Author Topic: In the beginning was......WHAT ?  (Read 2959 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2013, 04:26:34 PM »
Believing in something one can not show any empirical evidence for is always illogical.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1152
  • Darwins +80/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #59 on: October 10, 2013, 04:29:27 PM »
Space and time are a product of the universe. They cannot exist without it. It is the universe which brings space and time into being.

I agree, space and time exists because the universe exists.  But science has proven that the universe has not always existed.  So what brought the universe into existence?  And don't say energy in the universe. Cause that is not logical.. Of course if we throw out logic, the universe can be created with energy in the universe.  But if we throw out logic then believing in a God can not be illogical.

I answered this before. It is spontaneous. Quantum fluctuations always are spontaneous.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2013, 04:34:37 PM »
Your assumptions about Christians and your justification for it implies you have heard ALL Christians make ALL illogical or delusional arguments.  It would be more precise to say the Christians you have encountered have not given you any logical or non-delusional arguments to believe in God.
I'll readily admit that I'm extrapolating a bit.  But, from my perspective, Christianity has had, what, at least 50 generations worth of people talking about the existence of god and all of those claims and arguments seem to fall under the illogical category for me.  I don't think it's too big of a stretch to extrapolate to a generality there.
Quote
Fact: The universe had a beginning.  It is more probable or logical to think someone or something outside the universe caused its beginning then to think it just spontaneously began...that nothing can produce something.  No field of science would deny the Law of Causality except physicists when it comes to the issue of cosmology.
The universe had a beginning:  Yes, I'll agree to that, assuming that 'universe' and 'sum total of reality' are not necessarily the same thing.  The evidence certainly points to that.
It is more probable or logical to think someone:  This requires some justification.  Use of the word 'someone' sneaks in a hell of a lot of baggage into the claim.
or something outside the universe caused its beginning then to think it just spontaneously began: Disregarding the 'someone' aspect, I'd be inclined to agree with you - well, at least it intuitively makes sense so I won't readily dismiss this.
No field of science would deny the Law of Causality except physicists when it comes to the issue of cosmology.:  Well, nuclear physicists tend to have to deny causality to some degree.  Radioactive decay and what not.  But you can't really have a problem with denying causality, can you?  What caused god?

"Well, god has no cause.  He did not begin to exist.  He has just always existed."

Of course that doesn't really work.  One has just as much evidence and data to suggest that the sum total of reality did not begin to exist.  The sum total of reality has just always existed.  Unless you've got something to suggest that the sum total of reality had a beginning of some kind.  If you want to claim that the beginning of the universe is synonymous with the beginning of reality, then you've shot yourself in the epistemological foot as you've just placed god outside of reality - making him 'not real'.

But for simplicity I'll just go ahead and concede that 'the sum total of reality' had a beginning.  At this point, all that has been established is that 'something' caused reality to exist.  There is still a pretty large gap to cross from this 'something' to 'omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving entity that has involvement with humanity'.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #61 on: October 10, 2013, 04:39:02 PM »
Jag--
  So our universe could have been created out of a black hole in another universe, and that universe is created out of another universe... and on and on....  It is my understanding that multiple universes are at this point nothing but fanciful story lines for movies.  Am I wrong about that?  And even if I am not, each universe has a beginning, and will have an end (Second Law of Thermodynamics).  So at some point you have to wrestle with what began the first universe.  And to say it was created out of energy in that universe you are back to the same problem I have pointed out.

By the way, have I been illogical or delusional in all of this I have presented?

It's my understanding that there is some degree of viability with regards the multiverse hypothesis in the scientific community so it can't be flat out dismissed as ficticious.

The concept of beginning is I think a stumbling block for many believers as the tendency is to equate the beginning with only 2 possibilities: 1) God did it or 2) something came from nothing. Limiting the beginning to only these as possibilities is fallous.

Possibility 1 has so many holes in it starting with being able to discover the identity of this singular god. The second possibility ignores the concept that the universe may not be an expanding 14 billion year old cosmos that started with a singularity that began expanding (an old static universe has not been disproven). Additional, it seems to gloss over the idea that the singularity was not 'nothing'.

If there was truly a beginning all we can say for certain is that SOMETHING or SOMETHINGS capable of causing the universe acted or was acted upon. We do not know the nature of the SOMETHINGS or if that or those SOMETHINGS acted purposefully or were even capable of thought.

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #62 on: October 10, 2013, 04:43:29 PM »
"Well, god has no cause.  He did not begin to exist.  He has just always existed."

Of course that doesn't really work.  One has just as much evidence and data to suggest that the sum total of reality did not begin to exist.  The sum total of reality has just always existed.  Unless you've got something to suggest that the sum total of reality had a beginning of some kind.  If you want to claim that the beginning of the universe is synonymous with the beginning of reality, then you've shot yourself in the epistemological foot as you've just placed god outside of reality - making him 'not real'.

But for simplicity I'll just go ahead and concede that 'the sum total of reality' had a beginning.  At this point, all that has been established is that 'something' caused reality to exist.  There is still a pretty large gap to cross from this 'something' to 'omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving entity that has involvement with humanity'.

Isn't that what e=mc2 proved?? The universe thus reality had a beginning?  And yes I would agree to jump from something to the God of Christian is a jump without more discussion.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #63 on: October 10, 2013, 04:44:02 PM »
Nothing isn't actually nothing. Labeling it as such is nonsensical.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #64 on: October 10, 2013, 04:48:22 PM »
And even if I am not, each universe has a beginning, and will have an end (Second Law of Thermodynamics).  So at some point you have to wrestle with what began the first universe.  And to say it was created out of energy in that universe you are back to the same problem I have pointed out.
Why assume a first universe?

"Well, god has no cause.  He did not begin to exist.  He has just always existed."

Of course that doesn't really work.  One has just as much evidence and data to suggest that the sum total of reality did not begin to exist.  The sum total of reality has just always existed.  Unless you've got something to suggest that the sum total of reality had a beginning of some kind.  If you want to claim that the beginning of the universe is synonymous with the beginning of reality, then you've shot yourself in the epistemological foot as you've just placed god outside of reality - making him 'not real'.

But for simplicity I'll just go ahead and concede that 'the sum total of reality' had a beginning.  At this point, all that has been established is that 'something' caused reality to exist.  There is still a pretty large gap to cross from this 'something' to 'omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving entity that has involvement with humanity'.

Isn't that what e=mc2 proved?? The universe thus reality had a beginning?  And yes I would agree to jump from something to the God of Christian is a jump without more discussion.
But if 'the universe having a beginning' = 'reality having a beginning', again, you've just placed god outside of reality.  As in, not part of reality.  As in, not real.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1602
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #65 on: October 10, 2013, 04:49:30 PM »
Jag--
  So our universe could have been created out of a black hole in another universe, and that universe is created out of another universe... and on and on.... 
Almost, but not quite. I'm saying that given enough time (billions of years), EVERYTHING will be pulled into a single black hole and the whole process starts all over again.
Quote
It is my understanding that multiple universes are at this point nothing but fanciful story lines for movies.  Am I wrong about that? 
I also very specifically stated that I am NOT discussing the multiverse concept, which I understand to include simultaneous universes. I'm saying this explains how this one could have come into being, absent a god and including what we know about physics.
Quote
And even if I am not, each universe has a beginning, and will have an end (Second Law of Thermodynamics).  So at some point you have to wrestle with what began the first universe.  And to say it was created out of energy in that universe you are back to the same problem I have pointed out.
I understand what you are saying, but there comes a point where the science starts to be beyond my ability to articulate - some of the concepts involved are only fuzzily understood by me. I also know why this will not be a satisfying response to you. I know this is annoying as he!! to some people, but I don't feel a need to have an explanation of everything - I'm not smart enough to understand it even if one was available to me. I just can't make myself buy into the idea of a deity that has any actual involvement with humans - I see no evidence to make that explanation fit and a lot of evidence to say it doesn't fit at all. The only god I can make any possible sense of is an absolutely absent one, and if that's the case, why bother?
Quote
By the way, have I been illogical or delusional in all of this I have presented?
...no? I'm not sure why you are asking though, and I admit that I haven't read every word you've posted. Plus you're asking my opinion, which is entirely subjective. Just because I don't think you've been either or those things yet doesn't mean you won't become so in the future or that I haven't missed something relevant, or even that other people might not have different opinions, so I wouldn't get too excited about me.

Ain't it fun talking to people who will argue about anything at all if given half a chance?
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #66 on: October 10, 2013, 04:55:03 PM »

If there was truly a beginning all we can say for certain is that SOMETHING or SOMETHINGS capable of causing the universe acted or was acted upon. We do not know the nature of the SOMETHINGS or if that or those SOMETHINGS acted purposefully or were even capable of thought.

Yeah...but...if something or someone (I realize you have not bit on this) had the power to create the universe...wouldn't that something/someone be omnipotent?  And that someone/something would have to be outside of space and time in order to create space and time, then it/him/her would be definition be omnipresent and omniscient.

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #67 on: October 10, 2013, 04:58:27 PM »
Nothing isn't actually nothing. Labeling it as such is nonsensical.

-Nam

Oh but Nam..that is EXACTLY what Foxy said about Christians at the very beginning of this discussion.  She said we like to say what nothing means and what its implication are.  Now you are telling a Christian what nothing means.    You are moving away from the agreed upon definition. 

Why can you say nothing isn't actually nothing and I have to accept that???

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1152
  • Darwins +80/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #68 on: October 10, 2013, 04:58:56 PM »

If there was truly a beginning all we can say for certain is that SOMETHING or SOMETHINGS capable of causing the universe acted or was acted upon. We do not know the nature of the SOMETHINGS or if that or those SOMETHINGS acted purposefully or were even capable of thought.

Yeah...but...if something or someone (I realize you have not bit on this) had the power to create the universe...wouldn't that something/someone be omnipotent?  And that someone/something would have to be outside of space and time in order to create space and time, then it/him/her would be definition be omnipresent and omniscient.

No the universe needs no energy for its formation.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #69 on: October 10, 2013, 05:01:16 PM »
Nothing isn't actually nothing. Labeling it as such is nonsensical.

-Nam

Oh but Nam..that is EXACTLY what Foxy said about Christians at the very beginning of this discussion.  She said we like to say what nothing means and what its implication are.  Now you are telling a Christian what nothing means.    You are moving away from the agreed upon definition. 

Why can you say nothing isn't actually nothing and I have to accept that???

You don't.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #70 on: October 10, 2013, 05:07:08 PM »

I answered this before. It is spontaneous. Quantum fluctuations always are spontaneous.

Just because something is spontaneous doesn't mean it comes from nothing. Now we are talking about another something...quantum fluctuations. 

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #71 on: October 10, 2013, 05:10:38 PM »
Almost, but not quite. I'm saying that given enough time (billions of years), EVERYTHING will be pulled into a single black hole and the whole process starts all over again.
I'm going to nitpick here but the preponderance of evidence right now suggests that everything will emphatically not be pulled back into a singularity.  Rather, the universe will continue expanding at an accelerated rate, and the wavelength of any and all matter in the universe will grow unbounded.  Eventually, the wavelength of any and all matter will far exceed the length of the observable universe, no causal gradients will exist, so absolutely nothing can happen and the universe will be dead.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1152
  • Darwins +80/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #72 on: October 10, 2013, 05:14:00 PM »

I answered this before. It is spontaneous. Quantum fluctuations always are spontaneous.

Just because something is spontaneous doesn't mean it comes from nothing. Now we are talking about another something...quantum fluctuations.

Quantum fluctuations are energy. Actually they are zero energy and uncaused.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #73 on: October 10, 2013, 05:16:15 PM »
I understand what you are saying, but there comes a point where the science starts to be beyond my ability to articulate - some of the concepts involved are only fuzzily understood by me. I also know why this will not be a satisfying response to you. I know this is annoying as he!! to some people, but I don't feel a need to have an explanation of everything - I'm not smart enough to understand it even if one was available to me. I just can't make myself buy into the idea of a deity that has any actual involvement with humans - I see no evidence to make that explanation fit and a lot of evidence to say it doesn't fit at all. The only god I can make any possible sense of is an absolutely absent one, and if that's the case, why bother?

Jag, I totally get not being able to bring yourself to the place of buying in...but that is not a logical reason.  That in volitional...or emotional.  That is different and I have no argument for that.

Quote
...no? I'm not sure why you are asking though, and I admit that I haven't read every word you've posted. Plus you're asking my opinion, which is entirely subjective. Just because I don't think you've been either or those things yet doesn't mean you won't become so in the future or that I haven't missed something relevant, or even that other people might not have different opinions, so I wouldn't get too excited about me.

Ain't it fun talking to people who will argue about anything at all if given half a chance?

A lot of posts on this board talk about the illogical, delusional Christians.  I think it is a stereotype that doesn't fit us all.

And yes...it is fun talking to people who will debate and argue about anything...it is how we learn and expand our horizons.  But many atheists put us Christians down for taking what we believe on blind faith, when actually there are many who have given serious intellectual thought to why we chose the worldview we have.  Just saying...give us a break! LOL
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 05:26:00 PM by Randyjp »

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #74 on: October 10, 2013, 05:20:20 PM »

Quantum fluctuations are energy. Actually they are zero energy and uncaused.

Where can I find information on quantum fluctuation not being caused?  And this is not a facetious request.  I am really interested in finding out.

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #75 on: October 10, 2013, 05:24:06 PM »

I'm going to nitpick here but the preponderance of evidence right now suggests that everything will emphatically not be pulled back into a singularity.  Rather, the universe will continue expanding at an accelerated rate, and the wavelength of any and all matter in the universe will grow unbounded.  Eventually, the wavelength of any and all matter will far exceed the length of the observable universe, no causal gradients will exist, so absolutely nothing can happen and the universe will be dead.

That is my understanding as well jdawg.  Our universe has a definite lifespan- a start and a finish.  I mean the fact that it is dated at almost 14 billion years shows it had a start.  And if I am not mistaken there have been calculations for its death as well.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1602
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #76 on: October 10, 2013, 05:27:54 PM »
I understand what you are saying, but there comes a point where the science starts to be beyond my ability to articulate - some of the concepts involved are only fuzzily understood by me. I also know why this will not be a satisfying response to you. I know this is annoying as he!! to some people, but I don't feel a need to have an explanation of everything - I'm not smart enough to understand it even if one was available to me. I just can't make myself buy into the idea of a deity that has any actual involvement with humans - I see no evidence to make that explanation fit and a lot of evidence to say it doesn't fit at all. The only god I can make any possible sense of is an absolutely absent one, and if that's the case, why bother?

Jag, I totally get not being able to bring yourself to the place of buying in...but that is not a logical reason.  That in volitional...or emotional.  That is different and I have no argument for that.

Stop right there - your response ignores the rest of what I said: I see no evidence to make that explanation fit and a lot of evidence to say it doesn't fit at all. So if you leave the entire quote in context, it's not an emotional response - if anything it could be characterized as the resistance to social pressure to accept an explanation that contradicts what the evidence tells me.

Quote
<snip>
A lot of posts on this board talk about the illogical, delusional Christians.  I think it is a stereotype that doesn't fit us all.

Sadly, it almost always turns out to fit the ones who come visit us here. There are exceptions, yes but they're pretty rare, and eventualy the ones who stay (or return after taking some time to think things through on their own) reconsider their stance and start edging toward ours. You may be different, only time will tell, but so far the odds are against it. Here's hoping you are the exception you seem to be suggesting you are!  ;)
Quote
And yes...it is fun talking to people who will debate and argue about anything...it is how we learn and expand our horizons.  But many atheists put us Christians down for taking what we believe on blind faith, when actually there are many who have given serious intellectual thought to why we chose the worldview we have.  Just saying...give us a break! LOL

As long as you understand from the very beginning that we take almost nothing at anyone's word, there's much to be learned for all of us. AFAIC, THAT is the meaning of like.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #77 on: October 10, 2013, 05:30:03 PM »
Believing in something one can not show any empirical evidence for is always illogical.

-Nam

Nam--How can we verify that belief of yours that "Believing in something one can not show any empirical evidence for is always illogical."???

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1602
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #78 on: October 10, 2013, 05:31:04 PM »
Almost, but not quite. I'm saying that given enough time (billions of years), EVERYTHING will be pulled into a single black hole and the whole process starts all over again.
I'm going to nitpick here but the preponderance of evidence right now suggests that everything will emphatically not be pulled back into a singularity.  Rather, the universe will continue expanding at an accelerated rate, and the wavelength of any and all matter in the universe will grow unbounded.  Eventually, the wavelength of any and all matter will far exceed the length of the observable universe, no causal gradients will exist, so absolutely nothing can happen and the universe will be dead.

See? I knew someone who could point out the flaws would come along and do so. Sigh. Point me toward some research please - I'll dig in over the weekend while I avoid more homework  :P
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1152
  • Darwins +80/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #79 on: October 10, 2013, 05:32:23 PM »

Quantum fluctuations are energy. Actually they are zero energy and uncaused.

Where can I find information on quantum fluctuation not being caused?  And this is not a facetious request.  I am really interested in finding out.

The non causal aspect of quantum mechanics appears in many ways. Some of the other experiments are easier to understand.

For quantum fluctuations try the videos on YouTube  by Lawrence Krauss since you know of him. There are some called a universe from nothing.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #80 on: October 10, 2013, 05:42:44 PM »
Believing in something one can not show any empirical evidence for is always illogical.

-Nam

Nam--How can we verify that belief of yours that "Believing in something one can not show any empirical evidence for is always illogical."???

Not a belief. You can't give empirical evidence for your god, hell, you can't give any evidence for your god, therefore it doesn't exist. Saying or believing it exists doesn't magically make it exist.

Evidence is what proves things. There is no verifiable, empirical, or any kind of non-biased evidence out there to show that your, or anyone's god exists.

That's not a "belief", that's a fact.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #81 on: October 10, 2013, 05:45:47 PM »

The non causal aspect of quantum mechanics appears in many ways. Some of the other experiments are easier to understand.

For quantum fluctuations try the videos on YouTube  by Lawrence Krauss since you know of him. There are some called a universe from nothing.

I have seen Krauss' Universe from nothing.  It would take me much more faith to accept what he says there then my Christian beliefs.  However there is only passing mention of quantum fluctuations in that video.  I will look for others.

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #82 on: October 10, 2013, 05:51:43 PM »
[quote author=Nam link=topic=25495.msg573418#msg573418 date=1381444964

Not a belief. You can't give empirical evidence for your god, hell, you can't give any evidence for your god, therefore it doesn't exist. Saying or believing it exists doesn't magically make it exist.

Evidence is what proves things. There is no verifiable, empirical, or any kind of non-biased evidence out there to show that your, or anyone's god exists.

That's not a "belief", that's a fact.

-Nam[/quote]

I am sorry...but your statement about illogical belief and empirical evidence is a belief and not a fact.  If it was a fact, there would be empirical evidence of it.  Oh and existence and logic are two very different things.  One of the most illogical things there is is love.  But
just because it is illogical, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  And my guess is that it would be hard to empirically verify.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 05:54:12 PM by Randyjp »

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1152
  • Darwins +80/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #83 on: October 10, 2013, 05:53:51 PM »

Fact: The universe had a beginning.  It is more probable or logical to think someone or something outside the universe caused its beginning then to think it just spontaneously began...that nothing can produce something.  No field of science would deny the Law of Causality except physicists when it comes to the issue of cosmology.


Whatever you think is likely or logical from daily experience is WRONG. Experiments show that the universe does not work according to daily experience. Even something as simple as light reflected from a pool of water shows non causality in nature.

This is the essential difference between a person of faith and person of reason.

Nature through experiments forces a person of reason to accept the way it is.

A person of faith forces nature to accept the way he says it is.




Here is the real problem with your argument. You say here that nothing cannot produce something so god did it. You have already agreed that the bible does not say the Christian god did it that way, so your logical conclusion should be that some other god did it. Krishna might fulfil your requirements.

We actually do see something from nothing all the time when matter is produced around a black hole from quantum fluctuations.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Randyjp

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #84 on: October 10, 2013, 06:00:15 PM »
Here is the real problem with your argument. You say here that nothing cannot produce something so god did it. You have already agreed that the bible does not say the Christian god did it that way, so your logical conclusion should be that some other god did it. Krishna might fulfil your requirements.

We actually do see something from nothing all the time when matter is produced around a black hole from quantum fluctuations.

Oh you misunderstood me.  I said you could not argue God creating from nothing from Genesis 1:1.  I never said the Christian God didn't create from nothing.

And again...the whole issue of something from nothing I am not buying...even the example you gave above there are somethings...black hole and quantum fluctuations.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #85 on: October 10, 2013, 06:10:40 PM »
Quote from: randyjp
I am sorry...but your statement about illogical belief and empirical evidence is a belief and not a fact.  If it was a fact, there would be empirical evidence of it.

So, to prove that empirical evidence exists one first has to find empirical evidence of empirical evidence? That's idiotic.

To prove illogical belief (which I never brought up, you did) exists one has to first show evidence that "illogical belief" exists? Okay, believing in a god/s is illogical because one can neither prove nor
disprove it/they exist.

Quote
  Oh and existence and logic are two very different things.

Who said they were the same? I sure as hell didn't.

Quote
But just because it is illogical, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  And my guess is that it would be hard to empirically verify.

There are things of the future we can't prove but may exist. To you, and a billion+ others Biblegod  exists yet has never been proven with any reliable evidence. Therefore it's an illogical belief.

What some find illogical today about the unknowable, doesn't mean in some future date it won't be knowable; the problem with your belief, your religion, is that IT states it's knowable and the evidence it gives is itself. That's illogical.

It's an illogical belief.

Get it yet?

Of course not.

-Nam
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 06:18:55 PM by Nam »
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #86 on: October 10, 2013, 06:12:06 PM »
Oh, and please go to the test area and LEARN HOW TO QUOTE!

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?