Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Well I do agree with the last sentence. We are instances of a larger existence. I’m aware of the preconceived notions of universes that differed from ours that had different “rules” that might have existed before us. My point is, that just perpetuates the never-ending cycle of back tracking. There has to be an ULTIMATE origin.

202

That and from all the professor studies I can find, its not DEFINITIVE that the Law of Conservation of energy can be completly and systmatically torn apart and refuted. Like the professor from illinois that I posted said before, it would change the way we view the world.

203

Why?

204

Because the past predicates the future. You can’t definitively assume that a theory explaining the present is accurate unless the theory is completly complete and explains the past as well. Thats IMO though, things start to get a bit philosophical from there. If you have a theory that explains the past, it should explain the whole past in order to prove validity. Again…my own opinion.

205

And I just want to say Fletch1986, that there shouldn’t be any animosity between Christians or Atheists or anyone for a difference in religous or non-religous thinking. I value you for who you are, and appreciate the fact that I can have a discussion with you and everyone else just for the sake of talking.

EVERYONE in this world is important and deserves to have their say, You don’t have to agree with what they say but everyone deserves a fair shot…atheist or whatever.

206

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Because the past predicates the future. You can’t definitively assume that a theory explaining the present is accurate unless the theory is completly complete and explains the past as well. Thats IMO though, things start to get a bit philosophical from there. If you have a theory that explains the past, it should explain the whole past in order to prove validity. Again…my own opinion.[/quote]

You must live in an uncertain world, then. A theory needs to be workable. Gravity is not completely understood, and scientists concede that it is a very weak force in the universe. But that doesn’t stop us from designing things like planes and rockets that can escape the force of gravity. We don’t need to know everything about gravity to design useful things.

207

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
And I just want to say Fletch1986, that there shouldn’t be any animosity between Christians or Atheists or anyone for a difference in religous or non-religous thinking. I value you for who you are, and appreciate the fact that I can have a discussion with you and everyone else just for the sake of talking.

EVERYONE in this world is important and deserves to have their say, You don’t have to agree with what they say but everyone deserves a fair shot…atheist or whatever.[/quote]

Agreed

208

I have no problem with an infinite or finite (beginning and end existence) if there is some sort of evidence to back either one up of which there really isn’t anything substantial for either.

209

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Because the past predicates the future. You can’t definitively assume that a theory explaining the present is accurate unless the theory is completly complete and explains the past as well. Thats IMO though, things start to get a bit philosophical from there. If you have a theory that explains the past, it should explain the whole past in order to prove validity. Again…my own opinion.[/quote]

You must live in an uncertain world, then. A theory needs to be workable. Gravity is not completely understood, and scientists concede that it is a very weak force in the universe. But that doesn’t stop us from designing things like planes and rockets that can escape the force of gravity. We don’t need to know everything about gravity to design useful things.[/quote]

True, but it’s the simple unexplainable nature of things palpable and not that leads us to the ultimate realization that man CAN-NOT and prehaps will never be able to explain everything. Especially when it comes to ulitimate final conjuctures on existence. Christianity and creationist thinking doesn’t hold any of those bounds. It would simply all come back to the fact that God created everything and man simply cannot understand it yet.

But from that point of thinking, just because I can’t understand it yet, doesn’t mean I won’t have the ability to understand it in the future to SOME extent. My world is completely certain because I do think, therefore I am, and I am thinking because I was created by God. The theories of Life that I cannot understand then just become apart of a fragment of this wonderful universe because God is in control.

210

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I have no problem with an infinite or finite (beginning and end existence) if there is some sort of evidence to back either one up of which there really isn’t anything substantial for either. [/quote]

You could say in reference to a “begining” that the universe was always Infinite in existence, but then that would create a whole other set of loose change because now we are back to the point that something can come from nothing. (It would mean that there had to be some sort of anatomical change to spawn the existence of our solar systems. If the atoms were always there, what would cause their anatomical change? A force that “might” come from nothing.) And if something can come from nothing that will disprove the fact that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. And if energy can be created and destroyed that would simply mean we live in a temporary state where energy cannot be created or destroyed. Meaning we would go back to a state of the former eventually. The theory collapses upon itself. Then the chaos theory is thrown out of wack as well as thermodynamics. It screws with everything. If you think your mind is clustered now, think about if this was all true.

In my opinion, the presence of God, makes the functionality of all these theories (in conjucture with) creationism true.

211

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I have no problem with an infinite or finite (beginning and end existence) if there is some sort of evidence to back either one up of which there really isn’t anything substantial for either. [/quote]

You could say in reference to a “begining” that the universe was always Infinite in existence, but then that would create a whole other set of loose change because now we are back to the point that something can come from nothing. And if something can come from nothing that will disprove the fact that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. And if energy can be created and destroyed that would simply mean we live in a temporary state where energy cannot be created or destroyed. Meaning we would go back to a state of the former eventually. The theory collapses upon itself. Then the chaos theory is thrown out of wack as well as thermodynamics. It screws with everything. If you think your mind is clustered now, think about if this was all true.

In my opinion, the presence of God, makes the functionality of all these theories (in conjucture with) creationism true.[/quote]

Why would there have to have ever been a nothing? Maybe a ‘something’ has always been and will always be. Maybe the universe runs in a never ending cyclical pattern. Who knows.

And some of these theories/laws could be turned upside down in the future. There were a lot of ideas that upset the Newtonian universe that Einstein came up with and there were a lot things that quantum physics didn’t agree with Einstein.

It’s all up in the air and unknown as far as I’m concerned.

212

Yes Fletch it is. To me, theres only so many concepts we as a human race can wrap our minds around. That leaves a uncertainty. But, IMO thats not the way it is with creationism. Theres always a certainty because everything would come back to God.

Leave it up to man and things are seemingly always proverbially left “Up in the air”

213

Look at it this way, if the Universe was infinte, and always there, that would mean it was never created. It always existed. That would also mean we were never created…just energy in a different form or state. If something has an infinite existence that means ANYTHING is possible, and that something can come from nothing, and energy can be created and destroyed. Infinite existence would mean rules would not apply, and you can’t prove otherwise. You can’t prove that in an infinite existence what we know in theory would apply to anything. IT would be a perpetual cycle of a state of forever, nothing truly changing, just reforming back to a lesser state.

If Atoms (the lesser state) always exisited, you could argue that their existence came from absolutely nothing in a universe that was always there.

214

Infinite exsistence is not bound to theoretical rules. ITs absolutely, completely frustrating! I’m going to go do something that requires less thought, like watching tv…lol

215

@Mikethebear

Near Death experiences have occured when people have been clinically pronounced Dead, sometimes for hours and then came back to life to recount a story of being in heaven or Hell. What you’re talking about is scientists who dispute the fact that a near death experience is really a near death experience when you see a light in a tunnel and then regain consciousness.

They don’t have an explaination for clinically prounouced dead people who come back to life recounting their story of an afterlife.

There was a story of a Pastor who the doctors pronounced dead, he was embalmed even and came completely “back to life” and recounted a incredible story of the afterlife. Its famous you could probably find it on the net if you wanted to.

216

Those experiences may occur while the brain is in a state of diminishing activity in conjunction with different ‘pleasure’ endorphins. Even if they did become clinically dead, you still have the that state of mind right before that happens and in that time frame the memories could be stored to be recalled after they are revived.

Quite frankly, it’s all speculation as to why these experiences happen. It’s not really scientific, but my problem with these types of claims is that these types of experiences can be duplicated by what have been coined ‘dissociative psychadelics,’ ketamine and dextromethorphan just to mention a couple.

217

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Those experiences may occur while the brain is in a state of diminishing activity in conjunction with different ‘pleasure’ endorphins. Even if they did become clinically dead, you still have the that state of mind right before that happens and in that time frame the memories could be stored to be recalled after they are revived.

Quite frankly, it’s all speculation as to why these experiences happen. It’s not really scientific, but my problem with these types of claims is that these types of experiences can be duplicated by what have been coined ‘dissociative psychadelics,’ ketamine and dextromethorphan just to mention a couple.[/quote]

Dextromethorphan - that’s the stuff in cough syrup. I’m serving Robitussin at my next party!

But in all seriousness, you are correct. One would need to review all of the facts to make an informed judgment. I know there have been instances of people being immersed in cold water, they became clinically dead, but the cold water slowed their metabolisms to such an extent that they were later revived. Many of these stories involved little kids who are especially resilient. Unfortunately, they suffered permanent brain damage as a result, but they lived.

I have to be highly skeptical about the pastor who was embalmed. Embalming fluid is poison and designed to replace all of the blood in the body. No one can survive that - it’s impossible.

218

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Those experiences may occur while the brain is in a state of diminishing activity in conjunction with different ‘pleasure’ endorphins. Even if they did become clinically dead, you still have the that state of mind right before that happens and in that time frame the memories could be stored to be recalled after they are revived.

Quite frankly, it’s all speculation as to why these experiences happen. It’s not really scientific, but my problem with these types of claims is that these types of experiences can be duplicated by what have been coined ‘dissociative psychadelics,’ ketamine and dextromethorphan just to mention a couple.[/quote]

Dextromethorphan - that’s the stuff in cough syrup. I’m serving Robitussin at my next party!

But in all seriousness, you are correct. One would need to review all of the facts to make an informed judgment. I know there have been instances of people being immersed in cold water, they became clinically dead, but the cold water slowed their metabolisms to such an extent that they were later revived. Many of these stories involved little kids who are especially resilient. Unfortunately, they suffered permanent brain damage as a result, but they lived.

I have to be highly skeptical about the pastor who was embalmed. Embalming fluid is poison and designed to replace all of the blood in the body. No one can survive that - it’s impossible.[/quote]

…why do you bother using logic with the sky wizard folk?

Here is what the response will be:

“It doesn’t matter that its impossible! Sky wizard can do anything so he made it happen using sky magic!”

219
220

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Deal…
The paragraph has illogical. As requested I will dissect and I hope the quote tags hold up. For some reason they have not.

So you stated this:

Relational events have no causal property. Therefore, an event being related to another event, does not mean that one caused the other. This means that something else was involved to cause its existence, in it’s current state. To say things are because they are is circuar reasoning and therefore logically incorrect.

I am not here because I am here, I am here because my parents fucked. The relationship between my parents fucking and me being here isn’t relative or relational, it’s causal. To remove this causal realtionship, you’d have to proved I’d be here whether of not my parents fucked.

It is true that physical matter occupy space-time. But it does not mean that space-time did not exist prior to matter occupying it. It’s true that both can be brought in to existence simultaneously. What was there before the big-bang is very important and it is one of the things that theoretical physicists are working one furiously. If there were no causal relationships, they are wasting their time. Again, to say the big-bang just is, is circular reasoning.

Now if you want to take space-time and physical matter out of the equation, it is very simple to do. Metaphysics exists outside of space and time. The laws that govern behavior, rules that objects follow, are own thoughts, forms, plans, etc. All metaphysical in existence, but still follow rules of causation.

Now I have done what you requested, so I now ask to prove or show any one thing that necessarily exists outside the causal chain. Understand though, that just because we don’t understand something, doesn’t make it random, just not understood. I bring it up because people have brought up not well understood events as “random”. There is no randomness anywhere in existence and nobody can prove otherwise…If you can prove it, I will concede.