3 of 3
3
[post title]
Posted: 14 February 2011 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Gragor:

Then why are you participating in this discussion;  when Johan de Haan started this thread he put it as “Surely when the coin must fall, between intrusion by Bronze Age idiocies or rational secular standards of knowledge and morality, it has but one side towards which it can gravitate, the side of right”

Considering “the secular standards of knowledge”, mainly science, the conclusion is that the universe must have had a beginning,  that we can “see” that beginning today in the form of the CMBR and considering the universality of causality in the natural world, we logically have to conclude, not speculate, that the universe must have had a cause, a creating force, a deity behind its origin;  and this is the” side of right”, thus answering the initial question.

As for the crucifix, thank you for the interesting information: I wasn’t aware of poles being used instead of crosses nor of the idea of the unfolding cube.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2011 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

SkepticX:

It ultimately boils down to; “We don’t know how it happened, therefore we know God did it.”

But we do know several facts.  Science tells us that the universe must have had a beginning which means that science tells us that the universe is not eternal nor sprang spontaneously out of nothing.  We know also that everything in the natural universe has a cause and therefore the logic is that the universe being in the realm of the natural phenomena, also must have had a cause.

We know also, that there was a big-bang some 13,7 billion years ago and this event marked the beginning of space-time.

We also know that in the natural world entropy always increases. Yet there is no natural explanation on how out of the big-bang, which was originally just that a big-bang, and right after its beginning the universe was an extremely hot,  gaseous and chaotic place, it evolved into atoms, with their structure, stars, planets, orbits, life, and intelligent life, this is the whole universe moving completely against the natural laws where things decay instead of moving from chaos the order.  For this to happen, the only way is to have an outside force.

The general argument is that science disproves religion, or that religion runs against science.  But I have shown that the truth is the other way around.  An atheistic position runs against science specially in the realm of cosmology where the atheist is obliged to embrace the idea that either the universe is eternal or that it sprang spontaneously out of nothing which is like believing in unicorns and giant teapots orbiting the sun and preposterous ideas with respect to science.

On the other hand, science points that some force, a deity like entity, god, did it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2011 05:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  61
Joined  2011-01-09
IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 08:33 PM

Gragor:

Then why are you participating in this discussion;

I simply wanted to.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 01:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2010-10-12

[removed]

[ Edited: 23 August 2012 04:52 AM by TinyTony]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 01:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2010-10-12

[removed]

[ Edited: 23 August 2012 04:53 AM by TinyTony]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2011 02:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  8
Joined  2010-10-12

[removed]

[ Edited: 23 August 2012 04:53 AM by TinyTony]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2011 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  414
Joined  2006-02-01

I’m going to dismantle your logic and end with a pithy and ironic turnaround.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

Science tells us that the universe must have had a beginning

No, science tells us that 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the universe exploded outwards from a singularity. This is not quite the same thing.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

...which means that science tells us that the universe is not eternal nor sprang spontaneously out of nothing.

No, it doesn’t mean that.  It simply means that 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the universe exploded outwards from a singularity.  Knowing when the Universe started doesn’t tell us very much at all about why it started and nor should it. No one is saying anything about eternity or spontaneity, OK?

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

We know also that everything in the natural universe has a cause and therefore the logic is that the universe being in the realm of the natural phenomena, also must have had a cause.

Well, some scientists working in the field of quantum mechanics would disagree with you on this. As I’m sure you’re aware there is a body or evidence suggesting that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. I’m not going to dwell on the details ‘cos it’ll make this post even more boring but suffice to say that your statement should not be taken as gospel.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

We know also, that there was a big-bang some 13,7 billion years ago and this event marked the beginning of space-time.

Excellent. I’m glad we agree on this.  Unfortunately for your argument, accepting this also means accepting that asking how the Universe came to be created, or what existed before it existed are, in a literal and commonplace sense, meaningless questions. Nothing existed before the Universe because there was no time or space for anything to exist in. If one accepts the argument that time and space came into being simultaneously then there is no need to even frame the question of ‘what came before’.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

The general argument is that science disproves religion, or that religion runs against science.

Yes.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

But I have shown that the truth is the other way around.

No.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

An atheistic position runs against science specially in the realm of cosmology where the atheist is obliged to embrace the idea that either the universe is eternal or that it sprang spontaneously out of nothing which is like believing in unicorns and giant teapots orbiting the sun and preposterous ideas with respect to science.

First of all, the atheist is obliged to believe nothing, sir. That’s rather the point of it. Secondly, spontaneously springing into existence and lasting eternally are not mutually exclusive - in fact, if space and time did come into being simultaneously then spontaneously springing into existence and lasting eternally go hand in hand.

Thirdly, and finally, the real problem here is this: atheists know what they know and make a best guess at what they don’t based on all the available data. Religious people by definition know the answers before they ask the question.
You say “Based on the second law of thermodynamics, the universality of causality in the natural world, the prevalence of the Big Bang theory as the most accepted cosmology theory, we must conclude the universe had a beginning, and it had a cause outside space-time.  This cause, or force, must have the characteristics of a deity, of god, and this god is the God of Abraham.” It’s amusing how the assumptions in that sentence get progressively more desperate and assumptive until you screech to a halt at the conclusion that it ‘must…be the God of Abraham’. Not good logic but fun to watch. A prime example of someone having the answer and inserting the question. 

Look, it might be (for example) that universes spring into being because that’s just what universes do. We don’t know yet, do we? But we’ll sure as fuck never find out by saying ‘Oh, don’t worry about all that - God did it’.

 Signature 

All Christians should be sent to heaven immediately.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2011 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19
Occam’s Razor - 22 March 2011 10:13 AM

I’m going to dismantle your logic and end with a pithy and ironic turnaround.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

Science tells us that the universe must have had a beginning

No, science tells us that 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the universe exploded outwards from a singularity. This is not quite the same thing.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

...which means that science tells us that the universe is not eternal nor sprang spontaneously out of nothing.

No, it doesn’t mean that.  It simply means that 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the universe exploded outwards from a singularity.  Knowing when the Universe started doesn’t tell us very much at all about why it started and nor should it. No one is saying anything about eternity or spontaneity, OK?

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

We know also that everything in the natural universe has a cause and therefore the logic is that the universe being in the realm of the natural phenomena, also must have had a cause.

Well, some scientists working in the field of quantum mechanics would disagree with you on this. As I’m sure you’re aware there is a body or evidence suggesting that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. I’m not going to dwell on the details ‘cos it’ll make this post even more boring but suffice to say that your statement should not be taken as gospel.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

We know also, that there was a big-bang some 13,7 billion years ago and this event marked the beginning of space-time.

Excellent. I’m glad we agree on this.  Unfortunately for your argument, accepting this also means accepting that asking how the Universe came to be created, or what existed before it existed are, in a literal and commonplace sense, meaningless questions. Nothing existed before the Universe because there was no time or space for anything to exist in. If one accepts the argument that time and space came into being simultaneously then there is no need to even frame the question of ‘what came before’.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

The general argument is that science disproves religion, or that religion runs against science.

Yes.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

But I have shown that the truth is the other way around.

No.

IAMWHOIAM - 14 February 2011 09:04 PM

An atheistic position runs against science specially in the realm of cosmology where the atheist is obliged to embrace the idea that either the universe is eternal or that it sprang spontaneously out of nothing which is like believing in unicorns and giant teapots orbiting the sun and preposterous ideas with respect to science.

First of all, the atheist is obliged to believe nothing, sir. That’s rather the point of it. Secondly, spontaneously springing into existence and lasting eternally are not mutually exclusive - in fact, if space and time did come into being simultaneously then spontaneously springing into existence and lasting eternally go hand in hand.

Thirdly, and finally, the real problem here is this: atheists know what they know and make a best guess at what they don’t based on all the available data. Religious people by definition know the answers before they ask the question.
You say “Based on the second law of thermodynamics, the universality of causality in the natural world, the prevalence of the Big Bang theory as the most accepted cosmology theory, we must conclude the universe had a beginning, and it had a cause outside space-time.  This cause, or force, must have the characteristics of a deity, of god, and this god is the God of Abraham.” It’s amusing how the assumptions in that sentence get progressively more desperate and assumptive until you screech to a halt at the conclusion that it ‘must…be the God of Abraham’. Not good logic but fun to watch. A prime example of someone having the answer and inserting the question. 

Look, it might be (for example) that universes spring into being because that’s just what universes do. We don’t know yet, do we? But we’ll sure as fuck never find out by saying ‘Oh, don’t worry about all that - God did it’.

Razor:

To answer your objections please consider a few of Victor Stenger quotations from his book “God the Failed Hypothesis”

“However, science knows a lot more than most people realize.  Despite the talk of “scientific revolutions” and “paradigm shifts,” the basic laws of physics are essentially the same today as they were at the time of Newton…. Anyone familiar with modern physics will have to agree that certain fundamentals, in particular the great conservation principle of energy and momentum, have not changed in four hundred years. The conservation principles and Newton’s laws of motion still appear in relative and quantum mechanics.

“Conservation of energy and other basic laws hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years.  Surely any observation of their violation during the puny human life span would be reasonable termed a miracle”

”  If you were to ask me, ” What is the defining property of energy?  I would answer the fact that it is conserved. If energy were not conserved, the quantity would be of little use in physics.  When one measures a quantity that is not conserved under conditions when it should be, then that can be taken as good evidence that what is being observed is not some form of energy”

“But, then, where does the energy come from?  The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, requires that energy come from somewhere.  In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big-bang.”

“Then we would have a legitimate, scientific reason to conclude that a miracle, namely, a violation of energy conservation, was needed to bring the universe into being.  While this might not conclusively prove the existence of a creator to everyone’s satisfaction, it would certainly be a strong mark in his favor”

These are Victor Stenger’s ideas, a well known atheist physicists.

His answer to this situation, is that the net energy of the universe appears to be zero, therefore there was no violation of the law of energy conservation, and therefore there is no need for a creator.

But see, his line of reasoning is exactly the same as mine.  What needs to be done now is to get a good idea on whether the “zero energy universe” hypothesis is true or false.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2011 07:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  414
Joined  2006-02-01

Well the fact that you’re even talking about ‘whether the zero energy universe hypothesis is true or false’ suggests that you’re open to new information. One of the most trying things about religious people in my opinion - and as I said above - is that they virtually never are. I am.  Atheism to me doesn’t mean knowing there isn’t a god or creator or supernatural entity/ies - it means not believing that there is on insufficient or self-contradictory evidence.  I don’t have enough data to know how the Universe formed or if there’s a ‘why’ involved;  the point here is that no-one does.

If your position is ‘I don’t know how the Universe started or what it’s for - maybe it was made by a supernatural being for a purpose’ then I think someone would have to be extraordinarily close-minded not to see that as at least possible. However, no matter how you spin it, too much of what is in mankind’s holy books is woefully inaccurate in terms of verifiable data and horribly insufficient when it comes to ethical guidelines.  The gods and their deeds, as portrayed in these books, are wholly incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis concerning the advent of time and space (let alone questions of purpose and destiny) - so whilst I can admit to the possibility of a supernatural force as yet undiscovered I cannot with good conscience give credence to the evidence advanced thus far.

 Signature 

All Christians should be sent to heaven immediately.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2011 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19
Occam’s Razor - 22 March 2011 11:41 AM

Well the fact that you’re even talking about ‘whether the zero energy universe hypothesis is true or false’ suggests that you’re open to new information. One of the most trying things about religious people in my opinion - and as I said above - is that they virtually never are. I am.  Atheism to me doesn’t mean knowing there isn’t a god or creator or supernatural entity/ies - it means not believing that there is on insufficient or self-contradictory evidence.  I don’t have enough data to know how the Universe formed or if there’s a ‘why’ involved;  the point here is that no-one does.

If your position is ‘I don’t know how the Universe started or what it’s for - maybe it was made by a supernatural being for a purpose’ then I think someone would have to be extraordinarily close-minded not to see that as at least possible. However, no matter how you spin it, too much of what is in mankind’s holy books is woefully inaccurate in terms of verifiable data and horribly insufficient when it comes to ethical guidelines.  The gods and their deeds, as portrayed in these books, are wholly incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis concerning the advent of time and space (let alone questions of purpose and destiny) - so whilst I can admit to the possibility of a supernatural force as yet undiscovered I cannot with good conscience give credence to the evidence advanced thus far.

I am more inclined towards the idea an external force, energy, deity, or whatever you want to call it, is needed to explain the origin of the universe.

1. Hypothesis:

The scientific evidence we have points to the existence of a cause outside space time

2. Facts

Fact : There is a real universe
Fact: There is free energy (we see it everywhere, the sun, stars, etc)
Fact: The Second law of thermodynamics is universal
Fact: There was a big-bang 13.7 billion years ago
Fact: The first Law of thermodynamics is universal

Reasoning based on facts

There must have been a beginning of the universe otherwise there would not be any free energy left according to the the second Law of thermodynamics (entropy); the observed evidence of this beginning is the big-bang, the most accepted cosmological model, and the scientific framework is general relativity;  the first law states that the big-bang as a natural event must conserve energy and if it doesn’t an outside cause is necessary, unless the net energy of the universe is 0; this seems not to be the case since a zero energy universe needs some energy to start with and, we observe that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, therefore there must be net positive energy that drives the expansion (dark energy).

Conclusion:

The hypothesis seems to be true since the scientific evidence points to the existence of an outside force in the beginning.

So it seems that given the universality of the laws of thermodynamics, the universe cannot have sprung out of nothing, because that would be a violation of the first law, and it couldn’t be eternal which would entail a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

And as you said, whether this force, energy or deity is the god of Abraham, well that is a different discussion that needs to be had.

[ Edited: 22 March 2011 08:23 AM by IAMWHOIAM]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2011 03:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2011-06-04

Johan

I hear what you’re saying and I understand your concern for the children but….
... and it’s a very big BUT.


Who would you trust to guard and bring up your children better and with greater concern for their well-being than yourself?
An institution? A government? A school? A child rearing and care centre?
Would you willingly hand your newborn child over to a bunch of strangers whose beliefs on upbringing, morals, right and wrong are remarkably different to your own? Why would you expect anyone else to feel differently about the matter? Because you know better? But they know they know better.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed