A hypothetical question, especially for the atheists and skeptics in the audience...

[Seydaman]

Hmm.

I'm honestly drawing a blank here. I can't think of any historical events that were particularly unbelievable.

Maybe the Salem trials I guess?

 

[The Enquirer]

True, though they did support them when no one else did... I'm not saying they did it alone, that'd have been impossible, but they did set the whole thing in motion almost all by themselves.

Well, there were other noble families in Europe that "sponsored" the renaissance such as Sforza, Borgia, Strozzi, Montefeltro and Chigi. And if we dig just a little bit deeper we'll find more. Other "sponsors" include countless guilds, churches and city councils. The Medici family was but one player in a huge team.

Well in Italy I mean. Obviously there were a lot of other factors that were in play as well. The Fall of Constantinople being one of those as it spread all the scholars and artists out.

I know technically this isn't meant to be religious but churches were one of the few places that preserved writing/reading through the middle ages that allowed education to eventually spread again.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Orlando Bloom's face.

If there were a deity, all of its evidence would subside in him.
[small]It can't be legal to be that pretty.[/small]

 

[Knife]

Well in Italy I mean. Obviously there were a lot of other factors that were in play as well. The Fall of Constantinople being one of those as it spread all the scholars and artists out.

I know technically this isn't meant to be religious but churches were one of the few places that preserved writing/reading through the middle ages that allowed education to eventually spread again.

Well, since the invention of writing religion basically held the monopoly on writing/reading (as far as Europe is concerned). Sure some nobles knew how to read/write letters to one another, but just as often they would use a priest to read/write for them. And the peasants were more occupied with surviving and feeding themselves and every other member of society. I'll agree the churches (and their non christian counterparts) preserved the knowledge for a very long time, but that invites the question - why didn't they spread it all that time?

If you want my answer, it's because of political reasons - it's easier to control the masses when the masses are uneducated. When the commoner can't read the holy texts on his own, he needs the priest to read it for him. And the priest can say whatever he likes and mask it as holy text. If the priest wants the commoner to do A then he tells him the holy texts order him to do A, and the commoner has no way of checking if it's true or not.

 

[K12]

Spontaneous combustion.

I really can't think of a single thing from human history that fits, but if i look at all history the answer would obviously be the creation of universe.

What if the universe was not created but instead has always been?

The scientific consensus seems (afaik) to be that there was a beginning of the universe(not that i understand the topic enough to really argue about it). Or do you mean "always been" in the sense of that there was another universe before ours, and another one before that one, and so on for all infinity?

Always been, as in, it has no beginning. But I also haven't researched the topic enough to argue it.

I have thought about the universe as a cycle though, in regards to the big bang. Like it starts with the bang, then after it expands for a long time, it is sucked back in to create another big bang. But nothing created this cycle, so yes to your last question as well.

People don't seem to truly grasp what this actually means. Can you truly conceive of the infinite? Because that is what is required for something to have no beginning and no ending, unless there is some completely alien concept which our minds have be made utterly blind to. And to be infinite and at the same time nothing, as nothing can arrive from nothing. This should reduce everyone to a quivering pool on the floor that could do no wrong to its fellow man, were that all men more than mere animals.

How can you speak of such things so casually? Ask yourself this.

I think the main thing about the universe is that it has either existed infinitely or finitely and both those options are mind boggling and counter intuitive.

Finite doesn't mean that it has a beginning and an end necessarily, just a finite length. The Equator has a finite length but no beginning or end and I think that the universe is kinda the same over a larger number of dimensions (beyond 3D space and 4D spacetime) but I'm not going to pretend I understand what that means.

You can do anything in a computer simulation, but at some point in the causal chain you arrive at a place where existence cannot possibly exist because the definition of to exist, to be, necessitates an origin. That's the problem. You have to take existence out of the equation, and in order to do that you must wave you hand and proclaim "infinity" (as infinity is boundless, consider Zeno's paradox) or you must be resigned to the conclusion that existence is an illusion.

Our brains don't seem equipped to imagine a paradigm where existence has no meaning, or at least no bearing, and how something like our reality, where existence is front and center, could arise from conditions where existence must be fundamentally impossible, merely an abstract concept that can be programmed into a simulation.

The only thing our brains do seem well equipped for is putting these quandaries aside to go about our loathsome business as if none of this is of any consequence. Try to do that in reverse. Make a simulation where existence is not a rule. Who can even conceive of that? Unless you think you can, you have no business casually brushing these problems away. That's only a kind of denial that is no different from that of the intellectually divested religious adherent.

I don't really know what you are talking about or what point you're making over all.

"To exist" does not require an origin. To have an origin implies that something existed at some point or another but existing doesn't imply an origin. There is no contradiction in saying that something exists without a beginning to its existence.

Infinity isn't completely boundless, something can be infinite and still have boundaries. An infinite line can have a starting point and then stretch to infinity, it has no boundary on only one end.

It makes no sense to claim that existence is an illusion (consider Descartes Cogito)and there's no reason to think that the only other option is claim everything is infinite. The universe's existence is finite or infinite, and it can be each in several different ways.

I think the idea that we shouldn't brush these problems aside in everyday life is silly. There's a quote from Buddha which I can't remember exactly but someone asks him when his teaching is going to explain the origin of the universe. He responds that you don't need to know something like that to live a good life (I'm sure the original quote was more poetic than that) and I agree. We may never get a satisfactory answer to those kind of questions and that's fine. We shouldn't stop asking the question but we can operate perfectly well without an answer to it.

 

[Gauntlets28]

I have to say that this question is a tough one. Especially since I can't say I entirely know or would recognise what divine activity looks like. So even if I did choose, then I might be wrong in the characteristics. But I suppose, if I were to choose, I'd probably go back to World War II to see if God had anthing to do with this guy surviving the war armed only with a longbow and a broadsword.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

 

[The Enquirer]

Well that's exactly what would happen. Priests did eventually teach others how to read but those instances weren't large enough to have the form of impact that was required. The people who did know how to read were largely concentrated in Constantinople and when that fell they spread out as did their tradecraft.

 

[Knife]

Well that's exactly what would happen. Priests did eventually teach others how to read but those instances weren't large enough to have the form of impact that was required. The people who did know how to read were largely concentrated in Constantinople and when that fell they spread out as did their tradecraft.

So, the only people who knew how to read/write or were good enough teachers were concentrated in Constantinople for a few thousands of years? The fact it didn't happen before the fall of Constaninople doesn't strike you as odd?

Since christianity began, it spread like wildfire (in historical time scales) through Europe. Literacy wasn't as lucky - it had at least a thousand years lag behind. That's because a serious effort was put to spread christianity to as many corners of the world as possible, not so much with literacy.

 

[The Enquirer]

Well that's exactly what would happen. Priests did eventually teach others how to read but those instances weren't large enough to have the form of impact that was required. The people who did know how to read were largely concentrated in Constantinople and when that fell they spread out as did their tradecraft.

So, the only people who knew how to read/write or were good enough teachers were concentrated in Constantinople for a few thousands of years? The fact it didn't happen before the fall of Constaninople doesn't strike you as odd?

Since christianity began, it spread like wildfire (in historical time scales) through Europe. Literacy wasn't as lucky - it had at least a thousand years lag behind. That's because a serious effort was put to spread christianity to as many corners of the world as possible, not so much with literacy.

It does, but at the same time it doesn't. Those artists go where the money was, and that was there. It can be reflected in today's world as well. Will Smith was in Independence Day and he was a great, central character and seemed like he had fun making it. But now, for the sequel that is apparently being made, he most likely won't be coming back because he is "too expensive". Rather than make a movie for the fun of it and get paid (still fairly well even if he reduced his asking price) he needs to get paid more to do it. Now this isn't true of all artists, and it wasn't true way back when either, but it was true on a large enough scale to have an impact. This was their career and they needed to earn something so they could feed themselves. And to be fair, I would have done the same thing in order to be able to feed myself.

Yea, exactly, there was more of an effort there because a lot of rulers did manipulate the populace with it and found it to work extremely well in that regard. As per reading there are still some people who can't read even now so it is something difficult to spread. You can't just listen to a priest speak about it, you need to make an active effort on your part to learn it.

 

[Knife]

It does, but at the same time it doesn't. Those artists go where the money was, and that was there. It can be reflected in today's world as well. Will Smith was in Independence Day and he was a great, central character and seemed like he had fun making it. But now, for the sequel that is apparently being made, he most likely won't be coming back because he is "too expensive". Rather than make a movie for the fun of it and get paid (still fairly well even if he reduced his asking price) he needs to get paid more to do it. Now this isn't true of all artists, and it wasn't true way back when either, but it was true on a large enough scale to have an impact. This was their career and they needed to earn something so they could feed themselves. And to be fair, I would have done the same thing in order to be able to feed myself.

Yea, exactly, there was more of an effort there because a lot of rulers did manipulate the populace with it and found it to work extremely well in that regard. As per reading there are still some people who can't read even now so it is something difficult to spread. You can't just listen to a priest speak about it, you need to make an active effort on your part to learn it.

I agree with the first paragraph - artists are people and they need money to feed themselves just as everybody else.
What I was getting at was that there was no concentrated effort to bring literacy to the people - it's not that hard, 6 year olds do it nowadays. That's the first thing you learn when you go to school. The worldwide literacy rate is 84% - heavily off balanced by third world countries. Education is not hard, it's expensive.

 

[stabnex]

200+ replies and counting. Perhaps you've underestimated just how open-minded atheists/skeptics are.

OT: Personally, I'd have to say when someone gave Justin Bieber a contract. SOME manner of evil force had to have had a hand in that much destruction of human lives. His actions have caused more harm than Joseph Stalin's did.

 

[K12]

Spontaneous combustion.

I really can't think of a single thing from human history that fits, but if i look at all history the answer would obviously be the creation of universe.

What if the universe was not created but instead has always been?

The scientific consensus seems (afaik) to be that there was a beginning of the universe(not that i understand the topic enough to really argue about it). Or do you mean "always been" in the sense of that there was another universe before ours, and another one before that one, and so on for all infinity?

Always been, as in, it has no beginning. But I also haven't researched the topic enough to argue it.

I have thought about the universe as a cycle though, in regards to the big bang. Like it starts with the bang, then after it expands for a long time, it is sucked back in to create another big bang. But nothing created this cycle, so yes to your last question as well.

People don't seem to truly grasp what this actually means. Can you truly conceive of the infinite? Because that is what is required for something to have no beginning and no ending, unless there is some completely alien concept which our minds have be made utterly blind to. And to be infinite and at the same time nothing, as nothing can arrive from nothing. This should reduce everyone to a quivering pool on the floor that could do no wrong to its fellow man, were that all men more than mere animals.

How can you speak of such things so casually? Ask yourself this.

I think the main thing about the universe is that it has either existed infinitely or finitely and both those options are mind boggling and counter intuitive.

Finite doesn't mean that it has a beginning and an end necessarily, just a finite length. The Equator has a finite length but no beginning or end and I think that the universe is kinda the same over a larger number of dimensions (beyond 3D space and 4D spacetime) but I'm not going to pretend I understand what that means.

You can do anything in a computer simulation, but at some point in the causal chain you arrive at a place where existence cannot possibly exist because the definition of to exist, to be, necessitates an origin. That's the problem. You have to take existence out of the equation, and in order to do that you must wave you hand and proclaim "infinity" (as infinity is boundless, consider Zeno's paradox) or you must be resigned to the conclusion that existence is an illusion.

Our brains don't seem equipped to imagine a paradigm where existence has no meaning, or at least no bearing, and how something like our reality, where existence is front and center, could arise from conditions where existence must be fundamentally impossible, merely an abstract concept that can be programmed into a simulation.

The only thing our brains do seem well equipped for is putting these quandaries aside to go about our loathsome business as if none of this is of any consequence. Try to do that in reverse. Make a simulation where existence is not a rule. Who can even conceive of that? Unless you think you can, you have no business casually brushing these problems away. That's only a kind of denial that is no different from that of the intellectually divested religious adherent.

I don't really know what you are talking about or what point you're making over all.

"To exist" does not require an origin. To have an origin implies that something existed at some point or another but existing doesn't imply an origin. There is no contradiction in saying that something exists without a beginning to its existence.

Infinity isn't completely boundless, something can be infinite and still have boundaries. An infinite line can have a starting point and then stretch to infinity, it has no boundary on only one end.

It makes no sense to claim that existence is an illusion (consider Descartes Cogito)and there's no reason to think that the only other option is claim everything is infinite. The universe's existence is finite or infinite, and it can be each in several different ways.

I think the idea that we shouldn't brush these problems aside in everyday life is silly. There's a quote from Buddha which I can't remember exactly but someone asks him when his teaching is going to explain the origin of the universe. He responds that you don't need to know something like that to live a good life (I'm sure the original quote was more poetic than that) and I agree. We may never get a satisfactory answer to those kind of questions and that's fine. We shouldn't stop asking the question but we can operate perfectly well without an answer to it.

You can't exist without having a starting point and arguably an ending point. The only thing like that is abstract mathematical precepts, addition for instance. That's called an axiom in the abstract, most people would not call that existence. You have people who understand addition and agree upon what it entails who do exist. But not addition itself.

Similarly to say that you exist where there was no starting point, is to concede that something pseudo exists eternally. You're not really thinking this through. PS: Infinity doesn't have boundaries by definition. A pure line really doesn't have a starting point. It has an infinite regress into an infinitely precise number. And complexity really doesn't matter, because in a reality with only the simplest rules you can build an arbitrarily complex simulation. If you have basic senses and just a lot of stuff to compute with you'd fashion any kind of existence you can imagine. If reality isn't enough to convince someone not to do stupid unhelpful shit then there's probably no helping them.

This is definitely off the original topic but I'm play ball for a bit anyway.

There is nothing in logic which requires an existent thing to have a beginning and/or an end. If you are only talking about physically existing objects then there's a pretty decent reason to think that the physical universe had a beginning or some kind (and therefore every physical object does as well) but it isn't a certain truth.

It's also important to understand the difference between something that has always existed and something having existed for an infinite amount of time. The second one doesn't really make sense but the former simply means that tracking back in time from the current position you will never get a time where the thing you are talking about doesn't exist. This can be true of the universe without the universe needing to have existed for "an infinite amount of time".

An infinite line starting at point X has a starting point at point X. It has a starting point and has therefore a boundary. If you take a plane in space (plane as in cross section not the type with wings) then there is an infinite amount of space on each side of that plane. The only way that isn't true is if space is finite, then the concept of infinite space doesn't really matter except hypothetically anyway.

The point about the infinitely precise thing is strange. You are aware that in mathematics the sum of an infinite sequence can have a finite number? The sum of this series: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16,..... is said to tend towards 1, it never reaches one with a finite number of items but with an infinite number the sum of series equals 1 not just a bit less than one. In the same the number 0.999999 recurring = 1. It doesn't equal something slightly less than one.

If by "infinity" you mean a grand infinite space rather than the concept of the infinite in measurement then maybe we were arguing past each other. I was talking about infinity as a concept in measurement and scale while you were talking about it as some all encompassing concept everything which I don't see any value in.

I have no idea what the last few things you said were supposed to mean or relate to.

 

[xanderkun]

Well, how the fuck can I answer it?! It's all well and good you saying I can't choose nothing, but there is no logical alternative. I do not believe in the divine, I do not believe in spirits or magic, or anything superstitious. So how can I say what is most likely to have happened from those things if I do not believe they exist in any shape or form? How?!

Pretty much summed it up for me.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Uhm... IF i was absolutely FORCED to acknowledge some kind of divine or supernatural beings' existence and HAD to pick someone.. well... I guess Michael Bay. He certainly didn't get where he is by talent or hard work, so I guess he coulda sold his soul to some kind of extra-natural being.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Triangle man. Triangle man hates universe man. They have a fight, Triangle wins.

Triangle man.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Well, how the fuck can I answer it?! It's all well and good you saying I can't choose nothing, but there is no logical alternative. I do not believe in the divine, I do not believe in spirits or magic, or anything superstitious. So how can I say what is most likely to have happened from those things if I do not believe they exist in any shape or form? How?!

Pretty much summed it up for me.

Because hypothetical, that's why!

 

[Lynx]

To the OP: Please pick your favorite breed of cat. You are not allowed to include any breeds of cat that actual exists. Go.

Obviously the Catbus from My Neighbor Totoro.

Also, Owen Wilson must be a warlock. There's no way anyone could like his acting voluntarily, must be some evil spell.