Questions for Atheist in America

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, how could the cosmological theory be true if nothing physical exists? The whole purpose of the theory is to explain how the physical universe came into being.
[/quote]
No the actual purpose was to discover how things got to where they were. All things save for the Necessary being is contingent. The universe itself is only a part, not the whole thing. If no physical matter existed, the metaphysical things would be all that is left, but those are also contingent.
Cosmology works despite where you start. You can start with a pencil, or you can start with an idea, both came from somewhere and were brought about by something other than itself…

Usually if they have been proven completely wrong, they are forgotten. Some are remembered only because even though wrong, something with in them is still compelling. No philosophical argument has been more scrutinized than the cosmological form. And no it has never been proven wrong, don’t take my word for it, look it up.

[quote]
I’m still waiting for an absolute proof that matter/energy was created. I’ve read theories, but nobody has conclusively proven this, and in fact the first law of thermodynamics says it is impossible.[/quote]

The Law of Thermodynamics says it’s impossible, in a isolated system… ‘Isolated system’ is the necessary contingent for thermodynamics to hold ‘information’ indefinitely.
Nobody really knows if the universe is open or closed, but most agree it’s not isolated.

362

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, how could the cosmological theory be true if nothing physical exists? The whole purpose of the theory is to explain how the physical universe came into being.
[/quote]
No the actual purpose was to discover how things got to where they were. All things save for the Necessary being is contingent. The universe itself is only a part, not the whole thing. If no physical matter existed, the metaphysical things would be all that is left, but those are also contingent.
Cosmology works despite where you start. You can start with a pencil, or you can start with an idea, both came from somewhere and were brought about by something other than itself…

Usually if they have been proven completely wrong, they are forgotten. Some are remembered only because even though wrong, something with in them is still compelling. No philosophical argument has been more scrutinized than the cosmological form. And no it has never been proven wrong, don’t take my word for it, look it up.

[quote]
I’m still waiting for an absolute proof that matter/energy was created. I’ve read theories, but nobody has conclusively proven this, and in fact the first law of thermodynamics says it is impossible.[/quote]

The Law of Thermodynamics says it’s impossible, in a isolated system… ‘Isolated system’ is the necessary contingent for thermodynamics to hold ‘information’ indefinitely.
Nobody really knows if the universe is open or closed, but most agree it’s not isolated. [/quote]

I’ll leave the question of the contingency of matter/energy for the other thread, so we don’t have the discussion going in multiple places.

363

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The big bang theory say little to nothing about how the universe was created. It only describes the evolution of the universe.[/quote]

No, but it describes that it began to exist. And, that is all I need. Because from there we know that what began to exist needs an adequate cause for its existence, and therefore the universe had an adequate cause. And, from this argument we can know four things about that cause:

  1. Immaterial
  2. Eternal
  3. Powerful and Intelligent, and
  4. Personal

That is four things that Catholics see only G-d having, no other being except the Catholic G-d has those characteristics at once.[/quote]

I believe that there was an uncaused cause too. I just don’t have any reason to think that He started it with our universe as we know it. It could have been a multiverse that started a long before the universe we know came into being. But that’s not a metaphysical or spiritual question, that’s a question that I believe is more scientific in nature.

I see how you came up with the first 3, would about number 4, the personal God part?[/quote]

Blind forces wouldn’t create order.

And, Multiverse goes against Occam’s Razor, so I don’t think I could ever accept infinite amount of universes (basically) because of the redundancies that are cleared up with one universe and intelligence.

364

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because I was a mathematician.
[/quote]
You are so full of shit I cant believe it. Of course you are a mathematician Mr.21 years old Jesus freak/business student. Oh no you WERE a mathematician. LOLOLOL. You are by far the most pathetic person I have ever encountered

You don’t know shit[/quote]

Did I do something to offend you? I ask, because this is a violent written attack for a label. If I did, I am deeply sorry for having offended you.

However, I want to point something out. I am in the business program getting a double major in economics and finance and I was required to get a minor in math (ontop of the math that we use in economics and finance, inorite?). Since I was on track to graduate early, and having already gotten my minor in math, I decided to stay the four years to receive my B.S. in mathematics, as well.

Now, I am not huffy and puffy about being an economist or mathematician (I just use them instead of saying ‘I study economics’ or ‘I study mathematics’ because it is proper, but it is also shorter), I was just going off the generally accepted definition of what a mathematician is, that is ‘[a]n expert in or student of mathematics.’

I am, Nation,
Your obedient Servant,

Chris IV

365

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
How does Chris know either of these things?[/quote]

On a completely scientific basis (which by the way is never without basis in the truth that G-d is real)…Because I was a mathematician. And, the Big Bang Theory already proved that energy/matter was created.
[/quote]If you were a mathematician, you should have learned that theories SUGGEST, they don’t PROVE.[/quote]

Okay, my bad. If the theory is true then it proves. But, I retract my earlier misspoken words.[/quote]OK, I see how it is. You’ll retract it for him, but not me. Fine Chris. I’m takin my marbles and goin home.
[/quote]

I retracted for both of you.

I am, Gentleman,
Your obedient Servant,

Chris IV

366

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because I was a mathematician. [/quote]
You are so full of shit I cant believe it. Of course you are a mathematician Mr.21 years old Jesus freak/business student. Oh no you WERE a mathematician. LOLOLOL. You are by far the most pathetic person I have ever encountered
You don’t know shit[/quote]I don’t believe I can let this kinda unfounded disparaging treatment of my friend Chris go unchecked. The mathematician thing may be a bit overstated and we disagree about A WHOLE LOT, but he is not pathetic, stupid or even ignorant for his age. While wrong about a great many things in my estimation, I regard him as one of the most substantive people here. Your very transparent hostility is primarily toward God and not him.
[/quote]

Thanks for backing me up Tirib. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that I have done something to offend him. If he wishes to resolved it, I will gladly attempt so.

367

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because I was a mathematician. [/quote]
You are so full of shit I cant believe it. Of course you are a mathematician Mr.21 years old Jesus freak/business student. Oh no you WERE a mathematician. LOLOLOL. You are by far the most pathetic person I have ever encountered
You don’t know shit[/quote]I don’t believe I can let this kinda unfounded disparaging treatment of my friend Chris go unchecked. The mathematician thing may be a bit overstated and we disagree about A WHOLE LOT, but he is not pathetic, stupid or even ignorant for his age. While wrong about a great many things in my estimation, I regard him as one of the most substantive people here. Your very transparent hostility is primarily toward God and not him.
[/quote]

Thanks for backing me up Tirib. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that I have done something to offend him. If he wishes to resolved it, I will gladly attempt so.[/quote]

I wouldn’t waste your time with that moron. If that’s all he can bring to the table, he’s obviously to stupid to hold a discussion with…

368

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because I was a mathematician. [/quote]
You are so full of shit I cant believe it. Of course you are a mathematician Mr.21 years old Jesus freak/business student. Oh no you WERE a mathematician. LOLOLOL. You are by far the most pathetic person I have ever encountered
You don’t know shit[/quote]I don’t believe I can let this kinda unfounded disparaging treatment of my friend Chris go unchecked. The mathematician thing may be a bit overstated and we disagree about A WHOLE LOT, but he is not pathetic, stupid or even ignorant for his age. While wrong about a great many things in my estimation, I regard him as one of the most substantive people here. Your very transparent hostility is primarily toward God and not him.
[/quote]

Thanks for backing me up Tirib. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that I have done something to offend him. If he wishes to resolved it, I will gladly attempt so.[/quote]Fair enough. I didn’t know.

369

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because I was a mathematician. [/quote]
You are so full of shit I cant believe it. Of course you are a mathematician Mr.21 years old Jesus freak/business student. Oh no you WERE a mathematician. LOLOLOL. You are by far the most pathetic person I have ever encountered
You don’t know shit[/quote]I don’t believe I can let this kinda unfounded disparaging treatment of my friend Chris go unchecked. The mathematician thing may be a bit overstated and we disagree about A WHOLE LOT, but he is not pathetic, stupid or even ignorant for his age. While wrong about a great many things in my estimation, I regard him as one of the most substantive people here. Your very transparent hostility is primarily toward God and not him.
[/quote]

Thanks for backing me up Tirib. However, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that I have done something to offend him. If he wishes to resolved it, I will gladly attempt so.[/quote]Fair enough. I didn’t know.
[/quote]

I have no clue, just decided I’d give people the benefit of the doubt.

370

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because I was a mathematician.
[/quote]
You are so full of shit I cant believe it. Of course you are a mathematician Mr.21 years old Jesus freak/business student. Oh no you WERE a mathematician. LOLOLOL. You are by far the most pathetic person I have ever encountered

You don’t know shit[/quote]
Now, I am not huffy and puffy about being an economist or mathematician (I just use them instead of saying ‘I study economics’ or ‘I study mathematics’ because it is proper, but it is also shorter), I was just going off the generally accepted definition of what a mathematician is, that is '[a]n expert in or student of mathematics. IV[/quote]

Since I like to waste time here and since there is no big energy expenditure whenever I see one of your presomptuous post filter through the ignore I will sometime attack it. You see I dont like your contribution to this forum, the way you think and your face. You are part of a very exclusive group.

Then I am a mathematician. The 14 years old girl I give math lesson to is a mathematician and we can all act as if we understand the math in the big bang theory. Especially if we study finance. We can also say that we were mathematicians, so it seems like we spent another life chasing the thruth in mathematics, never letting go. A quest a la hauteur of our ego.

I am out of here. Too much was already given.

371

[quote]jasmincar wrote:<<< ignore >>>[/quote]Problem solved. Wadda self important bubble headed academic snob. Not to mention miserable n nasty. Geeez dude, it doesn’t have to be like this.

372

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Because I was a mathematician.
[/quote]
You are so full of shit I cant believe it. Of course you are a mathematician Mr.21 years old Jesus freak/business student. Oh no you WERE a mathematician. LOLOLOL. You are by far the most pathetic person I have ever encountered

You don’t know shit[/quote]
Now, I am not huffy and puffy about being an economist or mathematician (I just use them instead of saying ‘I study economics’ or ‘I study mathematics’ because it is proper, but it is also shorter), I was just going off the generally accepted definition of what a mathematician is, that is '[a]n expert in or student of mathematics. IV[/quote]

Since I like to waste time here and since there is no big energy expenditure whenever I see one of your presomptuous post filter through the ignore I will sometime attack it. You see I dont like your contribution to this forum, the way you think and your face. You are part of a very exclusive group.

Then I am a mathematician. The 14 years old girl I give math lesson to is a mathematician and we can all act as if we understand the math in the big bang theory. Especially if we study finance. We can also say that we were mathematicians, so it seems like we spent another life chasing the thruth in mathematics, never letting go. A quest a la hauteur of our ego.

I am out of here. Too much was already given.[/quote]

I am sorry I have offended you, please accept my apologies. And, I thank you for giving your time in an attempt to explain that which you were displeased with.

I, however, have to point out that I never claimed to understand the mathematics in the hypothesis of the primeval atom, and I only pointed out that I study mathematics because of a question about actual infinite regress and it being illogical and an impossibility.

Furthermore on the subject of calling a 14-year-old a mathematician, I hold no claim to laying on the label of mathematician. The only reason I called myself that was again because I am completing a bachelor of science in the field of study, and that is independent of my business administration degree.

I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,

Chris IV

373

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:<<< ignore >>>[/quote]Problem solved. Wadda self important bubble headed academic snob. Not to mention miserable n nasty. Geeez dude, it doesn’t have to be like this.
[/quote]

The gall! He should stick with categorically condemning entire religions to eternal suffering in the fiery pits of hell, accusing everyone disagreeing with him of being spiritually dead corpses, and vaunting himself as one of god’s precious chosen few.

374

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:<<< ignore >>>[/quote]Problem solved. Wadda self important bubble headed academic snob. Not to mention miserable n nasty. Geeez dude, it doesn’t have to be like this.
[/quote]

The gall! He should stick with categorically condemning entire religions to eternal suffering in the fiery pits of hell, accusing everyone disagreeing with him of being spiritually dead corpses, and vaunting himself as one of god’s precious chosen few.[/quote]

lol

gold

375

Well, since we’re all comparing educations, I guess on some level I am a computer programmer since I studied the subject.

But back to the topic. This is some seriously good stuff, gentlemen. This…

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Blind forces wouldn’t create order.

And, Multiverse goes against Occam’s Razor, so I don’t think I could ever accept infinite amount of universes (basically) because of the redundancies that are cleared up with one universe and intelligence.[/quote]

Is a very interesting proposition. Wouldn’t it be equally as likely that the personal force or forces that created order was simply a species of super-intellegent aliens that created our world and us as an experiment? I’m not trying to be facetious here. This idea would, IMO, explain A LOT. For one, it would explain the problem of evil. If we are an experiment, and this uber-intelligent alien species simply watches and observes but does not interfere. This makes a lot more sense to me then the silly Adam and Eve myth.

Keep in mind that I don’t actually believe this alien thing - it’s just an idea.

376

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Well, since we’re all comparing educations, I guess on some level I am a computer programmer since I studied the subject.

But back to the topic. This is some seriously good stuff, gentlemen. This…

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Blind forces wouldn’t create order.

And, Multiverse goes against Occam’s Razor, so I don’t think I could ever accept infinite amount of universes (basically) because of the redundancies that are cleared up with one universe and intelligence.[/quote]

Is a very interesting proposition. Wouldn’t it be equally as likely that the personal force or forces that created order was simply a species of super-intellegent aliens that created our world and us as an experiment? I’m not trying to be facetious here. This idea would, IMO, explain A LOT. For one, it would explain the problem of evil. If we are an experiment, and this uber-intelligent alien species simply watches and observes but does not interfere. This makes a lot more sense to me then the silly Adam and Eve myth.

Keep in mind that I don’t actually believe this alien thing - it’s just an idea.
[/quote]

The alien idea also violates OR, because then we have to ask what caused the aliens.

377

As I’ve said before, Occum’s Razor says to simplify things as much as possible and still be true. It is possible to oversiimplify something to point where it’s simply wrong.

378

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
As I’ve said before, Occum’s Razor says to simplify things as much as possible and still be true. It is possible to oversiimplify something to point where it’s simply wrong.[/quote]

No, occam’s razor doesn’t say anything about complexity. It deals with eliminating assumptions. There is nothing inherently more correct about a simpler theory.

379

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
As I’ve said before, Occum’s Razor says to simplify things as much as possible and still be true. It is possible to oversiimplify something to point where it’s simply wrong.[/quote]

Yes, although I found it interesting that when you simplify something so much it actually becomes more complicated, such as something appeared out of nothing.

380

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
As I’ve said before, Occum’s Razor says to simplify things as much as possible and still be true. It is possible to oversiimplify something to point where it’s simply wrong.[/quote]

No, occam’s razor doesn’t say anything about complexity. It deals with eliminating assumptions. There is nothing inherently more correct about a simpler theory. [/quote]

I figured he meant complex = more assumptions. Ohz well.