This has been all well and good but I actually have to get work done before the day is over…lol It was nice debating with you gents. Enjoyed it.
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.
I leave you with this:
This supports or at least creates arguemnet for my earlier post on the 10th dimession feeding a possible big bang theory but pay close attention to 4:00 mark in the second video. Its all debatable.
@ Mikethebear: Excellent post. Your the reasons why debating is fun.
Some of those fundamentals can be skewed though, wish I had time.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The semantics argument is getting silly. I posted this link, which I don’t think anyone read:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
The definition given in Pat’s link defines atheism as “one who believes there is no deity.” It does not say “one who is certain there is no deity.” But no matter. It’s clear that most people associate the term “atheist” with someone who is NOT open to the possibility that there exists a deity. I like the term “agnostic” and that is what I call myself. I am open to the possibility that there exists a deity, but realize that I’ll never know for sure. [/quote]
And that’s why we have the word “agnostic”, because it describes what you are talking about.
To bring the issue of belief vs. knowledge into the conversation is just opening the door for more arguments: “When I see the door in front of me, I believe it’s there, but, like I don’t really KNOW it’s there man.” and I don’t think we’re going to want to argue about epistemology.
Maybe we do.
Your knowledge, can also be my belief e.g. you KNOW in your heart of heart that there is God, but to me you merely “believe” that there is God. Throw in “faith” which often gets special status from Christians, and we can really confuse ourselves.
I like the word “assert” for this reason.
An atheist asserts that there is no God. We don’t care why.
A theist asserts that there is a God. We don’t care why.
An agnostic asserts the he/she doesn’t know (lacks knowledge). We don’t care why.
While in all of these situations, we could care why, it doesn’t change their classification. If you assert that there is no God because you believe you have proof, or because you believe it needs to be proved to you first, you’re still an atheist.
This is a fundamentally different position from an agnostic who asserts that he doesn’t know if there’s a god because he hasn’t seen proof.
While the reasoning for both these individuals is the same for not being a theist (there’s no proof), the two individuals have taken fundamentally different positions as a result, where one says “I don’t know” (agnostic) and the other says
“Without proof, the default position is that there is no God, so I assert that there is no God.”
Now that’s bad logic, and a bold statement so most people shy away from that sort of statement, but that is Atheism.
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
@DoubleDeuce
Okay, let me try not to get to wordy and scientific here, just so I don’t confuse myself. College was 3 years ago.
There are multiple forms of energy. Kinetic, potentinal, thermal, gravitational, sound, elastic and electromagnetic.[/quote] Some of those arenâ??t forms of energy, but yes energy has multiple forms.[quote] Energy in a form can disappear but the same amount of energy can appear in another form. Energy itself cannot be created or produced or destroyed, KEY PHRASE: by itself. It can only be transformed. That is the Law of conservation of energy, yet another hiccup of BigBang theorists. Just pointing it out. [/quote]How is this a hiccup?[quote]
Lastly, nuclear particles akin to protons and neutrons are not destroyed, which is also law of conservation of energy (baryon number). This relates to the Fission and Fusion process. They are bound togther.
[/quote]No, this is absolutely untrue. Nuclear particles can be destroyed. That is one of the main points of general relativity. E=MC^2. Mass and energy are equivalent. A rested particle has an associated energy and can be converted. An atomic bomb converts a small amount of matter into energy. The total mass after the reaction is less than before. Grant it the exchange rate from mass to energy is extremely high, so only a tiny amount of mass has to be converted to release large amounts of energy. As in atomic weapons convert only a couple of grams of matter into energy. [quote]
And energy, if I must remind everyone, is consisted of chemicals, protons, neutrons, electrons, and nuclei which are all foundations of cells in human life and matter. NO ENERGY NO LIFE. So, that leads us all back to the something out of nothing debate.[/quote]
Matter and energy arenâ??t separate things.
The big bang doesnâ??t claim to know how matter/energy came to be. However, it does give a reasonable reference for the beginning of our time and space.
Since you have such trouble understanding the simpler parts of the theory, the idea of the start of time and space will probably be lost on you, but Iâ??ll try anyway.
Singularities create discontinuities in space-time. Think of it like this, given enough information about a closed system it is possible to construct a backwards timeline of what happened leading to that state of the system. In other words, the system contains information about itsâ?? past. This is not true for a singularity. The creation of a singularity destroys that information. You CANNOT get past information out of it through any means to tell about its past.
So, if all the matter in the universe was collapsed into a singularity, all information in the universe before the existence of the singularity were destroyed. No event before the singularity could effect anything in the present universe. Time is discontinuous at that point. Before and after are entirely isolated systems. In this sense our universe (this system) originated with the big bang because that is where itâ??s history begins. It has no history before it.
[quote]FrozenNinja 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]
Look, don’t take it personal. I’m not a scientist. But, from what I remember in various classes throughout highschool and college I think I can understand the BASICS of these concepts fairly well. Wether I choose to agree with the application of those concepts in relation to a theory to prove your point is MY OPINION. Scientific Inconsistancies are in referance to the incosistancies MANY scientists themselves have with the Big Bang and its theoretical explanation.[/quote]
Give me some names.
[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.
@ Mikethebear: Excellent post. Your the reasons why debating is fun.
Some of those fundamentals can be skewed though, wish I had time.
[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]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
The semantics argument is getting silly. I posted this link, which I don’t think anyone read:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/
The definition given in Pat’s link defines atheism as “one who believes there is no deity.” It does not say “one who is certain there is no deity.” But no matter. It’s clear that most people associate the term “atheist” with someone who is NOT open to the possibility that there exists a deity. I like the term “agnostic” and that is what I call myself. I am open to the possibility that there exists a deity, but realize that I’ll never know for sure. [/quote]
And that’s why we have the word “agnostic”, because it describes what you are talking about.
To bring the issue of belief vs. knowledge into the conversation is just opening the door for more arguments: “When I see the door in front of me, I believe it’s there, but, like I don’t really KNOW it’s there man.” and I don’t think we’re going to want to argue about epistemology.
Maybe we do.
Your knowledge, can also be my belief e.g. you KNOW in your heart of heart that there is God, but to me you merely “believe” that there is God. Throw in “faith” which often gets special status from Christians, and we can really confuse ourselves.
I like the word “assert” for this reason.
An atheist asserts that there is no God. We don’t care why.
A theist asserts that there is a God. We don’t care why.
An agnostic asserts the he/she doesn’t know (lacks knowledge). We don’t care why.
While in all of these situations, we could care why, it doesn’t change their classification. If you assert that there is no God because you believe you have proof, or because you believe it needs to be proved to you first, you’re still an atheist.
This is a fundamentally different position from an agnostic who asserts that he doesn’t know if there’s a god because he hasn’t seen proof.
While the reasoning for both these individuals is the same for not being a theist (there’s no proof), the two individuals have taken fundamentally different positions as a result, where one says “I don’t know” (agnostic) and the other says
“Without proof, the default position is that there is no God, so I assert that there is no God.”
Now that’s bad logic, and a bold statement so most people shy away from that sort of statement, but that is Atheism.[/quote]
@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.
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]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 there is 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]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]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]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]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.[/quote]No, you don’t. otherwise you would be laughing at your own posts.[quote]
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]
No it can’t, but it doesn’t claim to. A theory not explaining the origin of energy doesn’t make it wrong.
And yes, there is debate over whether or not the universe reached critical escape velocity, but I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.
“they can’t explain the atom that bursts into energy for seemingly no reason.” ← when is this happening?
[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 there is 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]
I agree with you on this. I was trying not to get into this discussion, but I couldn’t let the “science” of mr. ninja go. The big bang doesn’t answer all questions, but it doesn’t claim to.
And yes the F40 is proof there is a god.