I don't believe in any certain model of the creation of the universe. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject, so I defer to physicists, but they don't seem to have agreed on a particular model yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now backsliding...
Let's recap. I split the potential origins for the universe into two classes. One class (regardless of what mechanisms are used to get there) ultimately reduces into Case A, and the other into Case B. You then pointed out the third class which reduces into Oscillating Universe Theory. This covers all possible origins of existence.
We then arrived at a fairly good agreement that Case A was impossible. Next, you admitted that Case B requires the existence of a sentient God. Next, you claimed that you still considered the existence of said God improbable. That implies that you must support the third class, Oscillating Universe, right? There isn't anything else left. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't believe that I addressed Case A, because I don't know enough physics to address your points regarding it. I didn't say that Case B requires a deity, I said that there are certain models of the universe that would. I also don't know enough to say that there isn't a Case C. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beat you to defending yourself ^_^
Though there are many theories for the precise nature of the origin of the universe, they can all be categorized and broken down into 3 categories. These 3 categories should hold not only for all extant theories, but for any possible future theories.
Category A theory: Any theory where, at some point in the distant past, there was True Nothing™. Any sort of time period may have interceded between the initial origin of reality, and the origin of our current universe, any method may be proposed for that intermittent period or the original creation, but if the Prime Point of Origin started with True Nothing™, then its a Category A.
Category B theory: Any theory where, at some point in the past, we encounter a being or natural force that has always existed, without origin, and which is responsible for the creation of those things which do have a traceable origin.
Category C theory: Any theory where there is no ultimate origin, but all of the components of our universe have always been, flowing from universe to universe for eternity.
The problem with category A is that even if you postulate a mechanism by which something might arise from nothing, that mechanism counts as something and you wind up having to reclassify into one of the other categories anyway. So that means all theories of the origin of our particular universe have to be constructed in such a way as to eventually meet the requirements of either category B or C. If you haven't met either of those categories, then the theory hasn't yet reached an explanation for the origin of reality...it might explain other things, but it won't explain the ultimate origin. (actual discussions of B and C class theories to be left for another post)
Ok now...Class B. Under a Class B theory, most observable things have origins. But if you trace these origins far enough back you will eventually find the Un-Originated One, an Eternal force of some sort that has existed for infinite time, and at some point carried out some action that eventually led to us.
The "Infinite Time" part is the key here. If this eternal one hadn't been around for infinite time, you could theoretically trace back to its origin, and either find nothing (changing to Class A), or some earlier something (meaning you haven't found the Ultimate Original yet). So once you find the Ultimate Original, it <i>must</i> have existed for an infinite time. Now here's the kicker...this Ultimate Original somehow managed to wait an infinite time, and THEN create our univrse (or whatever led to our universe). This suggests sentience. While an unsentient Ultimate Original Force could certainly create a universe, this creation would require a specific amount of time. I can't even begin to guess as to how much time that would be, it might even be random, but it would be an amount. Lets call it X. But when you go look at the creation of a new universe by the Ultimate Original Force....it hasn't been operating for X time. It's been operating far longer than that...in fact an infinite time. So why now? I attest that only a sentient Ultimate Original could simply <i>decide</i> to do it now rather than some other time.
Edit: Doing some very interesting research on Class C theories, but I'll have to wait until tomorrow (at the least) in order to post it in any coherent fashion. But as a preview, what I'm probably going to arrive at as a conclusion is that Class C cannot be ruled out conclusively, but still requires an origin external to our own universe, as the observed laws of our universe do not permit a Class C theory totally internal to our universe.