Prove an Atheist really exists?

nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Prove an Atheist really exists?

Hiw doe we know a person claiming to be an Atheist is really an Atheist?

Is it just an Anti-Jesus thing? It seems so on this website and just about every other "Skeptic/Freethinker/Progressive/Liberal/Humanist/et al . . ." place of rabble. I mean we certainly do not see any anti-Krishna bumber stickers, or anything out in public ffrom the atheist/skeptic think-tank on Mohammed being ridicualed for his supernatural mumbo gumbo.

 All we have is their atheistic word to go by. It seems to me that all a person claiming to be an Atheist is, is a person wanting attention. Like the loudest crying child in a pre-school needing attention.

"If," there is no God, why all the fuss?

When I was an Atheist, all of the religions in the world never stopped me from being asn atheist or living as free as anyone else. So, why all the complicated attacks on basically the Christian faith?

Money making perhaps? That certainly brings Atheist ventures and adventures into a proper light. I mean, heavy Metal rockers have used the anti-Christian bash-fest for riches for decades.

How can we prove Atheism and Atheists really exist? Becaiuse of what they personally feel and say?

Sorry, 0 x 0 = Atheism.

I'm thinking there is more to an Atheist than meets the eye.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Sorry for the typos. I

Sorry for the typos. I couldn't edit and pressed post too soon.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry, this is a little

 Sorry, this is a little off topic, but I wanted to get it out of the way first since it irks me having to read it whenever I look at your posts.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:

Something from nothing? Ahhhh no.

How many degrees in cosmology do you have such that you can make this statement?

I once found it difficult to overcome my prejudice against ex nihilo, which clearly violated the iron laws of thermodynamics. However, that all changed one day when I was abruptly reminded by Alan Guth, the founder of the inflationary hypothesis, that the actual matter/energy content may be very low because the false vacuum has negative energy, which cancels out the huge positive total of the energy present in the universe. He pointed out that since matter is interchangeable with energy and vice-versa, the universe could have started out of a quantum tunnelling event which broke the singularity, and released a huge tide of positive energy, cancelling out the negative energy, albeit not with perfect symmetry, we still see a small excess of energy (symmetry breaking is poorly understood).

However, this quantum tunnelling event clearly would violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's OK though, since it is only for 10^-45 seconds, and such small, unpredictable events are allowable under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (actually, they are demonstratable with the Casimir effect)?

In a flash, Guth had blown my mind. I had forgotten about the negative energy of the vacuum. But in truth, he had pointed out something really obvious. After all, the solution to something that seemingly breaks the first law of thermodynamics would probably have to be so simple and obvious, because if it was monstrous and complex, it would probably be false, given how iron that law is.

I also wish to cover ex nihilo. We need to understand spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.

If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one. As the four forces are unified into one, there is no coherent mathematical relationship, also called a singularity. This arrangement is extremely unstable, and as it spiralled asymptotically towards infinity and zero (because it has no mass), it breaks like a dam bursts, and the more stable arrangement (the four forces are broken thus producing the space time continuum) is born. Something can indeed come from nothing

The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.

To quote Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis:

> "If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguements fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that osmething more natural than nothing!" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "Nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vaopr in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water the exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water should readily crystallize into complex asymetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain instact untill comic rays tore them apart."(God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "Nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spoontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would be be that 'nothing' is unstable." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)

 

If we wind the clock back, we find a state of hypercompressed energy that created a false vacuum forcing an outward expansion which expanded at the rate of empty space called hyperinflation, which is about 10^50m/s. This is many times faster than light speed, but as there is no matter and no mass empty space can violate the c-limit.

Quantum tunnelling and hyperinflation will always be more parsimonious than God. Spontaneous breaking, and SU1xSU2xSU3 Grand Unifying theory (which have to do with something known as a false-vacuum fluctuation) are simply better explanations. They make sense.

The universe has set boundaries defined by the hyperbolic curvature of the space-time fabric. Granted, the universe is expanding under the push of Dark Energy, but it still has defined boundaries. When you reach the "edge" of the universe, you will simply curve around the side. But like the curvature of the Earth, this hyperbolic shape is so vast that it is completely imperceptible. The existence of Dark Matter (albeit not detected yet) was sealed by evidence that Omega is 0.3, and Lambda is 0.7, which is consistent with the known makeup of the universe, which is consistent with the Cosmic background black-body radiation detected by WMAP

The universe is not static either. It is expanding. Fast. There is a fight going on between the gravitational attraction of bodies of matter that reside in the space-time membrane and a mysterious "dark energy" that overpowers gravitational attraction. As gravity becomes weaker, expansion becomes faster. If we were to draw a map of the universe, the dark energy would be spread out in perfectly even pattern of exactly 10^-26 g/cm3. This means there is little more than an asteroid sized chunk in the entire galaxy. Almost nothing. Ordinary matter on the other hand, is clumped. In this map of the universe, there would be billions of of small dots representing galaxies arrayed in a filament-like arrangement, and no matter anywhere else. In most parts of the universe, the denisty of matter is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, which for all intents and purposes, is nothing.

If the universe is expanding, it had a beginning. It is not eternal. It was born in a singularity exactly 13.7 billion years ago according to extremely authoritative data from WMAP that can establish it to an astonishing 1% margin of error. Idiots call this singularity the Big Bang, when it was not big, and definitely not a bang.

One thing that struck me immediately is the notion that the BB was the "start" of the universe. This is not the case. BB is transition, not creation. The symmetry breaking, brane collision, false vacuum fluctuation etc is the creation, BB is a transitional event that occured 10^-43 seconds after the birth of the universe called the Planck Era. Nothing is known about the prior state, and by the reckoning of some cosmologists, nothing can be known of this state. But BB is a transition event, the genesis of matter and energy, not the universe. Of all the things that sealed my belief in the finite universe, none did more so than when I was shown Smoot's historic picture from the WMAP probe.

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: Hiw

nonbobblehead wrote:

Hiw doe we know a person claiming to be an Atheist is really an Atheist?

Is it just an Anti-Jesus thing? It seems so on this website and just about every other "Skeptic/Freethinker/Progressive/Liberal/Humanist/et al . . ." place of rabble. I mean we certainly do not see any anti-Krishna bumber stickers, or anything out in public ffrom the atheist/skeptic think-tank on Mohammed being ridicualed for his supernatural mumbo gumbo.

 All we have is their atheistic word to go by. It seems to me that all a person claiming to be an Atheist is, is a person wanting attention. Like the loudest crying child in a pre-school needing attention.

"If," there is no God, why all the fuss?

When I was an Atheist, all of the religions in the world never stopped me from being asn atheist or living as free as anyone else. So, why all the complicated attacks on basically the Christian faith?

Money making perhaps? That certainly brings Atheist ventures and adventures into a proper light. I mean, heavy Metal rockers have used the anti-Christian bash-fest for riches for decades.

How can we prove Atheism and Atheists really exist? Becaiuse of what they personally feel and say?

Sorry, 0 x 0 = Atheism.

I'm thinking there is more to an Atheist than meets the eye.

 

You must be fricking kidding me.  You said, "When I was an Atheist, all of the religions in the world never stopped me from being asn atheist or living as free as anyone else." 

If you were an atheist and have knowledge of that state, then why would you need a thread asking whether an atheist can exist?  Do you see the inherent absurdity of the question?

This looks more like an ad hominem attack than a quest for some truth.  I'll take the bullet for everyone, step down to the theists' level, and explain this self-evident reality of atheism.

First, Xians are forced to be Xians because their god will fry them if they don't.  It isn't a matter of conscience.  It is fear.  This is true with many religions, but we discuss Xianity because it is the superstructure for the milieu in which we live.  Now, atheists only have themselves to be accountable to.  We would have to lie to ourselves to not be what we are. 

Are you seeing how this works?  Theists must believe as they do out of fear of some primal, savage punishment.  Atheists believe as they do because of carefully reasoned logic and because we must look ourselves in the face every morning in the mirror.

So, quit being an incendiary pud and post interesting points.  I've seen babies shit more thought-provoking and complex topics than this.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1249
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
nonbobblehead wrote: Hiw

nonbobblehead wrote:

Hiw doe we know a person claiming to be an Atheist is really an Atheist?

As opposed to what?  A christian pretending to be an atheist?

 

nonbobblehead wrote:

Is it just an Anti-Jesus thing? It seems so on this website and just about every other "Skeptic/Freethinker/Progressive/Liberal/Humanist/et al . . ." place of rabble. I mean we certainly do not see any anti-Krishna bumber stickers, or anything out in public ffrom the atheist/skeptic think-tank on Mohammed being ridicualed for his supernatural mumbo gumbo.

christians repeatedly come to this site unsolicited.  As far as why hindus and muslims aren't coming here in droves, go ask them.   

nonbobblehead wrote:

All we have is their atheistic word to go by. It seems to me that all a person claiming to be an Atheist is, is a person wanting attention. Like the loudest crying child in a pre-school needing attention.

And you seem more than happy to give it.  Why would that be? 

nonbobblehead wrote:

"If," there is no God, why all the fuss?

When I was an Atheist, all of the religions in the world never stopped me from being asn atheist or living as free as anyone else.

Now that you're religious, do you perceive that atheism if stopping you from being religious or living as free as anyone else? 

nonbobblehead wrote:
So, why all the complicated attacks on basically the Christian faith?

If you were aware of what the "christian faith" does to adversely affect policy in the United States (where this particular group is based), you would quite understand. 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Money making perhaps? That certainly brings Atheist ventures and adventures into a proper light.

Atheist ventures???

L. Ron Hubbard said it best:  "If you want to make money, start a religion". 

nonbobblehead wrote:

I mean, heavy Metal rockers have used the anti-Christian bash-fest for riches for decades.

christian churches have been using the jesus-fest for (mega-) riches for 2 millennia.  

nonbobblehead wrote:

How can we prove Atheism and Atheists really exist? Becaiuse of what they personally feel and say?

Find an atheist, stop believing in him, then see if he goes away.

nonbobblehead wrote:

I'm thinking there is more to an Atheist than meets the eye.

Well at least you're thinking.  It's a start. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: Hiw

nonbobblehead wrote:

Hiw doe we know a person claiming to be an Atheist is really an Atheist?

Is it just an Anti-Jesus thing? It seems so on this website and just about every other "Skeptic/Freethinker/Progressive/Liberal/Humanist/et al . . ." place of rabble. I mean we certainly do not see any anti-Krishna bumber stickers, or anything out in public ffrom the atheist/skeptic think-tank on Mohammed being ridicualed for his supernatural mumbo gumbo.

 All we have is their atheistic word to go by. It seems to me that all a person claiming to be an Atheist is, is a person wanting attention. Like the loudest crying child in a pre-school needing attention.

"If," there is no God, why all the fuss?

When I was an Atheist, all of the religions in the world never stopped me from being asn atheist or living as free as anyone else. So, why all the complicated attacks on basically the Christian faith?

Money making perhaps? That certainly brings Atheist ventures and adventures into a proper light. I mean, heavy Metal rockers have used the anti-Christian bash-fest for riches for decades.

How can we prove Atheism and Atheists really exist? Becaiuse of what they personally feel and say?

Sorry, 0 x 0 = Atheism.

I'm thinking there is more to an Atheist than meets the eye.

I know I am an atheist and I care absolutely not at all whether you believe me or not. Can you say the same? Or do you feel compelled to try to make everyone agree with you?


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: Hiw

nonbobblehead wrote:

Hiw doe we know a person claiming to be an Atheist is really an Atheist?

Is it just an Anti-Jesus thing? 

As a christian you reject Thor and the theistic ideology that he embodies.  Why ?  Is it just an Anti-Thor thing?  (Repeat this question for the thousands of other gods you reject).

Quote:
 Like the loudest crying child in a pre-school needing attention.

Is it the theist or the atheist that requires a "Father" to lead them, instruct them and make decisions for them?

Is it the theist or the atheist that follows an ideology that teaches they must be like a child to attain immortality ?

Quote:
I'm thinking there is more to an Atheist than meets the eye.

I have yet to see much evidence for "thinking" in any of your posts.  You simply follow your passions, emotions and prejudice.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The complete and total

The complete and total idiocy of this topic requires no response. Theists don't exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Paranoia21
Paranoia21's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm with you,Vastet. This

I'm with you,Vastet. This joker just wants attention.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: Hiw

nonbobblehead wrote:

Hiw doe we know a person claiming to be an Atheist is really an Atheist?

They believe in no deity or deities.

nonbobblehead wrote:
Is it just an Anti-Jesus thing?
No.
nonbobblehead wrote:
It seems so on this website and just about every other "Skeptic/Freethinker/Progressive/Liberal/Humanist/et al . . ." place of rabble. I mean we certainly do not see any anti-Krishna bumber stickers, or anything out in public ffrom the atheist/skeptic think-tank on Mohammed being ridicualed for his supernatural mumbo gumbo.
On the contrary, I'd think you'll find a lot of Muslim-bashing from atheists on the internet. That said...Christianity is the biggest religion, and the most powerful. You don't oppose something by going after the smallest of it. Imagine the Cold War. What was the most concentrated-on enemy of the U.S.A.:China, the USSR, Cuba or Nicaragua? Answer: the USSR, which had a large population and a massive military, because paying more attention on a little country would be stupid and wasteful.

nonbobblehead wrote:
All we have is their atheistic word to go by. It seems to me that all a person claiming to be an Atheist is, is a person wanting attention. Like the loudest crying child in a pre-school needing attention.
Same can be said of theists.

nonbobblehead wrote:
"If," there is no God, why all the fuss?
Because theists try to fuck over the world a whole lot, and no one addresses the root caus of it.

nonbobblehead wrote:
When I was an Atheist, all of the religions in the world never stopped me from being asn atheist or living as free as anyone else. So, why all the complicated attacks on basically the Christian faith?
Because I don't see a need ot attack religions that are less than half its size?

nonbobblehead wrote:
Money making perhaps? That certainly brings Atheist ventures and adventures into a proper light. I mean, heavy Metal rockers have used the anti-Christian bash-fest for riches for decades.
You guys have us beaten, easily. In the last 10 years, who's sold more albums: Metallica or Creed?

nonbobblehead wrote:
How can we prove Atheism and Atheists really exist? Becaiuse of what they personally feel and say?
That's the best theists have.

nonbobblehead wrote:
Sorry, 0 x 0 = Atheism.
You REALLY think that means something?

nonbobblehead wrote:
I'm thinking there is more to an Atheist than meets the eye.

Thanks for giving us that credit, at least. Allow me to take it in another way than it was intended.

AmericanIdle wrote:

As a christian you reject Thor and the theistic ideology that he embodies. Why ? Is it just an Anti-Thor thing? (Repeat this question for the thousands of other gods you reject).

But....but....Thor is my religion and you have to respect that! WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!

Paranoia21 wrote:
I'm with you,Vastet. This joker just wants attention.
Don't we all?

 


RobertlewisIR
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-06-13
User is offlineOffline
No, it isn't just an

No, it isn't just an anti-Christian thing. However, in the United States, Christians make up about 80% of the population. While America is NOT a democracy, most people seem to think that it is, and want it to behave like one. Therefore, Christianity is not only a religious force, but a potent political one.

Were there no political risks involved with religion, atheists would simply live their lives. Some would take the time to write books about atheism, but no one would fight religion nearly so passionately.

However, there are many political risks. Creationism in schools, for example, is a very serious risk. Faith based initiatives are a horrid side effect of the mixing of religion and state. There are those who make every attempt to pass Constitutional amendments to ban homosexual marriage.

That's why atheists fight religion with such passion. And right now, in America, atheists outnumber all other religions but Christianity. The wiccans are insane, but they're not hurting anyone. Christianity is hurting people, and it's got to stop.

That's the reason for anti-Christian sentiment. Take your Jesus out of my government and put him back where he belongs, and I won't give a rat's ass what you believe.


Beloved Spear
Theist
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-03-05
User is offlineOffline
But the first of the two

But the first of the two Biblical creation stories doesn't talk about creation ex nihilo.  That's a later assumption.  Read in Hebrew, the first, Priestly Genesis account describes a universe formed from the tohu wabohu (my own weak transliteration).  That doesn't mean "nothing."  It means "nothingness," more clearly defined as a formless chaos, in which no one thing can be discerned relative to another thing.

What's interesting about those early liturgical poetics is how they mirror what we know about the initial formlessness of that high energy state.  Not perfectly, of course.  But songs and poetry are rarely perfect. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:

Sorry, 0 x 0 = Atheism.

Reasonable sane person minus reason and sanity = theism. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
RobertlewisIR wrote: Were

RobertlewisIR wrote:

Were there no political risks involved with religion, atheists would simply live their lives. Some would take the time to write books about atheism, but no one would fight religion nearly so passionately.

Sure...whatever.  This site isn't up because we want political control.  It's up because we're trying to disprove Christianity because if it's true then we're wrong.  Besides, we had our chance with Clinton and he messed up like hell.

Quote:
 

Faith based initiatives are a horrid side effect of the mixing of religion and state.

Actually, if you take time to look at the results, prisons with Christian programs in them have a very low rate of returning prisoners.  If it keeps 'em out of jail and doing good, why not accept it?

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I can't believe I wasted my

I can't believe I wasted my time reading this.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
So, has bobblehead agreed to

So, has bobblehead agreed to do a show yet?


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

 

nonbobblehead wrote:

Something from nothing? Ahhhh no.

How many degrees in cosmology do you have such that you can make this statement?

Thank you DG.

Quote:
 

I once found it difficult to overcome my prejudice against ex nihilo, which clearly violated the iron laws of thermodynamics. However, that all changed one day when I was abruptly reminded by Alan Guth, the founder of the inflationary hypothesis, that the actual matter/energy content may be very low because the false vacuum has negative energy, which cancels out the huge positive total of the energy present in the universe. He pointed out that since matter is interchangeable with energy and vice-versa, the universe could have started out of a quantum tunnelling event which broke the singularity, and released a huge tide of positive energy, cancelling out the negative energy, albeit not with perfect symmetry, we still see a small excess of energy (symmetry breaking is poorly understood).

Yes. This is why I deal with this subject in my essay on cosmological misconceptions:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 I have put your above quote into the essay - hope you approve.  I think you really ought to be making your section on the site, in a similar fashion. Would save you time.

Quote:
 

However, this quantum tunnelling event clearly would violate the laws of thermodynamics. That's OK though, since it is only for 10^-45 seconds, and such small, unpredictable events are allowable under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (actually, they are demonstratable with the Casimir effect)?

Excellent.  I'll quote this as well. You recall Guth's book better than I do... 

Quote:
 

In a flash, Guth had blown my mind. I had forgotten about the negative energy of the vacuum. But in truth, he had pointed out something really obvious. After all, the solution to something that seemingly breaks the first law of thermodynamics would probably have to be so simple and obvious, because if it was monstrous and complex, it would probably be false, given how iron that law is.

Excellent point again.  

Quote:
 

I also wish to cover ex nihilo. We need to understand spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.

If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one. As the four forces are unified into one, there is no coherent mathematical relationship, also called a singularity. This arrangement is extremely unstable, and as it spiralled asymptotically towards infinity and zero (because it has no mass), it breaks like a dam bursts, and the more stable arrangement (the four forces are broken thus producing the space time continuum) is born. Something can indeed come from nothing

The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.

Very nice. I think rather than endless quoting you, you should just get your own book on our site, and I can just cite your page.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Beloved Spear

Beloved Spear wrote:

 

What's interesting about those early liturgical poetics is how they mirror what we know about the initial formlessness of that high energy state. Not perfectly, of course. But songs and poetry are rarely perfect.

Your reasoning is backwards... the reality is that the poem is being interpreted according to modern cosmology... We can interpret these poems anyway we like, and naturally, those who wish to make sense of them by today's standards will interpret them by relying on current science.   Had we a different sense of cosmology, no doubt you'd find that these passages fit with that paradigm in some way, as well.

What would actually be interesting is if the OT actually was able to make a falsifiable hypothesis about the cosmos that predicted modern cosmology. It could have, but it didn't.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: When

nonbobblehead wrote:

When I was an Atheist, all of the religions in the world never stopped me from being asn atheist or living as free as anyone else. So, why all the complicated attacks on basically the Christian faith?

if you ever actually were an atheist you wouldn't have such a ridiculously poor understanding of what an atheist is, so you're most likely lying.

but you're also not much of a theist, because you obviously have enough doubts about your own faith to feel the need to come here and raise a stink over "all the fuss". 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens