Author Topic: In the beginning was......WHAT ?  (Read 4291 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #87 on: October 10, 2013, 06:14:21 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.

Not only can you not argue the Christian god from genesis creation. The story that everything began as water contradicts how the universe was actually formed. You must agree that another god is more likely than the Christian god, who did not know how the universe began.

Quantum fluctuations are the process. The material around a black hole appears from absolutely nothing. Do you see here how you have changed your definition of nothing to suit yourself? What does that tell you about your motives? I have already explained how the things in the universe condensed after the Big Bang. The something from nothing happened after the Big Bang in our own universe.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 07:40:30 PM by Foxy Freedom »
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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6459
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #88 on: October 10, 2013, 06:27:17 PM »
Welcome Randyjp

I'm from Eugene originally, and have lived in the Portland area. What does it feel like to be a christian in that neighborhood? Isn't a bit too liberal for you? Just wondering.

Anyway, the first thing you need to understand is that we never get any two christians with the same set of beliefs. So right now one of the things the others are doing is trying to figure out where the heck you're coming from. Are you a fundy, liberal, literal, metaphorical, etc. It usually takes us awhile to put newbies into an appropriate category so that we don't end up arguing about the wrong things. Thirty some posts isn't often enough. So confusion will continue to reign for a little while.

You do seem to be hung up on the nothing thing. Which, to me, means that your sense of incredulity is driving your beliefs. I personally find everything to fantastic that I have no way to believe any of it, except for the part that the scientific explanations, when available, seem to do a pretty decent job of making sense of things. Like evolution, geology, star formation, orbits, etc. And because they have a fairly decent track record, overall, I tend to assume that we will eventually figure out the really big questions, like where the heck did we come from? In the meantime, I do not consider the question answered, and I doubt that it will be in my lifetime. Which, although a bummer, is not enough of a mystery to cause me to go all religious on my neighbors.

Right now, for instance, some physicists are seriously considering the possibility that black holes spawn universes within them. Weird, I know, but the math shows that that is one possibility. Which would mean that we don't spring from nothing, but rather from a whole lot of very compact stuff. That goes out into the new universe, makes new black holes, and perhaps more universes. And we are just in one of them. That of course doesn't explain where the stuff came from originally, but I, for one, have never been in the mood to go to the fallback position of claiming that a god last heard from 2,000 years ago is the logical source.

I would suggest that rather than dwelling on the nothing question, you look around and see how much sense you can make of things that seem to exist. Can you make enough sense of our apparent reality to make a god fit nicely? Can you make enough sense out of your god to make him fit into the reality we have right now? Are the christian claims about him consistent with what you experience? And are you sure about that?  Can you be sure about that? Can you be sure about anything?

Science has proven that you can't breed a striped goat by breeding it in front of a striped stick. I consider that more impressive that flood claims, walking on water and/or scary armageddon stories. Subdued flu epidemics, storm forecasts that allow people to evacuate threatened areas, tiny frickin' chips that I can put in my camera that hold 64 gigs of photos: those are all things that people unawed by shepherds stories have accomplished. Yes, some that participated in the discoveries required also believed in a god, but they weren't so astonished by the questions so as to ignore reality and not build on known knowledge.

So if you could figure out why you are what kind of christian you are (in preparation for discussing stuff with us) and then give us an overview of your version of that religion, we could then get into some serious discussions.

Atheism is simple. Beliefs are not. We need your take on your version before meaningful dialogue can take place.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #89 on: October 10, 2013, 06:33:41 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.

This is what will annoy many people on this site. You think that it takes faith to accept the results of experiments.

I will repeat what I wrote above. Do you think it applies to you?


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.

(By the way I think you discuss things better than most Christians )

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: 12460
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #90 on: October 10, 2013, 06:34:07 PM »
He's probably one of those Christians who state atheism is a religion/belief. What I get so far from him.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline shnozzola

Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #91 on: October 10, 2013, 08:08:38 PM »
Hi Randyjp,

  My nose is NOT that big.   :)

Anyway,
       I'm  always posting these 2 videos, but for the whole "universe from nothing" debate I love the theories here.





start about 17 minutes on this one , but it is all interesting IMO
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #92 on: October 10, 2013, 10:22:46 PM »
I know the conversation has moved on, but I cannot tolerate this being left as is.

Not really...

I am sorry, my little friend, that fails.

here is the first definition of opposite:

The first?  Not, the most appropriate given the context?  Not, the most rational?  Just the first.  How indiscriminate.  That's like marrying the first woman willing to bang you.  Or banging anyone willing to receive you.  Bad idea on all counts.

I won't quote the definition you provided.  It was irrelevant.  We are not talking about spatial relations.  For you to suggest that indicates you are not paying attention. You said everything has an opposite.  I asked the opposite of of.  You indicated that of had a corresponding... "something" on the other side of the room.  So wrong.  So not cogent.

Let us consider the whole word.  courtesy of mirriam webster:
Quote
1a :  set over against something that is at the other end or side of an intervening line or space <opposite interior angles> <opposite ends of a diameter>
b :  situated in pairs on an axis with each member being separated from the other by half the circumference of the axis <opposite leaves> — compare alternate
2 a :  occupying an opposing and often antagonistic position <opposite sides of the question>
b :  diametrically different (as in nature or character) <opposite meanings>
3:  contrary to one another or to a thing specified :  reverse <gave them opposite directions>
4:  being the other of a pair that are corresponding or complementary in position, function, or nature <members of the opposite sex>
5:  of, relating to, or being the side of a baseball field that is near the first base line for a right-handed batter and near the third base line for a left-handed batter

1a and b are physical and irrelevant.
2 a and b have some promise.
3 also is relevant
4 could be
5 also spatial.

Is there any "opposing and antagonistic position" of "of"?  None that I can think of.
How about a "reverse" of "of"?  I don't think that makes any sense.
Perhaps we can think of a " other of a pair that are corresponding or complementary in position, function, or nature" for "of"?  Nope.

bottom line, there is no opposite of "of".

You could try this for any number of words and ideas and twist your head in knots.  Opposite is a fabrication.  Opposite is a construct.  It carries baggage and makes assumptions. It is mostly useless in adult conversations.


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12460
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #93 on: October 10, 2013, 10:57:27 PM »
I read all that, and the repetitive use of "of" gave me a headache[1].

-Nam
 1. I guess that's what I do to people, huh? ;)
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1282
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #94 on: October 11, 2013, 01:26:47 AM »
So, let me get this straight ... as straight as you can get anything when religion is involved.
Randyjp believes in the god of the bible and accepts that Genesis is just a story, ie. made up, so ... how does he know anything at all for certain about this god of his?
Which parts of the bible are the made up stuff and which parts are to be used to construct a picture of this god thingy ... or the Jesus thingy for that matter?
I know, let's bring in empirical evidence for the resurrection or something. Which would be neat, except that ... there isn't any ... and if there were, Randyjp has already stated that empirical evidence requires faith, that he won't accept repeatable experiments.

So, maybe there's our answer, Randyjp believes what he believes because he likes to believe it. Which may be neat if he were Neo and this were the Matrix. And hey, I would looooooove to disbelieve gravity and fly home in stead of sitting in traffic for half an hour. But so far ... nothing. Damn you Douglas Adams! You lied to us!

This is why I've recently taken to describing the would-be creator of the universe 'he/she/it/penguin', since, without corroborating evidence, a transuniversal uber penguin shitting the universe into existance is just as likely as biblegod/Allah/Gaia/Ymir[1]/The Undertaker doing so.
Go on, try to disprove my shitting penguin theory[2]!
 1. yeah, yeah, I know Ymir isn't credited with creating the universe.
 2. and I even raped the word theory to make my point
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #95 on: October 11, 2013, 05:16:09 AM »

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.

But isn't that exactly the atheist argument against God's existence??? God doesn't exist because it would be unlikely and illogical compared to daily experience.  You are telling me the universe is not logical according to daily experience....hmmmm

So if an atheist thinks it is likely and logical that God does not exist from daily experience it is wrong?? Or are you only saying that about Monotheists?

It is experiments which show how nature works not daily experience. Here is an experiment for you to think about which will prove that DAILY EXPERIENCE IS WRONG in deciding how nature works.

Imagine someone is shining a torch into your eyes while you are standing still. The light is coming into your eyes at a known speed. Now you run towards the torch. How will you see the speed of light change as you meet it coming into your eyes and why?

Imagine the same thing with a car coming towards you. First you are standing still in your own car and you see the car coming towards you at a certain speed. Now you drive straight towards the other car. How will you see the speed of the car change as you drive to meet it?

« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 05:36:05 AM by Foxy Freedom »
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 Jonny-UK

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Darwins +31/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #96 on: October 11, 2013, 07:00:40 AM »
This is why I've recently taken to describing the would-be creator of the universe 'he/she/it/penguin', since, without corroborating evidence, a transuniversal uber penguin shitting the universe into existance is just as likely as biblegod/Allah/Gaia/Ymir[1]/The Undertaker doing so.
Go on, try to disprove my shitting penguin theory[2]!
 1. yeah, yeah, I know Ymir isn't credited with creating the universe.
 2. and I even raped the word theory to make my point


+1 for the penguin theory- I can see no evidence against it !
All hail the penguin god.

I think e=mc2 is a well proven and accepted truth.
For there to be any chance of a god creator, am I right in assuming that  he/she/penguin would have to be able too somehow bypass this truth while they did their creation thing ?
Could there ever be a situation where e=mc2 did not apply?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 07:19:23 AM by Jonny-UK »
"Do I look like someone who cares what god thinks" - pinhead

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1282
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #97 on: October 11, 2013, 07:30:40 AM »
^^ I said ... SHITTED the universe into existance, not 'touched' ... I see you're an apostate! A heathen of the nonshit penguin god! You're an ashitist!
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Jonny-UK

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Darwins +31/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #98 on: October 11, 2013, 07:44:27 AM »
^^ I said ... SHITTED the universe into existance, not 'touched' ... I see you're an apostate! A heathen of the nonshit penguin god! You're an ashitist!
Sorry, it is so easy to misinterprit these religous teachings.
 I am a poor miserable sinner Oh great penguin god.

^^
I'm sure I've been called similar things before now ;D
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 08:38:35 AM by Jonny-UK »
"Do I look like someone who cares what god thinks" - pinhead

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #99 on: October 11, 2013, 08:56:45 AM »
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
Warning: So I know you asked for research, but I've got lots of Wikipedia ahead instead.  Sorry.

I seriously do not remember where I read the whole 'wavelength of any and all matter will far exceed the length of the observable universe' bit, but digging through Wikipedia trying to find sources, it seems that this scenario is the Big Rip[1] and is dependent on certain specific parameters regarding the rate of expansion of the universe.  As the rate of expansion and the mechanism is still so ill-understood (observed cosmic acceleration, modeled as dark energy[2]), it is difficult to point to experimental data that confidently supports this speculation (basically, it's pretty much an unknown crap shoot right now as to whether or not expansion will continue unbounded, or if dark energy is a constant or a 'thingie' that changes over time).

If the rate of expansion is bounded, that implies that expanding, outward acceleration due to dark energy is either constant or decaying, and the whole 'Big Rip' thing doesn't really happen.  You end up in heat death[3][4], so individual particles don't get stretched beyond the length of observability - just all of your neighbors are far, far, far, far away (far enough away that they cannot be observed, in principle).

So the evidence suggests that heat death is the end game, rather than a 'big rip'.  Of course, since this is really in the vicinity of speculative theoretical physics, it's all to be taken with some grains of salt.  But the data - the observed rate of expansion of the universe[5] - that supports the speculation is there.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_acceleration
 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_constant
"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

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2201
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #100 on: October 11, 2013, 09:12:10 AM »
If the rate of expansion is bounded, that implies that expanding, outward acceleration due to dark energy is either constant or decaying, and the whole 'Big Rip' thing doesn't really happen.  You end up in heat death[1][2], so individual particles don't get stretched beyond the length of observability - just all of your neighbors are far, far, far, far away (far enough away that they cannot be observed, in principle).

So the evidence suggests that heat death is the end game, rather than a 'big rip'.  Of course, since this is really in the vicinity of speculative theoretical physics, it's all to be taken with some grains of salt.  But the data - the observed rate of expansion of the universe[3] - that supports the speculation is there.
 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_constant

jdawg, thanks for being read up on the subject. But, at risk of offering up ammo to the god botherers, where does that hypothesis fit in with relation to the Big Bang? What I mean is that cyclical, wave-type universes makes logical sense to me, but an ever expanding universe goes against that. Does your[4] theory have any way of ascribing a beginning, or is it all about the end?
 4. yeah, I know it's probably not "yours", but...
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #101 on: October 11, 2013, 09:51:14 AM »
Thank you jdawg! I'll read up this weekend. Then you can explain the parts I don't understand.  :?

This is a perfect example of why I'm ok with not having all the answers, no matter who is doing the asking. People with a helluva lot more appropriate skills and knowledge than I are figuring things out faster than I could possibly keep up with new discoveries.

Science rocks - that's all I got and it's e-nuff fer me!  ;D
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2076
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #102 on: October 11, 2013, 09:55:33 AM »
jdawg, thanks for being read up on the subject. But, at risk of offering up ammo to the god botherers, where does that hypothesis fit in with relation to the Big Bang? What I mean is that cyclical, wave-type universes makes logical sense to me, but an ever expanding universe goes against that. Does your[1] theory have any way of ascribing a beginning, or is it all about the end?
 1. yeah, I know it's probably not "yours", but...
a) One should not ever fear giving argumentative ammo to theists (as opposed to actual ammo, which should elicit fear).  If there is truth to their viewpoint, additional ammo will help them expose that truth and I'd love to see it.  If there isn't truth to their viewpoint, the ammo will have the same effect as a blank round - it'll make a lot of noise, be pretty annoying, but other than that no harm will come from it (again...metaphorical ammo not real ammo :)).
2) It's an interesting question, and I haven't really considered it like that.  I guess I've looked at the whole 'end of the universe' set of speculations as separate and independent of 'origin of the universe' - similar to the separation I give to abiogenesis and evolution.  But certainly it's valid to ask how these topics relate, so it's valid to ask how the 'origin of the universe' relates to the 'end of the universe'.
d) These 'end game' scenarios are speculations based upon some of the same understood phenomenon that assert the validity of the 'start game' scenario of the Big Bang, so really, it is difficult for me to simply say that it's all about the end without consideration to the beginning.  To assert the validity of the 'heat death' scenario is to assert the validity of the cosmic background radiation as a signature of the Big Bang (as part of the data supporting the acceleration of the universe is derived from the redshift of the cosmic background radiation).

Basically, that's a long-winded way for me to say that the speculation on 'end game' is predicated strictly on currently observed data, but it's also the same data that establishes the model for the 'start game'.  And, I must say, both the 'start game' and the 'end game' have this big ole' wall of 'and here's where are current models and understanding of physics break down' that can lead only to non-confident speculation.  In the case of the Big Bang, that's some 13+ billion years in the past (around 100,000 years after the speculative 'big expansion from the singularity' point - when the energy density was low enough that the entire universe didn't just look a big blotch o' photons bouncing around).  In the case of 'heat death', that's some few billion years out in the future (where we don't understand fundamental things like whether protons are stable or not, or the nature of this whole 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' phenomenon).

Thank you jdawg! I'll read up this weekend. Then you can explain the parts I don't understand.  :?

This is a perfect example of why I'm ok with not having all the answers, no matter who is doing the asking. People with a helluva lot more appropriate skills and knowledge than I are figuring things out faster than I could possibly keep up with new discoveries.

Science rocks - that's all I got and it's e-nuff fer me!  ;D
Oh you don't want me explaining such things :)
At this point I've basically exhausted my "knowledge" of cosmology and theoretical physics.
"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

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #103 on: October 11, 2013, 10:06:15 AM »
This is a wiki article about the first three minutes of the universe.

It describes how the universe began as energy and how the "something" which we call matter condensed out as the universe expanded.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Astronomy/The_First_Three_Minutes
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 Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2201
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #104 on: October 11, 2013, 10:27:07 AM »
d) These 'end game' scenarios are speculations based upon some of the same understood phenomenon that assert the validity of the 'start game' scenario of the Big Bang, so really, it is difficult for me to simply say that it's all about the end without consideration to the beginning.  To assert the validity of the 'heat death' scenario is to assert the validity of the cosmic background radiation as a signature of the Big Bang (as part of the data supporting the acceleration of the universe is derived from the redshift of the cosmic background radiation).

Thanks man, good stuff.

I understand all of that, and I suppose eventual "heat death" doesn't rule out a cyclical universe event. A universe could expand infinitely, in theory, but I wouldn't think it's all that likely. Nothing is forever  ;)

You know, the only reason I'd ever want to be immortal is to watch us humans find the secrets of the cosmos. It's mesmerizing to me.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #105 on: October 11, 2013, 10:36:17 AM »
Thank you jdawg! I'll read up this weekend. Then you can explain the parts I don't understand.  :?
Oh you don't want me explaining such things :)
At this point I've basically exhausted my "knowledge" of cosmology and theoretical physics.

Look like Dante might be a good choice...
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #106 on: October 11, 2013, 11:02:36 AM »
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.

This is about as huge a leap as I have seen made in a minute. First you reduce the initiating something(s) to a singular someone, you then proceed to made that thing all powerful, and then you presume it to be omnipresent. Why presume ANY of those things?

As I have said before, when it comes to the "creation" of our cosmos perhaps the best explanation is that SOMETHING(s), which is impossible (at this point) to identify, describe, or explain, acted or was acted upon (by something yet to be identified as well), causing the onset of our reality.

The SOMETHING(s) in question here cannot yet be identified. So to say it was a sentient being capable of making a purposeful decision is at best wishful thinking and in reality is a flat out deceitful position to promote because no evidence supports it. A better guess, but still a guess nonetheless would be to say that the SOMETHING(s) that gave rise to our cosmos was/were somehow capable of causing "creation", but again we have no way of knowing whether the capable party acted purposefully or whether our cosmos arose accidentally as an effect of its/their actions. The speculation is infinite and the definitive answers are lacking.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 11:20:10 AM by Truth OT »

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1784
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #107 on: October 11, 2013, 11:18:03 AM »
A better guess, but still a guess nonetheless would be to say that the SOMETHING(s) that gave rise to our cosmos was/were somehow capable of causing "creation", but again we have no way of knowing whether the capable party acted purposefully or whether our cosmos arose accidentally as an effect of its/their actions. The speculation is infinite and the definitive answers are lacking.

Excellent response, and the bolded part in particular caught my eye. I've never even considered that - thank you for a very thought provoking point!
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #108 on: October 11, 2013, 11:24:25 AM »
The idea that water was the original substance is not just in the OT but in the NT.

2 Peter 3:5 — For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God [the] heavens existed long ago and [the] earth was formed out of water and by water.

The god of the OT and NT does not know how everything was formed. It must be another god who did it !
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 Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2719
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #109 on: October 12, 2013, 01:22:02 AM »
The idea of what nothing is, is not terribly relevant, because God gets sucked down the same hole. If something can't come from nothing, then God can't come from nothing either. Arguing using QM won't fix this problem. QM is obviously part of a created rule-set that came out of nothing, not a magical solution to this problem.

Another problem is that there may still be nothing here, now. What physics has shown us, is that there is symmetry. Whenever you discover one type of thing, there is always an anti-thing. Thing + Anti-thing sums to zero. So, given that something can't come from nothing, then it implies that there is still nothing.

Evolution has shown us that certain forms can survive and improve, if given a chance to 'reproduce'. So, it can't be ruled out that the apparent intelligence that we see in the universe, is a product of either brute-force trial, or brute force trial and then elimination of errors, by some criterion that's not obvious.

QM shows us the possibility of brute force (Multiverse), and one interpretation gives us trial and error (Copenhagen). What we observe in physics, shows us that we have enough mechanisms to potentially explain how it works, even if we can't assemble the IKEA product.

I believe the original post says that Genesis does not claim that God solved the something from nothing problem.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #110 on: October 12, 2013, 08:59:28 AM »
AH

My idea of this thread was to show that the creation story in both Genesis in the OT and 2 Peter 3:5 in the NT does not agree with reality, and it does not agree with the statement by Christians that their god made the universe from nothing.

If Christians say that a god made the universe from nothing, it cannot be their god.

In reality the "something" in the universe came into existence a few minutes AFTER the Big Bang. We know how it happened and it was not water which formed the universe or the earth. See the link I posted above for a summary.

I discussed definitions and the beginning of the universe with Randy because I could see he was genuinely interested in the results.



« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 09:19:26 AM by Foxy Freedom »
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 Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2719
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #111 on: October 12, 2013, 11:05:25 AM »
Oh, I thought he was genuinely interested in cornering you into a pointless definition.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #112 on: October 12, 2013, 01:32:32 PM »
Oh, I thought he was genuinely interested in cornering you into a pointless definition.

He started that way but it only took one post to deal with. ( I know he continued some illogical definitions with other people.)

I think it is important to know that the properties of "nothing" are the result of scientific discovery rather than arbitrary choice. If people don't like the fact that nothing in empty space has "properties" that is just tough. That is how it is.

One of the problems with discussing this issue with theists is that they think they can choose a definition of "nothing" and they choose a definition so that they can say "god did it". The definition is not arbitrary. "Nothing" is not the lack of pink elephants.

Video- that's how it is - explained in 1 minute
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 01:45:04 PM by Foxy Freedom »
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 Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #113 on: October 12, 2013, 04:03:30 PM »
1) The idea of what nothing is, is not terribly relevant, because God gets sucked down the same hole. If something can't come from nothing, then God can't come from nothing either. Arguing using QM won't fix this problem. QM is obviously part of a created rule-set that came out of nothing, not a magical solution to this problem.

2) Another problem is that there may still be nothing here, now. What physics has shown us, is that there is symmetry. Whenever you discover one type of thing, there is always an anti-thing. Thing + Anti-thing sums to zero. So, given that something can't come from nothing, then it implies that there is still nothing.

3) Evolution has shown us that certain forms can survive and improve, if given a chance to 'reproduce'. So, it can't be ruled out that the apparent intelligence that we see in the universe, is a product of either brute-force trial, or brute force trial and then elimination of errors, by some criterion that's not obvious.

QM shows us the possibility of brute force (Multiverse), and one interpretation gives us trial and error (Copenhagen). What we observe in physics, shows us that we have enough mechanisms to potentially explain how it works, even if we can't assemble the IKEA product.

I believe the original post says that Genesis does not claim that God solved the something from nothing problem.

1) Matter is being created from nothing all the time, it is also being destroyed all the time. In QM No gods can add any energy or cause. There is no reason to assume that any "parameters" have to be set.

2) yes, in a way you could say the universe is a temporary aberration of nothing and will become nothing again.

3) I don't see any sign of apparent intelligence in the universe. The fundamental way the universe works is by a chaotic flow of energy and matter into temporary patterns which the human brain interprets as order. (The human brain has evolved to do this so that it will not be eaten by a temporary pattern, such as the one called a lion.) Scientific experiments on small parts of this chaotic flow of matter and energy allow humans to make abstract rules about the chaotic flow. The abstract rules humans have made up show that the chaotic flow of the universe is not as good as it could be. The chaotic flow of matter and energy is actually close to the worst it could be for life to exist.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 04:18:12 PM by Foxy Freedom »
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 Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2719
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #114 on: October 13, 2013, 08:13:18 AM »
1) Matter is being created from nothing all the time

Only for the purposes of making that statement, you have defined "nothing" as empty space. Whereas, we suspect that empty space is full of some kind of grid, with strings and is thick with pseudo matter, so it's hardly "nothing".  There may be more stuff in empty space than in full-up space.

Quote
2) yes, in a way you could say the universe is a temporary aberration of nothing and will become nothing again.

It's not necessarily temporary.

Quote
3) I don't see any sign of apparent intelligence in the universe.
 The fundamental way the universe works is by a chaotic flow of energy and matter into temporary patterns which the human brain interprets as order.

That's being somewhat disingenuous. It could just as easily be the product of intelligence, but we can see mechanisms that explain everything that used to be inexplicable.

You just have to look at all the strange properties that have helped man along. I think the universe only requires a few elements to work, but we've been left with a load of toys to play with. Without silicon, we would have no windows, telescopes or semiconductors. Hydrogen and oxygen just happen to combine, to make a ubiquitous solvent, with a specific heat of 4x everything else. Planets have magnetic cores, which create a field that wards away radiation. There just happens to be a metal with a density of 2.6, for making aeroplanes and another one that stays liquid at room temperature. Iron, the major result of a super nova, just happens to be great for building shit, and making knives. We just happen to have copper and aluminium: two strong, non toxic non-degrading conductors; without which, electronics would never have started.

For some reason, life seems to be propelled by all these little quirks. It all seems very well planned, and it takes skill to convince yourself that it's not planned.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1438
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: In the beginning was......WHAT ?
« Reply #115 on: October 13, 2013, 09:24:07 AM »

That's being somewhat disingenuous. It could just as easily be the product of intelligence, but we can see mechanisms that explain everything that used to be inexplicable.

You just have to look at all the strange properties that have helped man along. I think the universe only requires a few elements to work, but we've been left with a load of toys to play with. Without silicon, we would have no windows, telescopes or semiconductors. Hydrogen and oxygen just happen to combine, to make a ubiquitous solvent, with a specific heat of 4x everything else. Planets have magnetic cores, which create a field that wards away radiation. There just happens to be a metal with a density of 2.6, for making aeroplanes and another one that stays liquid at room temperature. Iron, the major result of a super nova, just happens to be great for building shit, and making knives. We just happen to have copper and aluminium: two strong, non toxic non-degrading conductors; without which, electronics would never have started.

For some reason, life seems to be propelled by all these little quirks. It all seems very well planned, and it takes skill to convince yourself that it's not planned.

So the whole universe was made for people? Just so that people could build aeroplanes and make electronics ?

This assumes that brains capable of making aeroplanes and electronics were also designed. Chimpanzees don't make aeroplanes and electronics.

It is a pity that the planet was not designed well enough to prevent people from starving to death or from disease, or that the laws of physics made it easy to build spaceships to colonise other planets or build time machines.




« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 10:09:16 AM by Foxy Freedom »
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