Why I'm a theist or a confused agnostic

Beelzebozo
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Why I'm a theist or a confused agnostic

Sorry for just joining a  pro-atheist message board and unloading my random thoughts. I spent a weekend with a friend of mine who is an atheist and I listened to him go on and on about atheism. I never entered into any sort of argument with him, I would just rather not go there (even though I agree with him on some points). So I post to just unload and perhaps "go there" with other atheists.

Simply put I believe in god because I observe an elegant order to universe. I see god in things like images from hubble. Looking at the night sky fills me with a sense that there is something larger than myself. Take music for instance, I could pick up a guitar and just strike random notes which would sound like crap. However put that guitar in the hands of skilled player and they basically play mathematical sequences that are pleasing to ear. I also have a hard time believing that the universe came from nothing. I believe that god created the universe and life. However I believe that these things happened through a scientific process.

I simply can't accept that death is a lights out situation. My mind reaches out to understand the unknown, to think that death brings and end to that frustrates me. Because of that I believe there is an afterlife. My belief is that in death you are rejoined with god. (now I'm going off the deepend) Since I believe that you are rejoined with god, I have to believe in not being joined with god (a hell if you want). My hell is not a place where you burn and little men with pitchforks poke you all day. My hell is either A) not knowing and communing with god -- being left to know that you could know but you never will or B) taking a dirtnap. Now becuase I have to believe in a heaven/hell situation, I have to believe in a criteria for getting to those two places. There has to be a retribution for evil actions. I can't accept that some fool can shoot innocent people in a crowd, turn the gun on himself and then be magically whisked away to what I consider heaven. From that I have to believe there is a way to get to heaven. Thats where I see (insert religion here) coming into play. I believe that by trying to understand god through your religion and by understanding science as a means to better humanity gets your ticket stamped for "heaven".

Having said that I believe that  religions and religious texts are mostly fiction. To me the argument for or against god always goes south when atheiests and theists start quoting the bible/koran/<insert text here>.

Bascially I believe in god because I want there to be a god. Just some thoughts.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So it's obvious to you that

So it's obvious to you that God exists?

 

 

 


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Beelzebozo wrote:Sorry for

Beelzebozo wrote:

Sorry for just joining a  pro-atheist message board and unloading my random thoughts.

No need to apologize, half of the boards is about people unloading their thoughts, random or not.

Quote:
I spent a weekend with a friend of mine who is an atheist and I listened to him go on and on about atheism. I never entered into any sort of argument with him, I would just rather not go there (even though I agree with him on some points). So I post to just unload and perhaps "go there" with other atheists.

Is there a reason you'd rather not go there?  It might be an interesting conversation, especially if you have some common ground already, which is not always typical.

Beelzebozo wrote:

Simply put I believe in god because I observe an elegant order to universe. I see god in things like images from hubble. Looking at the night sky fills me with a sense that there is something larger than myself. Take music for instance, I could pick up a guitar and just strike random notes which would sound like crap. However put that guitar in the hands of skilled player and they basically play mathematical sequences that are pleasing to ear. I also have a hard time believing that the universe came from nothing. I believe that god created the universe and life. However I believe that these things happened through a scientific process.

You said you believe "god" created the universe and life.  Could you try to explain exactly what "god" means to you?  It's clearly not the Christian deity, nor Allah, nor any deity of a "major" religion.

Beelzebozo wrote:

I simply can't accept that death is a lights out situation. My mind reaches out to understand the unknown, to think that death brings and end to that frustrates me. Because of that I believe there is an afterlife.

If this was a subject besides death and you sought to understand, would you not liking the answer that seemed scientific cause you to believe something else?  In other words, do you realize that simply not liking an answer doesn't make it any less true, regardless of what you believe?  Some truths aren't pleasant, unfortunately.  If it came down to it, would you prefer the truth or the answer that made you feel better?

Beelzebozo wrote:

My belief is that in death you are rejoined with god. (now I'm going off the deepend) Since I believe that you are rejoined with god, I have to believe in not being joined with god (a hell if you want). My hell is not a place where you burn and little men with pitchforks poke you all day. My hell is either A) not knowing and communing with god -- being left to know that you could know but you never will or B) taking a dirtnap. Now becuase I have to believe in a heaven/hell situation, I have to believe in a criteria for getting to those two places. There has to be a retribution for evil actions. I can't accept that some fool can shoot innocent people in a crowd, turn the gun on himself and then be magically whisked away to what I consider heaven. From that I have to believe there is a way to get to heaven. Thats where I see (insert religion here) coming into play. I believe that by trying to understand god through your religion and by understanding science as a means to better humanity gets your ticket stamped for "heaven".

What about people who shoot innocent people in a crowd in the name of a religion?  Are they not following their religion and trying to understand god correctly?

When you say taking a dirtnap, what precisely do you mean?  And again, understanding exactly what you mean by god would be very helpful.

Finally, how do you define evil?  Do you think evil is a tangible force?

Beelzebozo wrote:

Having said that I believe that  religions and religious texts are mostly fiction. To me the argument for or against god always goes south when atheiests and theists start quoting the bible/koran/<insert text here>.

When atheists quote those texts, they're arguing against those specific gods.  They know quite well it does nothing to "disprove" the Roman gods, the pagan gods, or the deistic "god."  However, it's typically the theists who quote the Bible/Koran/etc who try to force their view upon others.

Beelzebozo wrote:

Bascially I believe in god because I want there to be a god. Just some thoughts.

And doing so is quite understandable, it's extremely comforting and thinking that there is a grand scheme of justice can make it easier to bear some of the horrors of the universe.  However, I must ask: if you filled in the blanks of the following statement with anything besides god, what would you think of it?

"I believe in <blank> because I want <blank> to be true."


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi, Beelzebozo! Welcome to

Hi, Beelzebozo! Welcome to the forum.

Beelzebozo wrote:
Sorry for just joining a  pro-atheist message board and unloading my random thoughts.

No need to apologize. This is the perfect place to dump your cargo.

Quote:
I also have a hard time believing that the universe came from nothing.

Me too, which is why I don't believe it either. Just say "I don't know." You don't know, right?

Quote:
Bascially I believe in god because I want there to be a god.

I also often want people to be punished or awarded according to their deeds in this life, and, perhaps, I want there to be something greater than just my own desires. However, that doesn't mean there is. There is no way for me to emphasize this enough; your desires do NOT become reality. If you value reality more than comfort, then you must make every effort to clearly separate the evidence from your bias. If you prefer the latter, then this discussion is pointless.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
First of all, welcome, and

First of all, welcome, and thank you for your refreshing honesty. I should warn you that this site is pretty brutal with its language, so understand that if you're getting a lot of trash talk, or people are being blunt to the point of bad manners, it's kind of part of the culture, here. Nothing personal.

That said, the reason I find your post refreshing in its honesty is because we get a lot of veiled "interest" in atheism that ends up being a precursor for an attack on atheism. In your case, you've said what you believe without wussing out, and that's admirable. That's not to say I'm not going to pick on you just a little, though.

Beelzebozo wrote:
Simply put I believe in god because I observe an elegant order to universe.

That's one conclusion to reach. I also observe an elegant order to the universe. In my case, though, I don't believe it leads to what someone might call "god" or "God". The problem that I have with connecting the two things is that upon closer inspection, they're unrelated.

1) I perceive the universe as having an elegant order;

2) An elegant order means there is a god;

3) Therefore, there is a god.

doesn't follow, because 2) is very questionable, and 1) has the problem of our perception. Why would we perceive order in things? There are lots of physical reasons, and they're all seated firmly in physical reality.

Beelzebozo wrote:
I also have a hard time believing that the universe came from nothing. I believe that god created the universe and life. However I believe that these things happened through a scientific process.

To put your mind at ease, there are no credible scientists suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Furthermore, the necessity for god in creating the universe and life is questionable, given that work in abiogenesis is coming along nicely.

Beelzebozo wrote:
I simply can't accept that death is a lights out situation.

Fair enough, but that seems to address what you wish was true, rather than what is actually true.

Beelzebozo wrote:
Having said that I believe that  religions and religious texts are mostly fiction. To me the argument for or against god always goes south when atheiests and theists start quoting the [...].

It's fairly uninteresting, I'd have to agree. It seems the opportunities for grey-area interpretation are endless with religious texts. One problem, though: how else do we learn about a single god? Or even multiple gods?

Beelzebozo wrote:
Bascially I believe in god because I want there to be a god.

I really hope you don't get attacked on this point, because (as I've said) it's an honest assessment, and I think you've been truthful with yourself.

Personally, I'm too curious not to find out what the truth of something is, and that led me to atheism. It might not do the same for you, but if you have any serious concerns, I'd be more than willing to help.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Beelzebozo wrote:Sorry for

Beelzebozo wrote:

Sorry for just joining a  pro-atheist message board and unloading my random thoughts. I spent a weekend with a friend of mine who is an atheist and I listened to him go on and on about atheism. I never entered into any sort of argument with him, I would just rather not go there (even though I agree with him on some points). So I post to just unload and perhaps "go there" with other atheists.

Welcome to the forums, nothing wrong with unloading random thoughts, and maybe getting a different perspective, helps everyone get a better grasp on their ideas, beliefs and arguments.

Quote:

Simply put I believe in god because I observe an elegant order to universe. I see god in things like images from hubble. Looking at the night sky fills me with a sense that there is something larger than myself. Take music for instance, I could pick up a guitar and just strike random notes which would sound like crap. However put that guitar in the hands of skilled player and they basically play mathematical sequences that are pleasing to ear. I also have a hard time believing that the universe came from nothing. I believe that god created the universe and life. However I believe that these things happened through a scientific process.

There really isn't a scientific process in nature unless you are meaning the scientific methodology of studying how things occur/function in our universe, but the natural world functions on natural physical process. As a species we have evolved to find a pattern, like patterns in snowflakes for example, they make look orderd but it's just how the chemical process of water freeze looks like, no god did this at all, and god did not set the order up for it happen.

Quote:

I simply can't accept that death is a lights out situation. My mind reaches out to understand the unknown, to think that death brings and end to that frustrates me. Because of that I believe there is an afterlife. My belief is that in death you are rejoined with god. (now I'm going off the deepend) Since I believe that you are rejoined with god, I have to believe in not being joined with god (a hell if you want). My hell is not a place where you burn and little men with pitchforks poke you all day. My hell is either A) not knowing and communing with god -- being left to know that you could know but you never will or B) taking a dirtnap. Now becuase I have to believe in a heaven/hell situation, I have to believe in a criteria for getting to those two places. There has to be a retribution for evil actions. I can't accept that some fool can shoot innocent people in a crowd, turn the gun on himself and then be magically whisked away to what I consider heaven. From that I have to believe there is a way to get to heaven. Thats where I see (insert religion here) coming into play. I believe that by trying to understand god through your religion and by understanding science as a means to better humanity gets your ticket stamped for "heaven".

Having the desire to live on is part of our genetic make up, the desire to pass on our genes to the next generation is a common things (not everyone feels this way however) and it's that desire to keep on living to insure that the species continues, which is perfectly natural, the unknown really does scare many people, as I have always stated, we all know we are going to die, but some of us accept that we are going to die, which is the difference. Death represents the unknown, because there is no way to know if there is an afterlife for sure, and as a species that has evolved with the desire to live on, death scares us even more because it is the end of life.

Quote:

Having said that I believe that  religions and religious texts are mostly fiction. To me the argument for or against god always goes south when atheiests and theists start quoting the bible/koran/<insert text here>.

Bascially I believe in god because I want there to be a god. Just some thoughts.

Wanting to have a god and there being a god are 2 different things really, just like not wanting to die, it's what we would like but doesn't mean it's going to happen or that it is true. I personally have never found a coherent, logical or rational explanation for god, as such I don't believe in one or any type of god. I just simply accept that facts, this is my life, the only one I have and once I am dead, that's it, my daughter will live on, have children hopefully and my genetic information will continue.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Would you be willing to

Would you be willing to examine a few things and tell me how your "afterlife" works.  You suggest that some part of you survives the death of your body.  What part is it?  Emotions can be manipulated and even disrupted by damage to the frontal lobe.  So does that part get carried over?  What happens to the person who doesn't have emotions?  Our memories can also be lost due to damage with the brain.  Or people who do a 180 after trauma to the brain.  Which person gets the afterlife? The one before the trauma or the altered one?  It all seems to be very tied to the physical and entirely to the brain.  Does a pig get into your heaven or hell?  If not what makes people so special that they do? Does a being need to meet some threshold of intelligence or emotional state that is arbitrary?

 

When/If you reply please think to yourself what do I have to support this?  How do you determine truth from wishful thinking? 

It looks to me that if you were god you would do things this way, but why do you assume the deity you believe in is anything like you and only you?

 

 

I always find it funny when someone points to some image from space and say see that is amazing.  We have the physical laws that determines why those elegant things turn out the way they do.  Those same laws also determine why a tornado can turn a tree into a killer.  These physical laws don't discriminate between death and elegance.

 

 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
You conflate "I want there

You conflate "I want there to be," with "there must be," so many times in your post that it should be obvious where the logic fails.

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


Beelzebozo
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-09-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the great

Thanks for the great responses. No its not obvious that there is a god to me otherwise I would probably be a member of a clergy. I believe I catch snippets of something larger at various moments in my life.

If I had to explain what god is, god is the what I perceive for instance when I look at the stars. I feel insignificant and yet at the same time I feel its miraculous that I can look at the stars and have that thought. So god is definitely a perception.I realize that my view is totally wishful thinking which is why I say I believe because I want it to be so. I dont let that belief cloud my judgment. I don't dismiss what science tells me. I dont let my belief in god run contrary to what I know to be true.

On my idea of the afterlife. My view is I dont know all of the details. I can only hope that something like our conscious carries on.Do animals and what not get there -- dont know and it doesnt bother me that I dont. Does god differ than me. I dont know. Yes I realize that a tornado is a random natural occurrence that is destructive, but that doesnt stop me from thinking about the natural forces that bring that tornado into existence. I'm sorry, the natural world bakes my noodle.

I could say that I see god as the sum total of all physical laws. Laws known and yet to be known. I guess I'm an agnostic theist if there is such a thing. I think it takes a lot of guts to be an atheist. I think if you could prove there is no god as easy as saying 2+2=4 there would probably be mass suicides. I think people need that cozy blanet, to say you dont need that takes courage. I think my friend realizes that it does take a lot of courage and so constantly talks about atheism to reinforce that in his mind.  I dont go there with him because arguing god is illogical and no win situation. You put forth your idea and move on. I cant prove a negative. I make the claim. I have no proof therefore I must resign that what I claim exists only within the confines of my mind. That claim gives me comfort. Its like the matrix I know the steak isnt real, but damn its tasty. My mind would rather continue on in a  belief that be thrust into a cold place where I dont have my cozy blanket. I think thats the reality for most people.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Holy crap. I love what you

Holy crap. I love what you wrote.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Beelzebozo wrote:I could say

Beelzebozo wrote:
I could say that I see god as the sum total of all physical laws. Laws known and yet to be known. I guess I'm an agnostic theist if there is such a thing.

I'm sure a person could classify themselves as anything. An agnostic theist might someone who doesn't know if a god or gods exist, but still believes that a god or gods exist.

Beelzebozo wrote:
I think it takes a lot of guts to be an atheist. I think if you could prove there is no god as easy as saying 2+2=4 there would probably be mass suicides.

I've already done it, and thus far, the suicide rate is unaffected (as far as I know). But I understand the sentiment.

Beelzebozo wrote:
I think people need that cozy blanet, to say you dont need that takes courage. I think my friend realizes that it does take a lot of courage and so constantly talks about atheism to reinforce that in his mind.

Haha! You mean he's bragging! Sometimes new atheists get all excited because they're unburdened of something that has been bothering them, and so there's a period of euphoria. We might take that out on our friends a bit. I don't think when I went through that it was because I thought I was being courageous.

Beelzebozo wrote:
I dont go there with him because arguing god is illogical and no win situation. You put forth your idea and move on. I cant prove a negative. I make the claim. I have no proof therefore I must resign that what I claim exists only within the confines of my mind. That claim gives me comfort. Its like the matrix I know the steak isnt real, but damn its tasty. My mind would rather continue on in a  belief that be thrust into a cold place where I dont have my cozy blanket. I think thats the reality for most people.

There's really no reason for me to try and convince you, to be perfectly honest. I have no problem with people who acknowledge that they're engaging in a comfortable delusion. It's not like I've never done it, and I'm sure there are things that I believe right now that are false, I just haven't checked them out, so one could say that I'm suffering from a delusion in that area (whatever that happens to be).

I'm definitely in denial that I have a certification exam today. Definitely. Studying is lame.

So far be it from me to drag you through an uncomfortable process. My experience of becoming an atheist was scary at first, then a huge relief, then euphoria, and now a sort of mild discomfort with the perpetuation of myths. But many people are much more locked into their belief systems than you are, and becoming an atheist would be a huge psychological trauma. As such, I understand what you're saying.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beelzebozo wrote:Thanks for

Beelzebozo wrote:

Thanks for the great responses. No its not obvious that there is a god to me otherwise I would probably be a member of a clergy. I believe I catch snippets of something larger at various moments in my life.

If I had to explain what god is, god is the what I perceive for instance when I look at the stars. I feel insignificant and yet at the same time I feel its miraculous that I can look at the stars and have that thought. So god is definitely a perception.I realize that my view is totally wishful thinking which is why I say I believe because I want it to be so. I dont let that belief cloud my judgment. I don't dismiss what science tells me. I dont let my belief in god run contrary to what I know to be true.

On my idea of the afterlife. My view is I dont know all of the details. I can only hope that something like our conscious carries on.Do animals and what not get there -- dont know and it doesnt bother me that I dont. Does god differ than me. I dont know. Yes I realize that a tornado is a random natural occurrence that is destructive, but that doesnt stop me from thinking about the natural forces that bring that tornado into existence. I'm sorry, the natural world bakes my noodle.

I could say that I see god as the sum total of all physical laws. Laws known and yet to be known. I guess I'm an agnostic theist if there is such a thing. I think it takes a lot of guts to be an atheist. I think if you could prove there is no god as easy as saying 2+2=4 there would probably be mass suicides. I think people need that cozy blanet, to say you dont need that takes courage. I think my friend realizes that it does take a lot of courage and so constantly talks about atheism to reinforce that in his mind.  I dont go there with him because arguing god is illogical and no win situation. You put forth your idea and move on. I cant prove a negative. I make the claim. I have no proof therefore I must resign that what I claim exists only within the confines of my mind. That claim gives me comfort. Its like the matrix I know the steak isnt real, but damn its tasty. My mind would rather continue on in a  belief that be thrust into a cold place where I dont have my cozy blanket. I think thats the reality for most people.

 

Your post is refreshing.  My theory is there are not many types of theists, and you can break them up into two broad categories.  1) They really believe, think magic and miracles happen, think there is a personal god, etc.  and 2) people who think there must be some spirit or life force around, but can't really put their finger on it.

 

You are obviously in the second category and, at least from me, you won't get any grief for it.  Human beings obviously have a desire for greater purpose, and religion is one of the ways that can be met.  Where atheists get into fights is when people take that feeling and apply dogma to it and turn it into a religion.

 

I do have a couple questions though.  1) Do you believe in a personal god?  As in, do you think whatever is out there cares about you in any way? 2) Do you believe whatever is out there is currently active in the physical world?  As in, miracles, prayer being useful, etc.  3) Do you believe that morality is natural, or supernatural?  As in, is murder wrong because a god said it is wrong, or is it wrong because it hurts a society? 4) Do you think there is a part of you that is not physical?  As in, a soul, a spirit, life force?

 

I only ask those questions because I think it is important for you, as an agnostic theist (that is a real thing, by the way), to understand what you really believe.  I think it is possible to be an rational agnostic theist.  But it is also possible to be an irrational agnostic theist who follows irrational, dangerous beliefs without really considering what it means.

 

I hope you stick around, this board can be rather hostile sometimes.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beelzebozo
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-09-07
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:You are

mellestad wrote:

You are obviously in the second category and, at least from me, you won't get any grief for it.  Human beings obviously have a desire for greater purpose, and religion is one of the ways that can be met.  Where atheists get into fights is when people take that feeling and apply dogma to it and turn it into a religion.

Agreed. I've never been satisfied with religion except maybe buddhism which for the most part has no god.

mellestad wrote:

I do have a couple questions though.  1) Do you believe in a personal god?  As in, do you think whatever is out there cares about you in any way?

I believe that god only cares if you do. My definition of care is very loose. I believe god leaves us to our own devices. God doesnt intercede. My rationale is because I have the ability to care about pondering god,  god has to care about revealing itself so that I can ponder. Thats about as far as it goes. I dont believe in prayer.

mellestad wrote:

2) Do you believe whatever is out there is currently active in the physical world?  As in, miracles, prayer being useful, etc.  

Nope.

mellestad wrote:

3) Do you believe that morality is natural, or supernatural?  As in, is murder wrong because a god said it is wrong, or is it wrong because it hurts a society?

Very interesting. I think morality can come from religion or philosophy and from the natural world. For instance lets say I'm a buddhist which teaches right action and not harming another. However I live in a country that says its ok to kill people with blue eyes. I can come to the conclusion the morality of the country I live in is in error because of my religion. If you want to extend this to christianity, you could say the 10 commandments say not to kill so therefore I can reason that the country I live in is immoral. I don't believe that morality comes from god. Prior to the 10 commandments everyone knew that murder was wrong simply because no one wanted to be murdered. Morality comes from an agreed upon ruleset of a given people. For instance in pre-British India, there were funeral pyres where the woman was burned with the deceased man. This was the norm, apart of the religion and no one questioned it. The British saw it and were appaled. So in that regard its quite relative to the folks in the agreed upon ruleset.

mellestad wrote:

4) Do you think there is a part of you that is not physical?  As in, a soul, a spirit, life force?

 

I would say yes. I would say a persons energy cannot be destroyed. I wont say soul, spirit, or life force...just energy. <covering up with my cozy blanket>

mellestad wrote:

I only ask those questions because I think it is important for you, as an agnostic theist (that is a real thing, by the way), to understand what you really believe.  I think it is possible to be an rational agnostic theist.  But it is also possible to be an irrational agnostic theist who follows irrational, dangerous beliefs without really considering what it means.

  

Thanks for provoking me to think! I need to clarify my beliefs to myself. I wouldn't consider my beliefs dangerous in that I am always willing to accept contrary evidence. I spoke with a fundamentalist christian friend today and he basically said I'm just an agnostic. I'm pretty cozy with that. I know that I dont know.

mellestad wrote:

I hope you stick around, this board can be rather hostile sometimes.

  

Pffft. I'm old internet salt. I've been around since the days of uunet flame wars over having intercourse with a certain skull. I have thick skin and if I dont like something I can move on...simple.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Beelzebozo wrote:I would say

Beelzebozo wrote:
I would say yes. I would say a persons energy cannot be destroyed. I wont say soul, spirit, or life force...just energy. <covering up with my cozy blanket>

What is a person's 'energy?' 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beelzebozo wrote:mellestad

Beelzebozo wrote:

mellestad wrote:

You are obviously in the second category and, at least from me, you won't get any grief for it.  Human beings obviously have a desire for greater purpose, and religion is one of the ways that can be met.  Where atheists get into fights is when people take that feeling and apply dogma to it and turn it into a religion.

Agreed. I've never been satisfied with religion except maybe buddhism which for the most part has no god.

mellestad wrote:

I do have a couple questions though.  1) Do you believe in a personal god?  As in, do you think whatever is out there cares about you in any way?

I believe that god only cares if you do. My definition of care is very loose. I believe god leaves us to our own devices. God doesnt intercede. My rationale is because I have the ability to care about pondering god,  god has to care about revealing itself so that I can ponder. Thats about as far as it goes. I dont believe in prayer.

mellestad wrote:

2) Do you believe whatever is out there is currently active in the physical world?  As in, miracles, prayer being useful, etc.  

Nope.

mellestad wrote:

3) Do you believe that morality is natural, or supernatural?  As in, is murder wrong because a god said it is wrong, or is it wrong because it hurts a society?

Very interesting. I think morality can come from religion or philosophy and from the natural world. For instance lets say I'm a buddhist which teaches right action and not harming another. However I live in a country that says its ok to kill people with blue eyes. I can come to the conclusion the morality of the country I live in is in error because of my religion. If you want to extend this to christianity, you could say the 10 commandments say not to kill so therefore I can reason that the country I live in is immoral. I don't believe that morality comes from god. Prior to the 10 commandments everyone knew that murder was wrong simply because no one wanted to be murdered. Morality comes from an agreed upon ruleset of a given people. For instance in pre-British India, there were funeral pyres where the woman was burned with the deceased man. This was the norm, apart of the religion and no one questioned it. The British saw it and were appaled. So in that regard its quite relative to the folks in the agreed upon ruleset.

mellestad wrote:

4) Do you think there is a part of you that is not physical?  As in, a soul, a spirit, life force?

 

I would say yes. I would say a persons energy cannot be destroyed. I wont say soul, spirit, or life force...just energy. <covering up with my cozy blanket>

mellestad wrote:

I only ask those questions because I think it is important for you, as an agnostic theist (that is a real thing, by the way), to understand what you really believe.  I think it is possible to be an rational agnostic theist.  But it is also possible to be an irrational agnostic theist who follows irrational, dangerous beliefs without really considering what it means.

  

Thanks for provoking me to think! I need to clarify my beliefs to myself. I wouldn't consider my beliefs dangerous in that I am always willing to accept contrary evidence. I spoke with a fundamentalist christian friend today and he basically said I'm just an agnostic. I'm pretty cozy with that. I know that I dont know.

mellestad wrote:

I hope you stick around, this board can be rather hostile sometimes.

  

Pffft. I'm old internet salt. I've been around since the days of uunet flame wars over having intercourse with a certain skull. I have thick skin and if I dont like something I can move on...simple.

 

 

Nice responses, I think you will get along fine with most of the people here.  Your morality response is especially appropriate, since that is often our main gripe with theists.  You'll get challenged on the energy thing, but that is about it.  I am guessing that because you are partial to Buddhism you can even define energy as your actual physical energy, and how it can never be destroyed , so you are immortal at some level.

 

Another similar trippy thought is that since all of your matter is a part of the universe, including your brain/thoughts/emotions, you know, *you*, that sort of makes the universe an intelligent, sentient construct.  After all, there is nothing different on a molecular level between you and any other matter...and outside matter will eventually be inside you, and your inside matter will eventually be outside of you, the universe can be considered alive, and you can be considered one with the universe.  That is one way to consider yourself immortal...imagine, in a few billion years "you" might be at the heart of a sun, or part of an interstellar mass hurtling through the galaxy.  If the universe ever constricts again your matter will be spread through the whole universe with the next big bang!

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:...To put

HisWillness wrote:

...To put your mind at ease, there are no credible scientists suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Furthermore, the necessity for god in creating the universe and life is questionable, given that work in abiogenesis is coming along nicely.

Will, I dont know what this means....I open up scientific mind magazine and it talks about what happened in the first 10 to the -34 seconds of the universe. So scientists are acting like it started at a point in time. That does not make sense. A multiverse budding off a new universe makes sense at a point in time. But an ex-nihilo universe is somewhat embraced as a possiblity by Todangst. Even if its true, it doesnt make sense to start a clock then. Time has to be measured between two points already in existence. So it does not make sense to talk about 10 to the -34 seconds from....what exactly. So scientists are making statements that dont make sense knowing that we kinda understand where theyre coming from. But technically impossible and not accurate. The singularity is a broken concept, like supernatural. We talk about it but it cannot exist. So whether its ultimately ex-nihilo or from singularity, they both have problems.

Technically it does not make sense to put an age on the universe /multiverse at all. Its just something to make us feel better about being here. So scientists do it too. I'm saying this not just because of logic but because of relativistic time. There is no universal now. So there can be no one age of the universe.

Now some are saying dark matter isnt really there. Maybe theres something else and we just did the math wrong....I cant believe we havent figured this shit out yet....we act pretty confident...


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Hello, Belzebozo!I hope

Hello, Belzebozo!
I hope you'll have fun here. You seem like a fine guy and I've got no negative remarks. Is there anything that you found out and want to tell us?

butterbattle wrote:

Beelzebozo wrote:
I would say yes. I would say a persons energy cannot be destroyed. I wont say soul, spirit, or life force...just energy. <covering up with my cozy blanket>

What is a person's 'energy?' 

It's a metaphorical description of a phenomenon. Energy uses the matter as a vehicle. But if a matter is really unusual, a ghost-like matter, (belonging to a person) for example, then people tend to forget about the matter and describe it only as an "energy". It really feels and behaves differently than a normal matter, so it's very tempting to call it just "energy". It's similarly "material" as light, which is perceived as almost immaterial and the purest form of energy. But I have to admit, this term serves very well for those who have felt it on their own skin, we just know that it's the best word for it, until scientists will find out something official.

According to Paul Kammerer's laws, energy of a lesser system does not vanish, but it integrates into the greater system, which actually strengthtens it. This may apply also to a person. (Das Gesetz der Serie - The Law of Seriality) The official science at first rejected this, but then the development went through things like fractal mathemathics or chaos theory, and it eventually got to Kammerer's theory "from the other end", but forgetting Kammerer in the process. I just had read it, I'd have to read about it more... Or just copy and paste the whole book here.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


_Jordan_
_Jordan_'s picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
another angle

I think you have much less to be sorry about than a theist joining a pro-atheist group... Please understand i'm also just throwing my thoughts out there, i'm not here trying to convert anyone or anything. I for one don't think it's unatural at all to see God in nature. At least, a god, I don't think nature and creation are enough to point to anyone one God but i certainly think its just as rational to believe in some first cause as it is to believe in either no cause or an infinite ammount of causes. I'm pretty fundamental but I don't think that the whole 7 day creation idea is the only possibility. I'm open to other theories i just don't see any of them sufficiently answering the question of origin.

I guess the next step is how the heck do we know who this first cause is. So many religions try to answer that question, each one claiming to be the true religion with the true god. I might as well come out with it now, I'm Christian, just about as reformed and calvinistic as they come. So I obviously would define God as He is revealed in the Bible. I guess that's really how each religion would define God, based on whatever religious texts they have. Why have i stuck with Christianity? I've never had a question that I couldn't sufficiently answer with what i believe. I come to discussion boards like this all the time, I read more than a few atheistic/agnostic/theistic books and I've never been put into doubt about anything i believe. I guess you could claim i was biased in reading them but i don't believe so. My point is i tried something and it worked, i don't feel in any way that i'm just trying to make myself feel better by picking the religion that gives me the most hope and happiness especially after death. My point for you is, don't settle for something just becasue it makes you feel good. I would want you to settle for what you think best answers your asic questions about origin, meaning, death, reality, etc. If some form of atheism does it for you, great. Budhism, great. It's great to come to these boards and bounce ideas off eachother but as i theist i get the idea that all thoughts and walks of life are welcome here, but if your theistic then your irrational. I just want to encourage you to keep an open mind from all sides.


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

...To put your mind at ease, there are no credible scientists suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Furthermore, the necessity for god in creating the universe and life is questionable, given that work in abiogenesis is coming along nicely.

Will, I dont know what this means....I open up scientific mind magazine and it talks about what happened in the first 10 to the -34 seconds of the universe. So scientists are acting like it started at a point in time. That does not make sense. A multiverse budding off a new universe makes sense at a point in time. But an ex-nihilo universe is somewhat embraced as a possiblity by Todangst. Even if its true, it doesnt make sense to start a clock then. Time has to be measured between two points already in existence. So it does not make sense to talk about 10 to the -34 seconds from....what exactly. So scientists are making statements that dont make sense knowing that we kinda understand where theyre coming from. But technically impossible and not accurate. The singularity is a broken concept, like supernatural. We talk about it but it cannot exist. So whether its ultimately ex-nihilo or from singularity, they both have problems.

Technically it does not make sense to put an age on the universe /multiverse at all. Its just something to make us feel better about being here. So scientists do it too. I'm saying this not just because of logic but because of relativistic time. There is no universal now. So there can be no one age of the universe.

Now some are saying dark matter isnt really there. Maybe theres something else and we just did the math wrong....I cant believe we havent figured this shit out yet....we act pretty confident...

Hi guys im new here i signed up just to reply to this (dont worry im sticking around)

My friend time does not exist. it only exist in the mind

when they say first 10 to the -34 seconds  they mean that when the big bang happened time and space was created at the same time so asking what happened before is like asking what happened before nothing, the ans nothing

oh and nothin cant exist have you ever heard of vacuum fluctuations look it up before posting like that

 


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred

Adventfred wrote:

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

...To put your mind at ease, there are no credible scientists suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Furthermore, the necessity for god in creating the universe and life is questionable, given that work in abiogenesis is coming along nicely.

Will, I dont know what this means....I open up scientific mind magazine and it talks about what happened in the first 10 to the -34 seconds of the universe. So scientists are acting like it started at a point in time. That does not make sense. A multiverse budding off a new universe makes sense at a point in time. But an ex-nihilo universe is somewhat embraced as a possiblity by Todangst. Even if its true, it doesnt make sense to start a clock then. Time has to be measured between two points already in existence. So it does not make sense to talk about 10 to the -34 seconds from....what exactly. So scientists are making statements that dont make sense knowing that we kinda understand where theyre coming from. But technically impossible and not accurate. The singularity is a broken concept, like supernatural. We talk about it but it cannot exist. So whether its ultimately ex-nihilo or from singularity, they both have problems.

Technically it does not make sense to put an age on the universe /multiverse at all. Its just something to make us feel better about being here. So scientists do it too. I'm saying this not just because of logic but because of relativistic time. There is no universal now. So there can be no one age of the universe.

Now some are saying dark matter isnt really there. Maybe theres something else and we just did the math wrong....I cant believe we havent figured this shit out yet....we act pretty confident...

Hi guys im new here i signed up just to reply to this (dont worry im sticking around)

My friend time does not exist. it only exist in the mind

when they say first 10 to the -34 seconds  they mean that when the big bang happened time and space was created at the same time so asking what happened before is like asking what happened before nothing, the ans nothing

oh and nothin cant exist have you ever heard of vacuum fluctuations look it up before posting like that

 

Welcome to the forum fred but I am not satisfied with your stock answer. Singularities cant exist in reality. They are just concepts. Why perpetuate an impossible concept as fact. Im ok with vac flucts...just finally not ok with postulating what happened femtoseconds after nothing. Its nonsensical. You cant just say the clock started then. It doesnt work with relativity. Technically it makes the universe ageless....depending on where you are watching it from...You should look up a few things thats been posted here on the big bang before commenting again. I have.


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever


JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

...To put your mind at ease, there are no credible scientists suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Furthermore, the necessity for god in creating the universe and life is questionable, given that work in abiogenesis is coming along nicely.

Will, I dont know what this means....I open up scientific mind magazine and it talks about what happened in the first 10 to the -34 seconds of the universe. So scientists are acting like it started at a point in time. That does not make sense. A multiverse budding off a new universe makes sense at a point in time. But an ex-nihilo universe is somewhat embraced as a possiblity by Todangst. Even if its true, it doesnt make sense to start a clock then. Time has to be measured between two points already in existence. So it does not make sense to talk about 10 to the -34 seconds from....what exactly. So scientists are making statements that dont make sense knowing that we kinda understand where theyre coming from. But technically impossible and not accurate. The singularity is a broken concept, like supernatural. We talk about it but it cannot exist. So whether its ultimately ex-nihilo or from singularity, they both have problems.

Technically it does not make sense to put an age on the universe /multiverse at all. Its just something to make us feel better about being here. So scientists do it too. I'm saying this not just because of logic but because of relativistic time. There is no universal now. So there can be no one age of the universe.

Now some are saying dark matter isnt really there. Maybe theres something else and we just did the math wrong....I cant believe we havent figured this shit out yet....we act pretty confident...

Hi guys im new here i signed up just to reply to this (dont worry im sticking around)

My friend time does not exist. it only exist in the mind

when they say first 10 to the -34 seconds  they mean that when the big bang happened time and space was created at the same time so asking what happened before is like asking what happened before nothing, the ans nothing

oh and nothin cant exist have you ever heard of vacuum fluctuations look it up before posting like that

 

Welcome to the forum fred but I am not satisfied with your stock answer. Singularities cant exist in reality. They are just concepts. Why perpetuate an impossible concept as fact. Im ok with vac flucts...just finally not ok with postulating what happened femtoseconds after nothing. Its nonsensical. You cant just say the clock started then. It doesnt work with relativity. Technically it makes the universe ageless....depending on where you are watching it from...You should look up a few things thats been posted here on the big bang before commenting again. I have.

Thanks for the welcome but absolute nothing cant exist because something exist

example: could you have a cup in your right hand while at the same time dont have a cup in your right hand.

Again thanks for the welcome


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred

Adventfred wrote:


JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

...To put your mind at ease, there are no credible scientists suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Furthermore, the necessity for god in creating the universe and life is questionable, given that work in abiogenesis is coming along nicely.

Will, I dont know what this means....I open up scientific mind magazine and it talks about what happened in the first 10 to the -34 seconds of the universe. So scientists are acting like it started at a point in time. That does not make sense. A multiverse budding off a new universe makes sense at a point in time. But an ex-nihilo universe is somewhat embraced as a possiblity by Todangst. Even if its true, it doesnt make sense to start a clock then. Time has to be measured between two points already in existence. So it does not make sense to talk about 10 to the -34 seconds from....what exactly. So scientists are making statements that dont make sense knowing that we kinda understand where theyre coming from. But technically impossible and not accurate. The singularity is a broken concept, like supernatural. We talk about it but it cannot exist. So whether its ultimately ex-nihilo or from singularity, they both have problems.

Technically it does not make sense to put an age on the universe /multiverse at all. Its just something to make us feel better about being here. So scientists do it too. I'm saying this not just because of logic but because of relativistic time. There is no universal now. So there can be no one age of the universe.

Now some are saying dark matter isnt really there. Maybe theres something else and we just did the math wrong....I cant believe we havent figured this shit out yet....we act pretty confident...

Hi guys im new here i signed up just to reply to this (dont worry im sticking around)

My friend time does not exist. it only exist in the mind

when they say first 10 to the -34 seconds  they mean that when the big bang happened time and space was created at the same time so asking what happened before is like asking what happened before nothing, the ans nothing

oh and nothin cant exist have you ever heard of vacuum fluctuations look it up before posting like that

 

Welcome to the forum fred but I am not satisfied with your stock answer. Singularities cant exist in reality. They are just concepts. Why perpetuate an impossible concept as fact. Im ok with vac flucts...just finally not ok with postulating what happened femtoseconds after nothing. Its nonsensical. You cant just say the clock started then. It doesnt work with relativity. Technically it makes the universe ageless....depending on where you are watching it from...You should look up a few things thats been posted here on the big bang before commenting again. I have.

Thanks for the welcome but absolute nothing cant exist because something exist

example: could you have a cup in your right hand while at the same time dont have a cup in your right hand.

Again thanks for the welcome

so you're saying there was always something....so the universe is ageless....so we agree then somehow?? And we agree time has no universal meaning....so are you saying that even though the age of the universe is meaningless, it makes sense to talk about when the big bang was? or the last big bang or whatever...


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

...To put your mind at ease, there are no credible scientists suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Furthermore, the necessity for god in creating the universe and life is questionable, given that work in abiogenesis is coming along nicely.

Will, I dont know what this means....I open up scientific mind magazine and it talks about what happened in the first 10 to the -34 seconds of the universe.

Time and space are just dimensions of the same thing, so having something "before" space-time is nonsensical. "Before" can only happen when you have space (and thus time). So without space, there's nothing "before" or "after".

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
But an ex-nihilo universe is somewhat embraced as a possiblity by Todangst.

Most likely out of exasperation. Note that claiming to not know what happened is not the same as being sure that the universe "came from nowhere". The topic is complex enough so that it's silly to conclude that either the universe "came from something" or "came from nothing". The nature of space-time near the singularity is the kind of thing that people do physics PhDs on, so all I can do is suggest further study.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
Even if its true, it doesnt make sense to start a clock then. Time has to be measured between two points already in existence. So it does not make sense to talk about 10 to the -34 seconds from....what exactly. So scientists are making statements that dont make sense knowing that we kinda understand where theyre coming from. But technically impossible and not accurate. The singularity is a broken concept, like supernatural. We talk about it but it cannot exist. So whether its ultimately ex-nihilo or from singularity, they both have problems.

Except that the singularity is just a theoretical point in a mathematical model. So saying that anyone is claiming that the singularity "exists" is misleading. A singularity is a mathematical construct, and sometimes the popular explanations have to do some translating from math. That can lead to people believing that they have an understanding of the current model without ever looking at the math. I'm not sure that's possible.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
Technically it does not make sense to put an age on the universe /multiverse at all. Its just something to make us feel better about being here. So scientists do it too. I'm saying this not just because of logic but because of relativistic time. There is no universal now. So there can be no one age of the universe.

Now you're just getting carried away. It's a mathematical model. Relativity is also math, so talking about it like it can be translated into a philosophical understanding is being hasty. In fact, a hasty generalization.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
Now some are saying dark matter isnt really there. Maybe theres something else and we just did the math wrong....I cant believe we havent figured this shit out yet....we act pretty confident...

Any physicist can tell you what the current model is. That's what we've got. If someone comes up with a part of the model that better fits the evidence, then it gets used instead. It's a work in progress, so it's not like "Oh no! We totally screwed this up! We're completely wrong about everything!" It's just an update to the mathematical model.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

...To put your mind at ease, there are no credible scientists suggesting that the universe came from nothing. Furthermore, the necessity for god in creating the universe and life is questionable, given that work in abiogenesis is coming along nicely.

Will, I dont know what this means....I open up scientific mind magazine and it talks about what happened in the first 10 to the -34 seconds of the universe.

Time and space are just dimensions of the same thing, so having something "before" space-time is nonsensical. "Before" can only happen when you have space (and thus time). So without space, there's nothing "before" or "after".

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
But an ex-nihilo universe is somewhat embraced as a possiblity by Todangst.

Most likely out of exasperation. Note that claiming to not know what happened is not the same as being sure that the universe "came from nowhere". The topic is complex enough so that it's silly to conclude that either the universe "came from something" or "came from nothing". The nature of space-time near the singularity is the kind of thing that people do physics PhDs on, so all I can do is suggest further study.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
Even if its true, it doesnt make sense to start a clock then. Time has to be measured between two points already in existence. So it does not make sense to talk about 10 to the -34 seconds from....what exactly. So scientists are making statements that dont make sense knowing that we kinda understand where theyre coming from. But technically impossible and not accurate. The singularity is a broken concept, like supernatural. We talk about it but it cannot exist. So whether its ultimately ex-nihilo or from singularity, they both have problems.

Except that the singularity is just a theoretical point in a mathematical model. So saying that anyone is claiming that the singularity "exists" is misleading. A singularity is a mathematical construct, and sometimes the popular explanations have to do some translating from math. That can lead to people believing that they have an understanding of the current model without ever looking at the math. I'm not sure that's possible.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
Technically it does not make sense to put an age on the universe /multiverse at all. Its just something to make us feel better about being here. So scientists do it too. I'm saying this not just because of logic but because of relativistic time. There is no universal now. So there can be no one age of the universe.

Now you're just getting carried away. It's a mathematical model. Relativity is also math, so talking about it like it can be translated into a philosophical understanding is being hasty. In fact, a hasty generalization.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
Now some are saying dark matter isnt really there. Maybe theres something else and we just did the math wrong....I cant believe we havent figured this shit out yet....we act pretty confident...

Any physicist can tell you what the current model is. That's what we've got. If someone comes up with a part of the model that better fits the evidence, then it gets used instead. It's a work in progress, so it's not like "Oh no! We totally screwed this up! We're completely wrong about everything!" It's just an update to the mathematical model.

But Will, I really like generalizing...its one of my favorite hobbies...cant I just be a little hasty??? How else will I get questions answered??


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thanks hiswillingness for

Thanks hiswillingness for explaining it to him

Get this in your head justanotherbeliever the big bang created time and space at the same time so saying wat happened before makes no sense

its simple logic but then again believe transends logic


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

But Will, I really like generalizing...its one of my favorite hobbies...cant I just be a little hasty??? How else will I get questions answered??

Haha! Hey, knock yourself out. Of course, I'll still answer the questions.

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
my point with relativity

my point with relativity was if you are sitting on a photon, you are everywhere in the universe at once and all clocks have stopped. All lengths have contracted to 0. So photons arent moving at all as far as they are concerned. Light is omni present. Thats kinda interesting.

If you are looking forward from the big bang we now are not 14 Gyrs away due to relativity...depending on what constant you use we are much less time than that....these were my points that remain unchanged...

We say age since the big bang because it makes us sound more definite about knowing what happened...although we are relatively sure about some kind of big bang event, that is far from being able to extrapolate to this supposed singularity in space-time that started it all...

but thanks for your guys inputs...this was in wikipedia under age of universe..at least they admit its not totally reasonable.

"The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.75 billion years of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP. In contrast, theories of the origin of the primordial state remain very speculative. If one extrapolates the Lambda-CDM model backward from the earliest well-understood state, it quickly (within a small fraction of a second) reaches a singularity called the "Big Bang singularity." This singularity is not considered to have any physical significance, but it is convenient to quote times measured "since the Big Bang," even though they do not correspond to a physically measurable time. For example, "10−6 second after the Big Bang" is a well-defined era in the universe's evolution. In one sense it would be more meaningful to refer to the same era as "13.7 billion years minus 10−6 seconds ago," but this is unworkable since the latter time interval is swamped by uncertainty in the former.

Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, cosmologists presently use "age of the universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever wrote:my

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
my point with relativity was if you are sitting on a photon, you are everywhere in the universe at once and all clocks have stopped. All lengths have contracted to 0. So photons arent moving at all as far as they are concerned. Light is omni present. Thats kinda interesting.

It's interesting, but wrong. If what you're saying were true, then there would be no darkness. And if all lengths were reduced to 0, then there would be no "speed of light", it would depend entirely on the distance traveled.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
If you are looking forward from the big bang we now are not 14 Gyrs away due to relativity...depending on what constant you use we are much less time than that....these were my points that remain unchanged...

Actually, you haven't presented a different calculation for the beginning of the universe.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
We say age since the big bang because it makes us sound more definite about knowing what happened

No. It's just ... part ... of ... the ... math. Mathematical model. It's a calculation from a mathematical model.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
...although we are relatively sure about some kind of big bang event, that is far from being able to extrapolate to this supposed singularity in space-time that started it all...

Oh, the humanity!

Mathematical model. The singularity is just part of the freaking mathematical model. Holy shit.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
but thanks for your guys inputs...this was in wikipedia under age of universe..at least they admit its not totally reasonable.

"The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.75 billion years of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP. In contrast, theories of the origin of the primordial state remain very speculative. If one extrapolates the Lambda-CDM model backward from the earliest well-understood state, it quickly (within a small fraction of a second) reaches a singularity called the "Big Bang singularity." This singularity is not considered to have any physical significance, but it is convenient to quote times measured "since the Big Bang," even though they do not correspond to a physically measurable time. For example, "10−6 second after the Big Bang" is a well-defined era in the universe's evolution. In one sense it would be more meaningful to refer to the same era as "13.7 billion years minus 10−6 seconds ago," but this is unworkable since the latter time interval is swamped by uncertainty in the former.

Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, cosmologists presently use "age of the universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang."

But they're saying the same thing that I did, that the singularity is just part of the mathematical model, and not a specifically physical thing.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
my point with relativity was if you are sitting on a photon, you are everywhere in the universe at once and all clocks have stopped. All lengths have contracted to 0. So photons arent moving at all as far as they are concerned. Light is omni present. Thats kinda interesting.

It's interesting, but wrong. If what you're saying were true, then there would be no darkness. And if all lengths were reduced to 0, then there would be no "speed of light", it would depend entirely on the distance traveled.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
If you are looking forward from the big bang we now are not 14 Gyrs away due to relativity...depending on what constant you use we are much less time than that....these were my points that remain unchanged...

Actually, you haven't presented a different calculation for the beginning of the universe.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
We say age since the big bang because it makes us sound more definite about knowing what happened

No. It's just ... part ... of ... the ... math. Mathematical model. It's a calculation from a mathematical model.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
...although we are relatively sure about some kind of big bang event, that is far from being able to extrapolate to this supposed singularity in space-time that started it all...

Oh, the humanity!

Mathematical model. The singularity is just part of the freaking mathematical model. Holy shit.

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:
but thanks for your guys inputs...this was in wikipedia under age of universe..at least they admit its not totally reasonable.

"The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.75 billion years of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP. In contrast, theories of the origin of the primordial state remain very speculative. If one extrapolates the Lambda-CDM model backward from the earliest well-understood state, it quickly (within a small fraction of a second) reaches a singularity called the "Big Bang singularity." This singularity is not considered to have any physical significance, but it is convenient to quote times measured "since the Big Bang," even though they do not correspond to a physically measurable time. For example, "10−6 second after the Big Bang" is a well-defined era in the universe's evolution. In one sense it would be more meaningful to refer to the same era as "13.7 billion years minus 10−6 seconds ago," but this is unworkable since the latter time interval is swamped by uncertainty in the former.

Though the universe might in theory have a longer history, cosmologists presently use "age of the universe" to mean the duration of the Lambda-CDM expansion, or equivalently the elapsed time since the Big Bang."

But they're saying the same thing that I did, that the singularity is just part of the mathematical model, and not a specifically physical thing.

This is where our philosphies differ. It seems perfectly right for you to have a math model that breaks down. And for me it isnt. Yes, all models break down. But thats what Im talking about. For me the age of the universe is 14Gyr + UNKNOWN POSSIBLY VERY LARGE QUANTITY. Thats one point.  There is a big difference in saying hey I have to explain this with some really complicated math but it works, trust me. As compared to I have this mostly figured out and can explain this with some very complicated math that breaks down at some point, but its ok, trust me, its mostly right. Those are quite different statements. I will get a reference for that looking forwards from the beginning, being a different amount of time calculation too.

And ok I get singularities as a math model. But what you do is bound yourself away from the singularities when you are solving them. You dont try to say heres what happened 10 to the -43 seconds after the singularity and stating it as fact. Now if they posed it as a hypothetical singularity with a big IF, I would be fine with the whole thing. (AGAIN YES, KNOW ITS A MATH MODEL). There might not have been any singularity at all. Maybe just finite and dense. By saying 10 to the -43 seconds they are implying practically a singularity.  If you dont believe me about the photon I'll have to get a reference.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
http://quantumweird.wordpress

http://quantumweird.wordpress.com/category/riding-a-photon/

 

this talks about if you were riding a photon you would have the experience of being everywhere at once (not that anything with mass can attain that speed by adding more speed)...


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Here is the other reference...

 http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the calendar. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? The million million expansion of five and a half days gives an age of the universe as 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is in my opinion extraordinary.

The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them. For the duration of each day and the details of how that matches with the measured history of the universe and the earth, see The Science of God.

(Obviously there are some complaints about his use of a million million to get the number he wants in the end...but my point was much simpler...age of the universe depends on relativity...thats all I was saying....)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

 http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

15 billion or six days?

Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the calendar. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? The million million expansion of five and a half days gives an age of the universe as 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is in my opinion extraordinary.

The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them. For the duration of each day and the details of how that matches with the measured history of the universe and the earth, see The Science of God.

(Obviously there are some complaints about his use of a million million to get the number he wants in the end...but my point was much simpler...age of the universe depends on relativity...thats all I was saying....)

 

Can you also give us a paper about the talking snake?  I like that part best.

My point is, what is your point?  If the Bible has any scientific truth in it, it is obviously a coincidence.

 

If you were only trying to make a point about relativity, don't muddle the issue with silly justifications for inerrancy.

 

(I won't comment on the physics, never having studied that)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5862
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
The Genesis story is

The Genesis story is violently inconsistent with pretty much all well-established science. Anyone trying to justify it as corresponding to any sort of correspondence with reality is displaying either extreme ignorance, naiveté, or dishonesty.

Whatever the 'actual' time duration of whatever preceded the earliest time after the hypothetical singularity that we have some confidence in, there is zero justification for assuming that anything other than an incredibly condensed, unstructured mass-energy concentration existed for that 'time', and that virtually no details of whatever may have preceded that state can have had any influence on the history of the Universe after it - that is one of the intrinsic properties of a singularity.

Of course a 'true' singularity is not likely as it conflicts with Quantum Mechanics, but it would have to be a state which approximates a singularity, but the extrapolation of our known physical laws into such an incredibly dense state is extremely problematic.. 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology