Question to the rational responders.
I'm interested in knowing what your philosophical foundations are. Do you subscribe to reductionism, emergentism or holism? Do you have your own philosophy? Be as brief or as descriptive as you like.
- Login to post comments
I don’t really know enough about those philosophies to say I follow those or not, but I can tell you a few things. Also I would argue almost everyone has there own why of thinking.
I am atheist in the sense I lack a belief in all gods. I am agnostic in the sense I can’t prove a negative. I am “anti-theist” in the sense some gods can’t logically exist.
I feel morals come mostly from empathy then anything else.
Beliefs are not equal. A well justified belief based on evidence from multiple sources is much better then just wanting something to be true.
There is no such thing as disproof, don’t ask for it, don’t let people ask for it.
Matter in its most basic form, probably unknown, has always existed. Change is a rearrangement of these particles or units of matter.
Reality is not relative. If it was relative there would be no real world in which everything is.
I will criticize with I feel is irrational. No one gets a free pass. The only time someone might get off the hook is if I have more pressing concerns such as I’m about to be late or getting shot at.
Things like Reason, Logic, and Science are our best tools in finding a truth to something.
Supernatural = Magic, enough said.
I'm gonna venture a guess that Spacebuddha, you are familiar with the Integral approach =)
I tend to pick and choose what works, but I'm best summed up as a metaphysical naturalist. Most of what I believe stems from science and empiricism, including my takes on morality and ethics.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Are you denying the big bang?
Thanks,
Ned
No he isn't.
Do you even know what the big bang is?
I am not a cosmologist. My understanding is in the beginning there was nothing, then the nothing became a densely packed something, and the densely packed something rapidly expaned into the universe...
Thanks!
Neither am I.
You got it right except for the 'in the beginning there was nothing' part.
I don't know the exact number, but there's a point in time before which we cannot speak of how the universe looked like in any meaningful way.
So what the Big Bang states, is that at the point in time from which we are able to describe the universe, there was a densely packed something, and the densely packed something rapidly expaned into the universe...
The state the instant before the big bang is not stable (otherwise, the big bang does not happen).
You can declare that time doesn't exist before then, but that makes the beginning of time "the beginning".
Otherwise, the change that converts the state from its stable condition to unstable is "the beginning".
The difference between "nothing" and "a super dense lump that sits idle for infinity" is largely semantics...
Sure, but nothing about what you said here makes the proposition that matter/energy always existed contradict the Big Bang.
I hardly see how.
But my point is that in one case, where you have "nothing" it is impossible for matter/energy to always have existed, and in the other, where you have "a super dense lump that sits idle for infinity", it is possible.
Oh?
And what dimension are you going to use to mark the point of the beginning, if space and time are beyond any means of description?
Because you need something outside the system to perturb it. At that point, whether the something outside creates everything or perturbs it to make it happen is academic.
Why?
Because if it existed for eternity in a stable state, it wouldn't ever become unstable.
Pay attention:
There is a point in time before which we are unable to describe the universe. The laws of physics as we know them do not apply. "Stable state" is a meaningless term.
And you have repeatable evidence for changing the laws of physics?
If there is a point in time before which we are unable to describe the universe, then obviously there is no way to repeat such observation, because there is no way to describe what happened at the time and before this phenomenon took place.
But, I'll humor you, yes laws of physics as we know them take a break and have a beer in the event horizon of black holes.
Quoting wikipedia: "According to the Big Bang theory nothing is known about the universe at time=0, though it is presumed that all fundamental forces coexisted and that all matter, energy, and spacetime expanded outward from an extremely hot and dense singularity. One planck time after the event is the closest that theoretical physics can get us to it, and at that time it appears that gravity separated from the other fundamental forces."
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
The t=0 is the creation event, right? You can't claim the universe has always been if there is a creation event. Entropy rolls forward. Roll it back, and you have "the beginning". Creation. Call it what you like, assign rules or names to it, but it is creation, a beginning.
No.
This is the point in time I spoke of (tough I thought it was actually a few planck units after the event itself).
You cannot describe anything in any way at and before that point.
How do you interpret this to mean that at this point a creation event took place?
Something that cannot be described is equivalent to nothing. It has no meaning, it cannot be reasoned about. It is no different than being made up.
You didn't answer my question.
But that aside, you're wrong.
Attempting to describe something indescribeable is making thngs up.
How is our inability to describe something make it non-existant?
Yes, that's the whole point.
You're the one trying to reason about it, and I keep telling you that given our present knowledge any such reasoning has no merit.
Wondering what was before the big bang is like wondering what is north of the north pole; it doesn't make sense.
Now, was there a point in time when the universe didn't exist? If you accept that time is part of the universe, no.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
It seems to me you've created a definition to escape the question of "Was the universe created?" Instead of simply saying "Yes", which is the obvious, reasonable answer. You come up with things like "indefinite, indescribable" states. What does that even mean? What is the purpose?
How is it obvious or in any way reasonable?
Saying the universe was created answers no questions and solves no problems, because all that does is it just moves uncertaintiy one more level - what created the universe, how did it create it, where did the creating force come from?
To me it seems you don't wish to learn anything about the universe, you already have came up with your conclusions, now you're just looking for anything to back them up, while conviniently ignoring anything that contradicts them.
It means that we have reached the limits of our current knowledge, and the pupose is to acknowledge those limits, something you seem to be uncapable of doing.
Wow, I had no idea people where talking about my ideas... Thank you to those who have helped me out.
The way I understand it the big bang is not a creation event. The only way you could say it was is if by creation you mean as we know it. However that isn't how I use the word or define a beginning. To mean all matter and energy has always existed because last time I checked we can't destroy or create it. Let me go into a little basics on existence...
Nothing - not existing; this is different from empty space, it describes the idea of not being.
Something - in existence; of matter; real; a part of reality
Stuff has the possibility to do the following:
Come into existence - Nothing to Something
Go out of existence - Something to Nothing.
Go from existence to existence - Something to Something
Go from nonexistence to nonexistence - Nothing to Nothing
Now I think we can agree nothing to nothing is something kind of foolish to argue over so lets just throw that one out.
How would something come into existence? Can you really get something from nothing? I haven't seen this happen before. Maybe you can give me an example.
How would something go out of existence? Can you really destroy matter? I haven't seen this happen before. Maybe you can give me an example.
Something to Something is just that existing. The illusion if beginnings and endings of things are rearrangements of matter. Yes a person can die, a building can be built, and fire can burn, but in all the cases matter was pre-existing and did not leave existence.
These ideas are not original or new. They were kind of thinking about this before Socrates.
How such change happens in scientific terms I am willing to bet there is an answer, but I’m no expert or teacher on the subject. This is the sort of thing string theory is talking about.
The problem is, steady state theories were set aside with the measurement of the background radiation of the universe, combined with the continued expansion of the universe. All data points to a beginning of the universe as we know it, and indicate that the universe will end. No big crunch, no restarts.
Where did I support steady state theory? All I said was that stuff has always existed. The Big Bang does not say everything was created at one point it says everything was at one point. The end result if unknown and there are still other theories besides Heat Death, even with the big bang. Still though Heat Death or Big Freeze does not state matter goes out of existence, but is so spread out or even none of the particles are interacting. None of the theories I've heard state matter or energy was created or goes out of existence.
BTW Big Crunch is a theory that is worked out with the Big Bang so your idea that the Big Bang and the Big Crunch contradict is a false one.
The idea that matter has always existed is called the steady state theory. It refers to the idea that time can stretch on forever in the current universe. This idea was held by both theistic and atheistic people. The discovery of the universal value for entropy discredited this theory. This is not a problem for theistic people. It has caused some furor in atheistic communities...
nope
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ_steady.html
Wrong.
I support the idea that matter has always existed, but I think that the universe's history matches the oscillating universe theory.
So what does that make it, a steady oscillating universe?
sounds like a contradiction, but luckly, believing that matter has always existed doesn't automatically make you a believer in the steady universe theory.
Your sentence sounds like a post hoc (Or something like it), what next?
Atheist, therefore evil?
French, therefore Jacque?
Blond, therefore dumb?
Or maybe, watches star trek, therefore trekkie?
How many words do you want to stick in everyones mouths?
How many lies are you willing to tell to feel justified?
How many broad brushes are you willing to use, to paint the town red?
Interesting, I am not familiar with this theory (which has lost favor anyway). I will have to look up the exact name of what I am thinking of, it is much older (I believe Augustine supported it).
I am unaware of an oscillating universe theory that does not rely on a big crunch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch), which is now out of favor. If you could cite another?
Thanks.
I would like to find an unbiased site that talks about the O.U.T., but I keep getting half-assed xian apologist sites.
Looking over the wikipedia article, I think I have thinking to do.
(This is what happens when you live in america)
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/september25/universe-925.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/steinhardt.html
Also the workings of the universe isn't an either or type of debate. We, including scientist, could all be wrong just as people in the past were wrong about the workings of the earth. There are other theories around besides the big bang/crunch that are a possibility like multi-verse.
Both these articles are from 2002, the findings I've seen are from the last year or two... is there a more recent source?
Our understanding can change, but data won't. Any new theory would have to account for the observations we have currently made.
The multi-verse is very interesting, but it is unprovable. It would make excellent science fiction (I believe it is called "Sliders"
The thing I claimed was that matter always existed then you said the big bang says otherwise. You then said something about the big crunch isn't possible with the big bang. You asked for some info supporting it so I gave it. I used multi-verse as an example.
Like I said, I am not an expert nor have I studied all the theories in depth. However I do know things are not set in stone and a cause does not mean god did it. There are a lot of theories around and here are a few: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ.html
You said, "our understanding can change, but data won't" well look at the older theories on the list. We get new data and that is way our ideas change.
I'm not an expert either. I just like to make sure people are checking their assumptions and working those assumptions out to their logical ends.
Thanks!
And god did it isn't an assumption?
"God did it" is an assumption. But given "God did it", what are the logical consequences?
Probably something like the kind you would get if you assume Santa gives presents.
I was thinking more along the lines of "What is God's nature?" and "How would God reveal things to us?"
It is not my job to prove something exists when I don't think exists...
What we think is irrelevant, only what is true.
ned that goes both ways and no evidence anyone has given me for god turns out to be valid. If there was truth to it there would be evidence to the existince of it.
I've found the God of the Bible (the God of Abraham) to have the most logical set of evidence. The Bible being the best evidence, along with the history of the Jewish people; and historical evidence for Jesus and the early Church.
Most logical set? A book is evidence?
For an all loving god he sure kills a lot of people and allows a lot of suffering...
Maybe you should look at this for stuff about jesus...
God is also just. Murderers and rapists who escape mankind's justice will be punished. That punishments extends to all people for all crimes.
Thanks! I will look into this...
But the suffering in life isn't much of a loving thing to do? Is everyone who suffers or is killed being punished? As for punishing for crimes what if god decides to make them do something? What is punishable to this all loving god? Do all these punishments fit the crime? I'm not even sure why an all loving god would create a system in which people are capable of eternal punishment. All that is according to the book which you say is his proof.
All suffering is the result of human action and the consequences of those actions. There is no correlation between suffering in this life, and punishment in the life to come. Anything which falls short (the word sin is used for the Hebrew phrase "miss the mark") of God is worthy of punishment. God demands perfection, instead, we have the world as it is now.
God does not (currently) force anyone to do anything, or tell anyone to do anything. There are passages in the Bible which tell of God "hardening the heart" of certain people. But it is unclear if this was just their own response to events, God actually making a change in them, or God withholding something.
Hope that helps!
Please tell me how human action is responsible for: earth quakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, droughts, floods, hurricanes, cancer, AIDS, etc.
The Bible says, the world as it is today is not the world as God made it. The world is the way it is today because mankind rejected God.