Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Everyone’s rebutal to this is “Oh the singularity caused the atom to act…” and so on and so forth but in the simplist conceptual view of the theory of chaos, it needs a start to get going. Which leads me back to the something out of nothing. NO-ONE can prove that something can be birthed out of seeming nothingless, the abscence of matter, energy, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclei and etc.

THIS all needs a start. A clean start and a viable explanation. And the Big Bang theory IN MY EYES cannot provide that.

ah…im done…got to go to work.[/quote]

What you’re asserting is the argument from ignorance: “I don’t know what came before the Big Bang, therefore, God did it.” Well, I too don’t know what came before the Big Bang. For me, this suggests the possibility that there is some deistic force that started the universe. Note the emphasis on “suggests the possibility.” It doesn’t prove anything. Note also the emphasis on “deistic.” Deism is a belief that there is some supernatural force that is responsible for the origins of the universe, but that Deity in no way controls or interferes in the lives of humans. It is not a “personal” God. A Deity doesn’t have feelings, it can’t love us or get mad at us, it cannot have a son, and it doesn’t care if you go to church on Sundays.[/quote]

I know this question has been asked before and I’m sure you’ve read it, but it needs to be asked again.

Can you explain why, when you can only claim the possibility of a supernatural force, you can then claim specifics on its qualities? This makes little sense to me.

182

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]milktruck wrote:
Somebody point me to one historical text outside of the Bible that refers to Christ. Yes I read ZEBs link and skipped right to “The External test” which made me not want to read anything else by that author ever again, so I dont know what the rest says.

Thanks!
[/quote]

Josephus’ Antiquities.[/quote]

I know he didn’t specify this, but Josephus wasn’t contemporaneous.

183

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
@DoubleDeuce: To give you a rebutal to this, the above information you “seemed” to systematically refute is information I found interesting. So sufice to say this was information thrown in to stir the pot if you will. None of it was typed by me, but found online from various sources. Gets your mind thinking though.

And honestly, to prove or disprove the big bang, it doesnt change the fact that you have to re-examine thermodynamics, Polonium halos, theory of chaos along with many other scientific inconsistances that make the big bang just as laughable to me as Christianity is to someone else.[/quote]

No, there are not inconsistencies if you understood the theory and modern physics.

The fact that you dismiss something as laughable without actually knowing anything about it tells me everything I need to about you. You don’t even understand simple conservation of momentum, but feel you have the authority and knowledge to criticize quantum mechanics.[/quote]

The big bang is pretty solid stuff. Is it exact? I don’t know. But scientifically and mathematically speaking there is a lot of validity there.

The philosophical ramifications are pretty profound as well. If true, the universe had a discernible beginning at a certain time in a certain place. But it also leave more questions than answers. The universe occupies space, where did that come from. Where did the material come from that makes up matter. If the M theory is correct, where did the singularities come from and where did the laws that govern their behavior. I could go on and on.

Chaos Theory is a misnomer. If carefully examined, there is order, even in seeming chaos.

There are two agonizing points for atheists when it comes to this stuff. There is a claims of randomness in the universe, but but not a shred of evidence for it, empirically, nonmenologically, or a priori. Even the stuff of metaphysics has order and source. And metaphysics is not bound by time or space.
Second, an atheist must claim that existence was begotten from nothing. Well nothing is incapable of anything, because literally it does not exist, in any realm form or shape.

So the biggest problem with atheism, is that in the purity of definition, is that it is illogical. It is a pure and simple fact that plague athiests and there is no escape. They have to prove the impossible to be right.

BTW, your avatar makes me hard…I love the F40. [/quote]

The universe doesn’t take up space, it defines space. It doesn’t exist in time, it defines time. At least that’s what Einstein tells us (and more and more experimental evidence backs him up).

…and we are programed, designed (whatever term you like) to organize and perceive the world not as it is, but according to our machinery.

We perceive a linear Euclidean world, even though “we” know that the world is neither. That’s just how we deal. We also have a mind that insists on causation rather than being satisfied with relation, so we assume/impose causation almost everywhere, accurate or not.

There doesn’t need to be anything “before” or logically prior to the big-bang. Time, space, location in general is meaningless/inapplicable outside physical universe. The question of “what came before” isn’t even applicable, even though our minds are wired to ask it. “What came first?” isn’t really even applicable, we just don’t do very well with spontaneity, timelessness, or a lack of causation.[/quote]

Einstein isn’t the best guy to go with on the origin of the universe. He never accepted that the universe is not static and was consequently wrong about a lot of the basics.

But yeah, the idea of a discontinuity in space-time is a very hard concept to come to terms with. It has very interesting ramifications. If there was a “before” the big bang, it is entirely unrelated to this universe. It literally would be an entirely separate universe even with different matter.

Asking what was “Before” the big band is nonsensical. It’s like asking what the index of refraction is for a puppy. Using terms for a linear flow of time at a discontinuity make no sense.

184

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
@DoubleDuece: Notice how I’m not insulting your intelligence or comprehension of theoretics? Its not what I do. I’m not trying to get into a slapping match with you, you can do that with someone else. I understand the theoretics of singularties (curvature and gravatational) on a basic level. My qualm with all this is you can’t explain the past or matter or energy existence. You have a unknown dawn of time/past history, a singularity…and then us or present time. No one can explain the historical essence of what caused the singularity but some scientists think that our Universe will evolve back into that. (review the 10th dimension vid) AND they can’t explain the atom that bursts into energy for seemingly no reason.

[/quote]

There’s been a lot of things that have been explained through religion and the metaphysical that later had viable and tested scientific explanations. Of course there are knowledge gaps in our understanding of existence and humans are no where close to filling them all in. Does that mean that God exists… I’m inclined to say no, it is not evidence that God exists. Besides, it’s not even known that existence has a beginning or end.

185

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Einstein isn’t the best guy to go with on the origin of the universe. He never accepted that the universe is not static and was consequently wrong about a lot of the basics.
[/quote]

I thought, even though we was perpetually uncomfortable with the idea, by the end of his life he’d accepted a non-static universe. Just like how he hated just about everything that fell out of quantum mechanics in terms of his preferred world view, but ultimately accepted it, at least as a heuristic.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But yeah, the idea of a discontinuity in space-time is a very hard concept to come to terms with. It has very interesting ramifications. If there was a “before” the big bang, it is entirely unrelated to this universe. It literally would be an entirely separate universe even with different matter.[/quote]

Yes, before definitely needs to be in quotes.

I think the broader point is that the physical universe, much less the metaphysical universe, is not entirely commensurable with the human-mind.

Just because we feel the need to ask “Why” doesn’t mean there’s going to be a satisfying answer.

From a physics standpoint, you can keep asking “Why” and you get an endless, and not very useful, reductionist regression, looking at smaller and smaller (not necessarily more primary) parts of a system… and that can go as far as our tools take us, and then we can assume it’d continue further. But there’s never really an satisfactory answer to “Why?” (as distinct from “how?”)

186

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

The universe doesn’t take up space, it defines space. It doesn’t exist in time, it defines time. At least that’s what Einstein tells us (and more and more experimental evidence backs him up).
[/quote]
Space isn’t defined by what’s in it. Technically, it can exist with out material. Space can exist with out the universe occupying it.
Time is a relative measure of movement or change.

[/quote]
…and we are programed, designed (whatever term you like) to organize and perceive the world not as it is, but according to our machinery.

We perceive a linear Euclidean world, even though “we” know that the world is neither. That’s just how we deal. We also have a mind that insists on causation rather than being satisfied with relation, so we assume/impose causation almost everywhere, accurate or not.

There doesn’t need to be anything “before” or logically prior to the big-bang. Time, space, location in general is meaningless/inapplicable outside physical universe. The question of “what came before” isn’t even applicable, even though our minds are wired to ask it. “What came first?” isn’t really even applicable, we just don’t do very well with spontaneity, timelessness, or a lack of causation.[/quote]

Logically, this last paragraph is not correct. There does have to be a reason the stuff of the big bang was there, and there has to be a reason it did what it did and behaves as it does now.

Show me one thing anywhere physically or metaphysically that is random or with out cause and I will concede.

BTW, if causation doesn’t exist, science becomes a big mess with no order, reason nor an ability to trust it’s conclusions. The result is wide spread…

187

You said it yourselves. The Big Bang theory DOESN’T answer all of the questions which is why I’m more inclined to believe in God than not.

God in Christian description always is, always was and will be to come. He created everything into existence. That covers everything. Choose to believe it or choose not to, its your choice.

I do like to blend my belief of science and Creationism to an extent because I do believe certain theories are viable.

188

[quote]pat wrote:
Logically, this last paragraph is not correct. There does have to be a reason the stuff of the big bang was there, and there has to be a reason it did what it did and behaves as it does now.

Show me one thing anywhere physically or metaphysically that is random or with out cause and I will concede.

BTW, if causation doesn’t exist, science becomes a big mess with no order, reason nor an ability to trust it’s conclusions. The result is wide spread…[/quote]

No, the paragraph is fine. And no there doesn’t have to be a reason. And yes, it can do what it does, because that’s it’s nature.

If you’d like to diagram my my paragraph and show the logical inconsistency, I’d be happy to debate it.

And to your BTW statement: No, it doesn’t. Order doesn’t require causation. Getting rid of causation doesn’t diminish our ability to understand the physical world, in fact, in many cases it increases it. It just makes us uncomfortable.

I mean, you’re basically telling me I’m wrong because it doesn’t make sense to you, it doesn’t feel right.

Well, that’s sort of the point: our minds are not fully commensurable with the universe.

189

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
You said it yourselves. The Big Bang theory DOESN’T answer all of the questions which is why I’m more inclined to believe in God than not.

God in Christian description always is, always was and will be to come. He created everything into existence. That covers everything. Choose to believe it or choose not to, its your choice.

I do like to blend my belief of science and Creationism to an extent because I do believe certain theories are viable. [/quote]

That’s as good of a reason as any to believe in a deity. But you don’t really need a reason to believe in God, do you? You really do it because it’s just how you feel, what you believe. Right? It’s not because questions about big bang theory keep you awake at night, and putting God at the helm is the only way you can solve your problem and get some rest.

190

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
You said it yourselves. The Big Bang theory DOESN’T answer all of the questions which is why I’m more inclined to believe in God than not.
[/quote]

Classic “argument from ignorance”. Just because I can’t explain something means it must be explained through super natural ways.

You have to ask yourself, where did these people get their information from and why should we listen to it today.

191

This is one of the most important rules that scientists have found which describes natural phenomena. Unfortunately there is no non-circular proof of energy conservation – in the end, all laws of physics that we know of are the result of observation, formation of hypotheses, making predictions, and testing them. Conservation of energy is one such law. If energy could be created or destroyed, all of our ideas of how the world works would have to be modified in some way (and weâ??d learn something very perplexing). But so far, energy seems not to be created or destroyed.

Energy can be converted from one form to another, though. Mechanical energy, such as the kinetic energy of motion, can be converted to heat energy, for example in the heating of a carâ??s brakes when it slows down. Chemical energy in the gasoline of the car can be converted into both heat energy in the exhaust and heating the engine, and into mechanical energy to move the car. Potential energy, such as the gravitational potential energy stored in an object which is on a high shelf, can be converted into kinetic energy as the object falls down. Electrical energy can be converted to heat or mechanical energy or sound energy in a variety of useful ways around the house using common appliances.

It is often the conversion of one form of energy to another which is the most important application of this rule. Often predictions of the behavior of physical systems are very much more easily made when using the idea that the total amount of energy remains constant. And careful measurements of different kinds of energy before and after a transformation always show that the total always adds up to the same amount.

Historically, of course not all the forms of energy were know to begin with. Scientists had to keep inventing more forms to keep the law of energy conservation true. If that process had gotten too messy or complicated to make sense, we would have had to give up the law.

One very interesting feature of energy is that other forms can be converted into rest mass and back again (particle physicists do this every day in their accelerators). Einsteinâ??s E=mc^2 gives the relationship between the rest mass of a particle (measured in standard mass units) and the amount of energy that corresponds to (measured in standard energy units). It even applies to other systems where particles are neither created nor destroyed. If a box contains some air at a temperature, and then is warmed up, it will become ever so slightly more massive because of the extra energy given to it. You can call that rest mass of the whole box or the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy of the particles in it- nature doesnâ??t care what names you give it.

UIUC DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

Thats it really

192

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
This is one of the most important rules that scientists have found which describes natural phenomena. Unfortunately there is no non-circular proof of energy conservation Рin the end, all laws of physics that we know of are the result of observation, formation of hypotheses, making predictions, and testing them. Conservation of energy is one such law. If energy could be created or destroyed, all of our ideas of how the world works would have to be modified in some way (and we̢??d learn something very perplexing). But so far, energy seems not to be created or destroyed.

Energy can be converted from one form to another, though. Mechanical energy, such as the kinetic energy of motion, can be converted to heat energy, for example in the heating of a carâ??s brakes when it slows down. Chemical energy in the gasoline of the car can be converted into both heat energy in the exhaust and heating the engine, and into mechanical energy to move the car. Potential energy, such as the gravitational potential energy stored in an object which is on a high shelf, can be converted into kinetic energy as the object falls down. Electrical energy can be converted to heat or mechanical energy or sound energy in a variety of useful ways around the house using common appliances.

It is often the conversion of one form of energy to another which is the most important application of this rule. Often predictions of the behavior of physical systems are very much more easily made when using the idea that the total amount of energy remains constant. And careful measurements of different kinds of energy before and after a transformation always show that the total always adds up to the same amount.

Historically, of course not all the forms of energy were know to begin with. Scientists had to keep inventing more forms to keep the law of energy conservation true. If that process had gotten too messy or complicated to make sense, we would have had to give up the law.

One very interesting feature of energy is that other forms can be converted into rest mass and back again (particle physicists do this every day in their accelerators). Einsteinâ??s E=mc^2 gives the relationship between the rest mass of a particle (measured in standard mass units) and the amount of energy that corresponds to (measured in standard energy units). It even applies to other systems where particles are neither created nor destroyed. If a box contains some air at a temperature, and then is warmed up, it will become ever so slightly more massive because of the extra energy given to it. You can call that rest mass of the whole box or the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy of the particles in it- nature doesnâ??t care what names you give it.

UIUC DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS

Thats it really[/quote]

Yes, energy/mass is conserved for systems. you just have to consider mass another form of potential energy.

Atomic bombs convert mass to energy.

Singularities actually convert energy to mass.

again, what is your point?

193

Nuclear potential energy, along with electric potential energy, provides the energy released from nuclear fission and nuclear fusion processes. The result of both these processes are nuclei in which the more-optimal size of the nucleus allows the nuclear force (which is opposed by the electromagnetic force) to bind nuclear particles more tightly together than before the reaction.

The Weak nuclear force (different from the strong force) provides the potential energy for certain kinds of radioactive decay, such as beta decay.

The energy released in nuclear processes is so large that the relativistic change in mass (after the energy has been removed) can be as much as several parts per thousand.

Nuclear particles (nucleons) like protons and neutrons are not destroyed (law of conservation of baryon number) in fission and fusion processes. A few lighter particles may be created or destroyed (example: beta minus and beta plus decay, or electron capture decay), but these minor processes are not important to the immediate energy release in fission and fusion. Rather, fission and fusion release energy when collections of baryons become more tightly bound, and it is the energy associated with a fraction of the mass of the nucleons (but not the whole particles) which appears as the heat and electromagnetic radiation generated by nuclear reactions. This heat and radiation retains the “missing” mass, but the mass is missing only because it escapes in the form of heat or light, which retain the mass and conduct it out of the system where it is not measured.

194

My point is the Law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy cannot be created or destroyed that brings us back to the begining. If Singularities convert energy to mass it begs the question what caused or created the singularity. Its a never ending spiral of going backwards that doesn’t lead to any definitive answer on the ULTIMATE reason/process or form of creation.

Science has only got us so far but to believe in the Big Bang, it requires you to believe in the possibility that the singularity has a consistency of a historical happening…which no one can prove origin.

195

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
You said it yourselves. The Big Bang theory DOESN’T answer all of the questions which is why I’m more inclined to believe in God than not.
[/quote]

Classic “argument from ignorance”. Just because I can’t explain something means it must be explained through super natural ways.

You have to ask yourself, where did these people get their information from and why should we listen to it today.
[/quote]

I never said that the fact that the big bang doesn’t have all the answers MUST mean that ANY supernatural occurance is a viable form of explanation. However, because the Big Bang does NOT have all the answers, it strengthens the Christian belief that the presence of a God isn’t only true, but the ONLY reason for existance. Not some cop out about not being able to explain things ourselves.

The People whom of which you speak, got their information from a supernatural force in glorious occurances. It’s the same occurances (that continue today) that not only strengthen past belief but continues to put wheels on the future.

196

But I do believe we digress. Partly my fault, this really is a discussion for a different thread. But back to the basics of this discussion, show me an atheist with morals and such that I posted earlier and I’ll have no problem supporting him.

Christianity also teaches to love everyone, and dislike the sins. Other than what is the law, it isn’t our job to judge you. Judgement is left for God, my job is just to be you guys’ friend and encourage and support you in a positive way.

197

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Everyone’s rebutal to this is “Oh the singularity caused the atom to act…” and so on and so forth but in the simplist conceptual view of the theory of chaos, it needs a start to get going. Which leads me back to the something out of nothing. NO-ONE can prove that something can be birthed out of seeming nothingless, the abscence of matter, energy, protons, neutrons, electrons, nuclei and etc.

THIS all needs a start. A clean start and a viable explanation. And the Big Bang theory IN MY EYES cannot provide that.

ah…im done…got to go to work.[/quote]

What you’re asserting is the argument from ignorance: “I don’t know what came before the Big Bang, therefore, God did it.” Well, I too don’t know what came before the Big Bang. For me, this suggests the possibility that there is some deistic force that started the universe. Note the emphasis on “suggests the possibility.” It doesn’t prove anything. Note also the emphasis on “deistic.” Deism is a belief that there is some supernatural force that is responsible for the origins of the universe, but that Deity in no way controls or interferes in the lives of humans. It is not a “personal” God. A Deity doesn’t have feelings, it can’t love us or get mad at us, it cannot have a son, and it doesn’t care if you go to church on Sundays.[/quote]

I know this question has been asked before and I’m sure you’ve read it, but it needs to be asked again.

Can you explain why, when you can only claim the possibility of a supernatural force, you can then claim specifics on its qualities? This makes little sense to me.[/quote]

You’re right, I can’t claim specific qualities. When I said that this Deity in no way controls or interferes in the lives of humans what I meant was that the cosmological argument does not support the idea of a Deity as envisioned by Christianity - a Deity that loves us and sent a son who was crucified in order to save us from sin. The cosmological argument supports the possibility that a deistic being may exist, but from that we cannot know anything more about this being. Again, is it possible for this Deity to love us and care for us? Sure, but given the suffering that goes on around the world, I find that highly unlikely. I understand that Christianity has an explanation for all of this with the doctrine of Original Sin. I am not convinced by the doctrine of Original Sin. Any being who would condemn billions of his “children” to death and suffering because of what two people did some 6,000 years ago is not a being filled with love and compassion.

198

But I myself, am no means perfect, and will never be.

199

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
My point is the Law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy cannot be created or destroyed that brings us back to the begining. If Singularities convert energy to mass it begs the question what caused or created the singularity. Its a never ending spiral of going backwards that doesn’t lead to any definitive answer on the ULTIMATE reason/process or form of creation.

Science has only got us so far but to believe in the Big Bang, it requires you to believe in the possibility that the singularity has a consistency of a historical happening…which no one can prove origin.[/quote]

Two things. First, conservation of energy is a concept of Newtonian physics and cosmologists agree that Newtonian physics falls apart at the quantum level. This is the problem that Einstein was trying to solve with his unified field theory - one theory that would unite Newtonian and quantum physics.

Second, it is possible that everything was always there. There are a lot of ideas floating around about what happened before the Bang. One is the idea of a multiverse composed of several universes, with these other universes having laws of physics completely different from our own. I’m sure many would say that these ideas are just short of being science-fiction and are no more fanciful than the idea of the existence of an intelligent, all-powerful being. Guess what - I agree. It’s also possible that the multiverse IS the intelligent, all-powerful being, and our very existence is simply a part of this larger existence. We are simply just instances of a larger existence.

200

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
@FrozenNinja

Let’s see if we can’t find some common ground here. Whenever I bring up the fact that there are plenty of religious people who do bad things, everyone jumps on my case and respond with “that’s a strawman argument, of course religiosity doesn’t guarantee good behavior.” The thing is, I know that it’s a strawman argument. I make the argument in an effort to show that the converse is also a strawman: the lack of belief in no way guarantees immoral behavior. There are plenty of people who lack belief (I’ll just use the phrase “lack belief” since no one can agree on what the word “atheist” means) who live good lives. I am one of them, and know others like myself.

Let me give you an analogy. When many of us were kids we were told not to eat too many cookies. Some parents tried to explain why eating too many cookies was bad for you, but many realized that the young mind could not grasp the concept. So, they instituted a reward-punishment system. Some may have even said that God will punish you if you eat too many cookies. As we matured, we realized the purpose of this rule, and we no longer need mom and dad to punish us for eating too many cookies. Unfortunately, some didn’t get the rule, or got the rule but never chose to make the effort to hold back their desire to eat cookies. Given the obesity problem, one could argue that many don’t make this effort. But we here on T-Nation do make this effort. In a sense, many of us on T-Nation are “atheist cookie eaters.” We no longer need an external source, whether it’s a parent or God, to watch over us and punish us if we eat too many cookies. It’s hard work, because cookies taste good and provide immediate satisfaction, but we make the effort because the ultimate rewards are worth it. The same is true for morality in those who lack belief. I act morally because I realize the practical benefits that such action will provide. I may need to deprive myself of the immediate gratification of having sex with a hot chick, but I do so because I value my marriage and would rather stay married to the woman who is the mother of my child than bang some tramp.[/quote]

Mike, I understand your points and realize you are talking from a “do what’s right” standpoint. The only issue I have is that what you wrote seems to convey that the only purpose for Christianity is to keep people “in line”. If this WAS the case, your analogy would fit, however it’s not the case. Some may use it to that end, but keeping people “in line” is not the foundation of Christianity. [/quote]

I have always believed that humans created religion to “keep people in line.” That was the initial purpose, at least. And I believe that it still is a huge part of religion given the knee jerk reaction that “atheists have no morals.” However, I agree that modern religions, and I consider Christianity a more “modern” religion as opposed to Zeus, Thor, and Mayan human sacrifice rituals, have a more philosophical bent and seek to answer the question of why we are here and where are we going. That makes sense. Once you have a stable society, people have more time to ponder the big questions. Christianity’s theme of being saved by Christ’s death gives many people meaning and hope. I don’t dispute that.[/quote]

It seems odd to me that if Christianity was wholly man made, it would remain unchanged for so long, or endure the ages of enlightenment and science.

Addressing your analogy, It would seem that the need to invent religion wouldn’t hold. If adults can decide on their own what’s right and wrong, and act on that reason, I don’t see the need to create an outside influence especially if wrong is detrimental to society. If a child disobeys, they get punished. No need for an understanding of WHY you shouldn’t, just good=no punishment, bad=punishment. As they mature, the WHY is understood so no need for punishment. No need for an elaborate ruse just to keep kids in line. That’s just poor parenting skills. And if mature adults can determine right and wrong on there own, no need for an elaborate ruse there either. [/quote]

I’m going to bump this post because I’d like to respond but don’t have time right now.