"If God can be infinite, then why can't the universe be infinite?"

Ghost of Amityville
Theist
Ghost of Amityville's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
"If God can be infinite, then why can't the universe be infinite?"

This is a quote from Kelly at the "Nightline" debate. Granted, I have not seen the debate in its entirety because I can't find it anywhere in its entirety. There are always some suspicious and distrustful edits. But from what I've seen, I've loved. I enjoyed it immensely.

Anyway, I think I can answer Kelly's question rationally. The theistic concept of a great chasm between Creator and Creation seems to do the trick. There are two very different standards applied each to the theistic idea of "God" and Creation (a.k.a. the universe). To suggest that Creator and Creation each have the equal amount of the quality of infinity is to assume a resemblance between the two that isn't there.

So, if the point is to reassert that the universe is infinite, one can do a better job of it than to compare it to theism's God. And if the point is to debunk the claims made by Cameron and Comfort, then one can't do that by redefining their idea of God for them.

I take pride in being a newb. I'm not all experienced and boring like the normies.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: marcusfish

e303 wrote:
marcusfish wrote:
e303 wrote:

So far, signs and theory both say no, so we can't establish anything either way about any prior universes or their existence.

e303 - You are right we can't establish anything either way at this time which is exactly why I joined this forum. There are those on this forum who think science supports one position over the other. If logic is truly their captain they must admit they also don't have enough information to make a strong statement of conclusion nor argue from a position of knowledge when the knowledge needed is incomplete.

Claiming that there "can't" be a god is just as inane as claiming that there is any evidence whatsoever for its existance. I have not encountered anyone that claims that it is impossible for a superwizard to exist, just that there is no reasonable evidence of any kind to believe so.

Modern observational science has shown that the universe is not eternal and thus a non-eternal universe implies that it must have been caused. I think this is enough rational eveidence to have faith and belief for many. Without question it will not be nearly enough for some but what does that matter?

I dig what you're saying e303, and I'll let the clever folks argue the science with you.

It's just that we come into problems when trying to assign a name to this unknown sector. If it is true that there must have been a cause, that does not prompt me to believe in unicorns (or whatever). And honestly, I am surprised when anyone with a fully functioning brain convinces themselves that this is sufficient evidence. 


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Well marcusfish I can

Well marcusfish I can understand your positions also. If one accounts for personal testimonies of divine interaction we must then choose to believe them or cynically say, "I did not see it and therefore the witness is lying for some humanistic reason."

 

Finite Universe?  Yes but....

 

More and more evidence is pointing to a finite universe. That is to say it has physical limits. The universe has a boundary to the events we can see directly, but not a boundary in the sense that a map has a absolute known boundary. The universe appears to be about 156 billion light-years wide.

Even More creepy...

It seems we have started to move away from the distant galaxies at a rate that is increasing, and in the future we will not be able to see as many galaxies as they will appear to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light (due to the expansion of space), so their light will not be able to reach us.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Well marcusfish

e303 wrote:
Well marcusfish I can understand your positions also. If one accounts for personal testimonies of divine interaction we must then choose to believe them or cynically say, "I did not see it and therefore the witness is lying for some humanistic reason."

I'm sure there are many reasons for people to say that they have had supernatural experiences. They see Bigfoot, they see flying saucers, Loch Ness monster, ghosts, demons, ferries etc. Maybe they're just crazy, maybe they have something to prove, maybe they really saw what they claim to have seen and there is not yet a way to prove it. Who knows.

Again, this is not something that shapes my view of the world. Thus far I have never seen, heard, "felt" anything that would lead me to believe that there is some sub-universe where wizards and pink unicorns exist. 

However, if I did chose to believe in god (or whatever) because some people had been "touched" by the thing ... it would be an exercise of personal faith. I don't base my understanding of the world on other peoples faith.  


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: e303

marcusfish wrote:

e303 wrote:
Well marcusfish I can understand your positions also. If one accounts for personal testimonies of divine interaction we must then choose to believe them or cynically say, "I did not see it and therefore the witness is lying for some humanistic reason."

I'm sure there are many reasons for people to say that they have had supernatural experiences. They see Bigfoot, they see flying saucers, Loch Ness monster, ghosts, demons, ferries etc. Maybe they're just crazy, maybe they have something to prove, maybe they really saw what they claim to have seen and there is not yet a way to prove it. Who knows.

Again, this is not something that shapes my view of the world. Thus far I have never seen, heard, "felt" anything that would lead me to believe that there is some sub-universe where wizards and pink unicorns exist. 

However, if I did chose to believe in god (or whatever) because some people had been "touched" by the thing ... it would be an exercise of personal faith. I don't base my understanding of the world on other peoples faith.  

I agree.  In the end faith with or without a creator it is simply a choice to believe what one wants to believe. 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Wrong. Time itself began

 "The universe is finite...so something must have caused it..blahblahblah argument of the prime mover"

 

Wrong. Time itself began with the universe. You cannot say something was needed to "cause" the universe, because there was nothing "before" the universe, there wasn't even a "before"!its like saying "what is north of the north pole?"

Sure, it makes no sense to our hapless ape-brains, but the universe is finite, both time and space. It is very possible that there is simply "nothing" on the outside at all (not even a vacuum, not even 3-dimensional space at all, no time, just the universe). It required no cause and was not infinite, because you can't even have a concept of an "infinite" amount of time, when time itself, the actual property of space, "began" at the big bang.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote:  "The

theotherguy wrote:

 "The universe is finite...so something must have caused it..blahblahblah argument of the prime mover"

Wrong. Time itself began with the universe. You cannot say something was needed to "cause" the universe, because there was nothing "before" the universe, there wasn't even a "before"!its like saying "what is north of the north pole?"

Sure, it makes no sense to our hapless ape-brains, but the universe is finite, both time and space. It is very possible that there is simply "nothing" on the outside at all (not even a vacuum, not even 3-dimensional space at all, no time, just the universe). It required no cause and was not infinite, because you can't even have a concept of an "infinite" amount of time, when time itself, the actual property of space, "began" at the big bang.

 

Hello theotherguy.

 I also once thought all matter and time was created with a a big bang once also. It turns out the "big bang" probably is responsible for only 4-5% of the actual normal physical content of the "universe" (whatever that means now) and it seems the rest WAS and continues to be filled with dark matter and energy.

 

It seems the matter or energy that is anything like normal matter. If fact the words matter and energy are just place holder names for now until science gives it new names.

That said, if something existed before the big bang that perhaps it also had a time-line (a meta-time?) and its own set of physical and perhaps meta-physical properties.

For now, we are much more in the dark than in the light when we talk about creation no matter our thoughts or positions about origin and we all have faith in some concept of creation.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: For now, we

e303 wrote:

For now, we are much more in the dark than in the light when we talk about creation no matter our thoughts or positions about origin and we all have faith in some concept of creation.

Why call it 'creation'? Isn't that begging the question?

Faith in some kind of creation? I don't have belief despite the lack of or in contradiction to evidence concerning any possible origin to the universe.  Some people simply don't have faith, they either have belief or lack of belief in something, depending on the evidence and their threshhold for sufficiency of belief from said evidence.

Shaun

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: e303

ShaunPhilly wrote:
e303 wrote:

For now, we are much more in the dark than in the light when we talk about creation no matter our thoughts or positions about origin and we all have faith in some concept of creation.

Why call it 'creation'? Isn't that begging the question?

Faith in some kind of creation? I don't have belief despite the lack of or in contradiction to evidence concerning any possible origin to the universe.  Some people simply don't have faith, they either have belief or lack of belief in something, depending on the evidence and their threshhold for sufficiency of belief from said evidence.

Shaun

 

To say one is an athist is to share a view or concept of no god.  A belief.  To claim a God will never be found is faith that supports that belief without any supporting evidence.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: To say one is

e303 wrote:
To say one is an athist is to share a view or concept of no god. A belief. To claim a God will never be found is faith that supports that belief without any supporting evidence.

Yunno, I think I would like to go ahead an make a new term for "lacks the belief in gods or goddesses". Theists seem so hell bent on making atheist mean "believes there is no god" that I get tired of arguing the point.

Poppihoggish is now the term that means "lacks the belief in gods or goddesses".

"To be poppihoggish means that we share the absense of belief in gods or goddesses. We do not claim that god will never be found therefore we have no faith in any belief with or without evidence to support it. "


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
e303

e303 wrote:

To say one is an athist is to share a view or concept of no god. A belief. To claim a God will never be found is faith that supports that belief without any supporting evidence.

I'm with marcusfish here.  I'm also Poppihoggish. 

No matter what terms you use, I simply lack belief in god. I see no reason to believe it so I can't, and therefore do not, believe in any gods.

I do have a concept of there not being a god, and it is one that I often identify with.  however, this is not my atheism, it is something else beyond atheism in itself.  further, when being uber-careful with language, I will never claim god does not exist, but that i simply don't believe one does.  Make note of this distinction.

I never said a god will never be found. I claim that one has not been found thus far by my own damned self.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I think one CAN believe in no

I think one CAN believe in no god but one cannot say it to others without sharing a concept of belief. I think one can have a belief but cannot defend this belief without having faith in future supporting evidence.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: I think one CAN

e303 wrote:
I think one CAN believe in no god but one cannot say it to others without sharing a concept of belief. I think one can have a belief but cannot defend this belief without having faith in future supporting evidence.

Why do you keep doing that e303? I mean, to what end is this line of 'argument'?

You keep saying 'believe in no god' even though it has been very clearly stated that this is not the atheist stance. You seem insistant upon changing around the terminology to suit your own purpose.

So please, instead of just repeating yourself or asking us to continually tell you that you don't even know what atheism is ... tell us what it is that you are trying to get at?

 You want to attribute the words 'faith' and 'belief' to the idea of atheism? You seem quite determined to do so. If you change around the meaning of the word you can do so, if you like. 

But why?

Why do you (and most every theist I have EVER seen on atheist boards) insist on doing so? What is it that you gain out of it? 


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
  e303 wrote: I think one

 

e303 wrote:
I think one CAN believe in no god but one cannot say it to others without sharing a concept of belief. I think one can have a belief but cannot defend this belief without having faith in future supporting evidence.

Say it with me;

Lack of belief in a god

and

belief in no god.

They are subtely different, but they are different.

And while neither requires justification in themselves, the first one never does, because it makes no positive claims at all, but simply acknowledges a lack of one specific claim.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote:   e303

ShaunPhilly wrote:

 

e303 wrote:
I think one CAN believe in no god but one cannot say it to others without sharing a concept of belief. I think one can have a belief but cannot defend this belief without having faith in future supporting evidence.

Say it with me;

Lack of belief in a god

and

belief in no god.

They are subtely different, but they are different.

And while neither requires justification in themselves, the first one never does, because it makes no positive claims at all, but simply acknowledges a lack of one specific claim.

Shaun 

Stay with me....This is not as much of a moving target as it may seem.From the wiki:Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.[3] Question of affirmation:

Do you believe in a self-aware entity that can manipulate the physical and metaphysical physical universe? or if you wish... Do you believe in God?

To anwser is to affirm.By your defination a true atheist should not answer.  Perhaps even the more clever ones should try to attack the use of the term "god" and deny the term does not even make sense.  Ye’ ol verbal blinders.

While this position may offer some simple satisfaction one should know to lack belief means to lack opinion about another’s affirming belief.  Making an athiest forum irrational.

Also one can argue; a person CANNOT have "a lack of belief" once they conceptualize it and share their view with any other person or persons as it implies they do not LACK a belief as they have at least conceptualized a God.

 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
We have broken down into a

We have broken down into a good old fashioned semantic argument now.

I say again...

What is your point? What could you possibly have to gain by trying so hard to add the words 'faith' and 'belief' to the idea of atheism? Please continue, or is this really just an exercise in how much space on the boards we can take up?


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: We have

marcusfish wrote:

We have broken down into a good old fashioned semantic argument now.

I say again...

What is your point? What could you possibly have to gain by trying so hard to add the words 'faith' and 'belief' to the idea of atheism? Please continue, or is this really just an exercise in how much space on the boards we can take up?

A few weeks ago I could care less about what people believed or did not believe until I ran into a few folks who claim they share an Atheistic view.  This by itself is of little concern as I am one who thinks people will believe what they will and I have long considered in a hyper-ego society some folks will need their very own burning bush along with seeing the guy to the left walk on water before they accept the possibility of a creator.This site flew onto my radar a couple weeks back after my website’s news providers (forget which) posted a story about ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.To the point.My belief is as good as your belief or “lack of” one.I say live and think as you will but draw short of saying folks have some brain sickness that is manifested by having a belief in a creator.  This TV debate begged for challengers to this forum and I stepped up.  Attacking my belief is not so harmful to me but to some who do not have the ability to answer these arguments and counter on their own merits may loose something that is important to them.  To lose faith and hope for no other reason than being out foxed with language and obscure and more often than not obsolete or irrelevant scientific theory would be a pity. 

 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: marcusfish

e303 wrote:
marcusfish wrote:

We have broken down into a good old fashioned semantic argument now.

I say again...

What is your point? What could you possibly have to gain by trying so hard to add the words 'faith' and 'belief' to the idea of atheism? Please continue, or is this really just an exercise in how much space on the boards we can take up?

A few weeks ago I could care less about what people believed or did not believe until I ran into a few folks who claim they share an Atheistic view. This by itself is of little concern as I am one who thinks people will believe what they will and I have long considered in a hyper-ego society some folks will need their very own burning bush along with seeing the guy to the left walk on water before they accept the possibility of a creator.This site flew onto my radar a couple weeks back after my website’s news providers (forget which) posted a story about ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.To the point.My belief is as good as your belief or “lack of” one.I say live and think as you will but draw short of saying folks have some brain sickness that is manifested by having a belief in a creator. This TV debate begged for challengers to this forum and I stepped up. Attacking my belief is not so harmful to me but to some who do not have the ability to answer these arguments and counter on their own merits may loose something that is important to them. To lose faith and hope for no other reason than being out foxed with language and obscure and more often than not obsolete or irrelevant scientific theory would be a pity.

 

Wait... that's why you (and by extension, every theist who cares to express an opinion) insists on trying to associate terms like 'faith' and 'belief' to the idea of atheism?

I understand that you are trying to refute claims that religion is a mind sickness. I understand that you are trying to do this by refuting theories agreed upon by the scientific community. I understand that you (and every other theist who cares to have an opinion) seem to think that by doing so you can prove that believing in your imaginary friend is perfectly logical. I get that. Same as always.

BUT, what I am still trying to pry out of you is ... I say YET AGAIN what is gained by trying to (successfully or not) attribute terms like 'faith' and 'belief' to the idea of atheism? I see theists do this without fail but I've never been able to get one of them to explain why this is so important to them.

So? Why is it so important? 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
And yes, my hyper-ego does

And yes, my hyper-ego does in fact require my very own burning bush ... or logical evidence of any kind that supports even the consideration of a super-wizard that created the universe because he was bored. Oh and this same super-wizard hangs out all day - every day just waiting for us to get on our knees and ask him for forgiveness...for sins that we never commited. 

You are correct in that.  

You could contradict every scientific theory every conceived and it would not make believing in super-wizards any less insane.  


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:

e303 wrote:

Hey, the black text is funky. Use the default white if you would. It's hard for me to do quotes.


BP
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-06-04
User is offlineOffline
Point made in RRS vs. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort Debate.

Well, I was watching the video of the highlights from the debate, and I noticed a point made by Kelly that if a god could be infinite, then could we not say that the universe could also be infinite?. Now my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is limited, but the way it has been explained to me is that all matter and energy is moving towards a complete state of disorder. Therefore, if the universe is actually infinite, then would it not have entered a state of complete disorder an infinite amount of time ago(I'm assuming we agree that the universe is not in a state of complete disorder and useless energy)? Now, as I said, my knowledge of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is limited, so that may very well be where I messed up in my line of thinking.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
BP wrote: Well, I was

BP wrote:
Well, I was watching the video of the highlights from the debate, and I noticed a point made by Kelly that if a god could be infinite, then could we not say that the universe could also be infinite?. Now my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is limited, but the way it has been explained to me is that all matter and energy is moving towards a complete state of disorder. Therefore, if the universe is actually infinite, then would it not have entered a state of complete disorder an infinite amount of time ago(I'm assuming we agree that the universe is not in a state of complete disorder and useless energy)? Now, as I said, my knowledge of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is limited, so that may very well be where I messed up in my line of thinking.

 Well, the second law of thermal dynamics has nothing to do with energy moving towards a state of disorder.  It basically says that differences in pressure, density and temperature will balance out in physical systems as measured by their entropy (time given for it to do so).  For example, if you think of a cup of hot coffee in a sealed room, eventually it's energy will disapate into the room and heat the room very slightly, while at the same time the coffee will become the same temperature as the rest of the room.  or... Think of a ballon popping, for an instant there is a high pressure section in the room, then it is quickly spread throughout the room. 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
On the word use...Faith

On the word use...

Faith and Belief are simply the correct and most efficient words to use. No agenda.I hope this is not patronizing as I try to answer as you requested.

Example: Atheist must believe, by definition, of a lack of god or a "super-wizard" concept.

Belief: Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Yet the problem of that nebulous position is it that it forces all atheist to not define or undefine a God. As you know, in fact almost all, try to use science to as supporting evidence of the absence of God and some go to great and elaborate lengths and volumes to explain how science (mostly outdated) does not support creation while ignoring the FACT that most of what needs to be studied about the physical universe is pretty much confirmed but for now out of reach

Now for Faith.

Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Belief: Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Anyone who supports the position of "god gaps" has faith that science not the super-wizard (aka God) will have the answer and that answer is nil.  Thus, explaining away the unknown with great but meaningless tags like "god gaps" in light of actual understanding or proof. - Well that IS faith. Faith that is equal to any theistic belief of a supernatural creator.

Why? Because science has enlightened the world with new discovery. These discoveries have basically turned what we thought was the universe and its properties on it head. You must trust all can be explained without a basis of knowledge by discovery and accept you have faith in this or continue to hold onto the "lack of God" concept as a personal gem without transfer or affirmation of that concept.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote:BP

Vorax wrote:

BP wrote:
Well, I was watching the video of the highlights from the debate, and I noticed a point made by Kelly that if a god could be infinite, then could we not say that the universe could also be infinite?. Now my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is limited, but the way it has been explained to me is that all matter and energy is moving towards a complete state of disorder. Therefore, if the universe is actually infinite, then would it not have entered a state of complete disorder an infinite amount of time ago(I'm assuming we agree that the universe is not in a state of complete disorder and useless energy)? Now, as I said, my knowledge of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is limited, so that may very well be where I messed up in my line of thinking.

 Well, the second law of thermal dynamics has nothing to do with energy moving towards a state of disorder.  It basically says that differences in pressure, density and temperature will balance out in physical systems as measured by their entropy (time given for it to do so).  For example, if you think of a cup of hot coffee in a sealed room, eventually it's energy will disapate into the room and heat the room very slightly, while at the same time the coffee will become the same temperature as the rest of the room.  or... Think of a ballon popping, for an instant there is a high pressure section in the room, then it is quickly spread throughout the room. 

All of which does not seem to apply to most of the contents of the univers but simply explains some properties of about 4% of it which includes the stars, planets, you, me and NOT MORE.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
All of which does not seem to apply to most of the contents of the univers but simply explains some properties of about 4% of it which includes the stars, planets, you, me and NOT MORE.

There is no where in the universe that we have seen where the second law breaks down (outside black holes)...what are you talking about? It wouldn't be a law if it was shown to be incorrect. Please link to your proofs of this, you have a Nobel prize to collect.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Atheist must

Quote:
Atheist must believe, by definition, of a lack of god or a "super-wizard" concept.

By what definition?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Quote: All of

Vorax wrote:

Quote:
All of which does not seem to apply to most of the contents of the univers but simply explains some properties of about 4% of it which includes the stars, planets, you, me and NOT MORE.

There is no where in the universe that we have seen where the second law breaks down (outside black holes)...what are you talking about? It wouldn't be a law if it was shown to be incorrect. Please link to your proofs of this, you have a Nobel prize to collect.

How about this:

2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
And change in an isolated system causes the quantity of concerntrated,
usable energy to decrease, and entropy to increase.

Translation: This means that any time energy is concerted from one form to another
(example, burning a stick) energy is lost to the environment, and cannot be
used.

These laws DO apply to Baryonic matter.  (Stars people,sticks etc.)

There is not reason to think this applies to dark matter and energy.  In fact they seem to act in a very anti-baryonic way at times.  Some even suggest its ability to move things faster than light!

Dark matter is the general term for matter that we cannot see to this point with our telescopes, but that we know must be there because we see its gravitational influence on the rest of the Universe.

Many different experiments indicate that there is probably 10 times more matter in the Universe (because we see its gravitational influence) than the matter that we see. Thus, dark matter is basically what the Universe is made out of, but we don't yet know what it is OR ITS LAWS.

There are many reasons to believe that the universe is full of "dark matter", matter that influences the evolution of the universe gravitationally, but is not seen directly in our present observations.

Dark Matter 1

This image exhibit one recent piece of evidence for undetected matter: the hot gas seen in the X-ray spectrum would have dispersed if it were held in place only the by gravity of the mass that is producing light in this image (the so-called "luminous mass&quotEye-wink.

 

 

 

So without offering me any more prizes I simply suggest we move on.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: You must trust

e303 wrote:
You must trust all can be explained without a basis of knowledge by discovery and accept you have faith in this

I do? 

Did you answer the quesiton? If I am not mistaken you said that you want to insert terms like 'faith' and 'belief' into the idea of atheism because you want to insert terms like 'faith' and 'belief' into the idea of atheism.

You're just having a semantic argument with yourself.

That's the answer.

I was just checking. I'm always curious to know if there is a theist out there that actually has a REASON to argue the semantic point. From what I can tell, there still isn't one.  


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: On the word

e303 wrote:

On the word use...

Faith and Belief are simply the correct and most efficient words to use. No agenda.I hope this is not patronizing as I try to answer as you requested.

Example: Atheist must believe, by definition, of a lack of god or a "super-wizard" concept.

Lack of belief is not believing.  It is the opposite of it.  I don't beileve in dancing unkorns.  You are trying to bring belief into it when it's not about belief its about lack of evidence. I can't believe that which has no evidence, therfore I lack belief.  It is that simple.

Quote:
 

Belief: Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Yet the problem of that nebulous position is it that it forces all atheist to not define or undefine a God.

Yes, there is no point defining something without any proof or necessity for it to exist.  I don't try to describe the running speed of dancing unkorns or their height either...prove one needs to exist, then I will think about it. 

Quote:
As you know, in fact almost all, try to use science to as supporting evidence of the absence of God and some go to great and elaborate lengths and volumes to explain how science (mostly outdated) does not support creation while ignoring the FACT that most of what needs to be studied about the physical universe is pretty much confirmed but for now out of reach

God of the gaps - just because you don't know how something works does not mean "god did it" anymore then it means the magical worm in my pocket did it or the keyboard in front of you did. We once had no idea how birds could fly.  Someone could have easily said - "God lifts them with his fingers"  this is what you are doing.  You have a question without an answer and jump to insert god there.  You are using hope rather then logic.  You are committing a logical fallacy.


Quote:

Why? Because science has enlightened the world with new discovery. These discoveries have basically turned what we thought was the universe and its properties on it head. You must trust all can be explained without a basis of knowledge by discovery and accept you have faith in this or continue to hold onto the "lack of God" concept as a personal gem without transfer or affirmation of that concept.

It's not holding on to a "lack of God" it's not making a false logic leap that there is a god because we dont' know everything.  Again - a lack of information is not information.  If god is show to exist tomorrow, we will happily agree and abide.

Think about this cerebrally for a second: Suppse you have a pain in your shoulder and you don't know why.  I assert to you that I believe there is an invisible gremlin sitting on your shoulder that you can't see or feel, that is causing the problem.  Would you believe me?  Why not?  You might think its possibly some kind of muscle spasm but you can't be sure because you don't know, that's just a theory.  That seems like a more likley explanation and at that point you might say "Sorry, I don't believe it's a gremlin unless you have some proof".  HOWVER, by your logic above, we should try to define the characteristics of this invisible gremlin and then attempt to see why this isn't a logical explanation and we shouldn't discount it even though there is no evdience and nothing we know about human bodies says this kind of thing may be the only explanation  ..see why the god of the gaps fails yet?  A lack of information is not information only evidence is.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

Quote:
Atheist must believe, by definition, of a lack of god or a "super-wizard" concept.

By what definition?

Is it so difficult?

From Wiki...

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition. Like the related concepts truth, knowledge, and wisdom, there is no precise definition of belief on which scholars agree, but rather numerous theories and continued debate about the nature of belief.

To affim or reject a concept of god without empirical proof implies a belief once this concept is transfered to another.

 

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: Vorax

e303 wrote:
Vorax wrote:

Quote:
All of which does not seem to apply to most of the contents of the univers but simply explains some properties of about 4% of it which includes the stars, planets, you, me and NOT MORE.

There is no where in the universe that we have seen where the second law breaks down (outside black holes)...what are you talking about? It wouldn't be a law if it was shown to be incorrect. Please link to your proofs of this, you have a Nobel prize to collect.

How about this:

2nd Law of Thermodynamics:
And change in an isolated system causes the quantity of concerntrated,
usable energy to decrease, and entropy to increase.

Translation: This means that any time energy is concerted from one form to another
(example, burning a stick) energy is lost to the environment, and cannot be
used.

These laws DO apply to Baryonic matter. (Stars people,sticks etc.)

There is not reason to think this applies to dark matter and energy. In fact they seem to act in a very anti-baryonic way at times. Some even suggest its ability to move things faster than light!

Dark matter is the general term for matter that we cannot see to this point with our telescopes, but that we know must be there because we see its gravitational influence on the rest of the Universe.

Many different experiments indicate that there is probably 10 times more matter in the Universe (because we see its gravitational influence) than the matter that we see. Thus, dark matter is basically what the Universe is made out of, but we don't yet know what it is OR ITS LAWS.

There are many reasons to believe that the universe is full of "dark matter", matter that influences the evolution of the universe gravitationally, but is not seen directly in our present observations.

Dark Matter 1

This image exhibit one recent piece of evidence for undetected matter: the hot gas seen in the X-ray spectrum would have dispersed if it were held in place only the by gravity of the mass that is producing light in this image (the so-called "luminous mass&quotEye-wink.

 

 

 

So without offering me any more prizes I simply suggest we move on.

All well and good, but this is nothing to do with the second law of thermal dynamics as of yet in our knowledge.  It is to do with an  unseen mass and gravity holding together systems of matter such as galaxies and our universe.  We don't know enough about the properties of dark matter yet to understand what it is or what it's physics are...which leads to a big...SO WHAT??! 

If you are stating we don't know everything..then you are right?  Do we need to know everything before we make logical deductions?  In which case, you must be an atheist too because if we don't know everything how can you know "god dunnit" 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I simply think with logic

I simply think with logic god is plausable. It is fine to disagree.  Though I will point out that I exist and so do you therefore we are the result of some magical process of creation.

I have said this before... Big Bang could = big banger.  We may have proof to yet discover and we should be open at the very least to this.   BTW - All that is from nothing is also pretty magical. I dare say more so than the idea of unicorns.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: To affim or

e303 wrote:

To affim or reject a concept of god without empirical proof implies a belief once this concept is transfered to another.

No it implies a rejection of the concept due to lack of evidence.  Belief is a POSTIVE ASSERTION...we DON"T POSITIVELY ASSERT there is no god.  We reject the entire concept because there is no evidence - its not even worth forming a belief one way or the other because there is NO EVIDENCE.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: All that is

e303 wrote:
All that is from nothing is also pretty magical.

Neat. So the absense of absolute knowledge regarding the beginning (if there was such a thing) of the universe means there must be a super-wizard. That's an interesting leap but all good.

Plea to ignorance, while sufficiant for your purposes, in no way displays even the slightest reason to believe in super-wizards. You keep claiming that it does, good for you. It doesn't.  


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
My goal has never been to

My goal has never been to change your mind but to demo our ignorance is equal.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: My goal has

e303 wrote:
My goal has never been to change your mind but to demo our ignorance is equal.

About whether or not the method of the 'creation' of the universe can be proven? Agreed.

The difference between us is that you fill in the blank space with imaginary sky pixies.  


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote:e303

marcusfish wrote:

e303 wrote:
My goal has never been to change your mind but to demo our ignorance is equal.

About whether or not the method of the 'creation' of the universe can be proven? Agreed.

The difference between us is that you fill in the blank space with imaginary sky pixies.  

vs spontanuous universal combustion?   Which is just as entertaining but lacks all the fun.

One then could entertain the possibility that we all might explode at any moment!

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: marcusfish

e303 wrote:
marcusfish wrote:

e303 wrote:
My goal has never been to change your mind but to demo our ignorance is equal.

About whether or not the method of the 'creation' of the universe can be proven? Agreed.

The difference between us is that you fill in the blank space with imaginary sky pixies.

vs spontanuous universal combustion? Which is just as entertaining but lacks all the fun.

One then could entertain the possibility that we all might explode at any moment!

That's false logic - one does not illustrate how the other is possible. 

Howver, it is theoretically possible that we could experience a "big crunch" someday as the universe collapses on itself back into a singularity - though it would likely occur of tens of billions of years and slowly accelerate as it goes.

 

Spontaneous universal combustion?  I think you mean "inflation" - the big bang isn't an explosion it's an infalation.

The difference here is we have evidence that the big bang (inflation) is real.  There is proof of it and it can be observed.  If our science is wrong then the theory will change, but its looking pretty solid. 

The big bang doesn't disprove god it only proves that the biblical story of genesis is not litteral.

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Inflation works and I

Inflation works and I agree.

I am not a "by the book" guy.

Looks like the big crunch will never happen. You can research as to why on your own.  I have a poker game to get to.

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote:

e303 wrote:

Inflation works and I agree.

I am not a "by the book" guy.

Looks like the big crunch will never happen. You can research as to why on your own. I have a poker game to get to.

I already know why; because the universes expansion is accelerating instead of slowing down which suggests that collapse is unlikely. I was just throwing it out there as something that does follow as a logical question and possible theory derived based on the big bang...if the universe can inflate, perhaps it can collapse. As opposed to what you presented - if the universe can blow up (spontanuous universal combustion as you called it....wrongly) then we can blow up which makes no sense.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
e303 wrote: One then could

e303 wrote:
One then could entertain the possibility that we all might explode at any moment!

Err...ok. That sounds like fun too. You should make up some more fun possibilities that have not basis in reality whatsoever. Like God, for example.  


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
e303 - I agree with most of

e303 - I agree with most of the points you have made here.  Unfortunatly, this is going to turn into, sooner or later, an arguement of the burden of proof.  True, atheists should not make the claim that science proves the nonexistance of God - the lack of evidence for a God that they point out should be taken very seriously becuase in fact we know very little about our universe.  However, they have no reason to believe at the same time.  The lack of evidence of a creator in the universe is a basis for their beliefs, though it is not very strong.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote:

xamination wrote:
The lack of evidence of a creator in the universe is a basis for their beliefs, though it is not very strong.

Small changes:

Vorax wrote:
The lack of evidence of a creator in the universe is a basis for their lack of beliefs, though it is not very strong and could be refuted with a single piece of verifiable evidence.

Much better Eye-wink

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
No, Vorax, a lack of belief

No, Vorax, a lack of belief in anything would be someone who says "I don't know."  Atheism is a belief that the universe exists independently of any creating concious being.  The proof that Atheists constantly bring up is the lack of evidence in the universe.  However, as noted earlier by e303, we understand very little of the universe.  So the proof of Atheists is shakey because we have explored so little. 

Let me give a similar example.  I say that there is extraterrestrial life in the universe.  I don't have any proof, but I believe it to be so.  Now you come along and say that there isn't because we haven't found any yet.  But we have barely begun to discover our own solar system - how can you be so confident in your assertion?  You can't, and neither can I.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: No,

xamination wrote:

No, Vorax, a lack of belief in anything would be someone who says "I don't know." Atheism is a belief that the universe exists independently of any creating concious being. The proof that Atheists constantly bring up is the lack of evidence in the universe. However, as noted earlier by e303, we understand very little of the universe. So the proof of Atheists is shakey because we have explored so little.

Let me give a similar example. I say that there is extraterrestrial life in the universe. I don't have any proof, but I believe it to be so. Now you come along and say that there isn't because we haven't found any yet. But we have barely begun to discover our own solar system - how can you be so confident in your assertion? You can't, and neither can I.

I'm an atheist.  I don't know if there is anything that exists that would fit the definition of 'god.'  In the absence of evidence for one, I simply don't believe it when someone says that there is one.  

My atheism is in reaction to theism.  People say that there is a god, and I don't believe that the evidence exists to support this proposition, so I don't accept it.  I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp.  I am saying "I don't know."  I'm also saying, in addition to my lack of knowledge, that i have no reason to believe so.

 Knowledge and belief are related, but they are different.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote:

xamination wrote:

No, Vorax, a lack of belief in anything would be someone who says "I don't know." Atheism is a belief that the universe exists independently of any creating concious being. The proof that Atheists constantly bring up is the lack of evidence in the universe. However, as noted earlier by e303, we understand very little of the universe. So the proof of Atheists is shakey because we have explored so little.

There is no positive assertion made by the idea of atheism. The 'proof' that you hope we are trying to find is the burden of the one asserting the positive. You assert that there is a god, so, prove it. No? Then until further proof (or any) is presented for your case it is thrown out as a wild claim.

[EDIT: the idea of the atheist stance being shaky makes my brain hurt. The atheist position is merely pointing out that there is no evidence thus no reason to believe in something that has no evidence to support it. The "shakey" ground based on lack of proof is only shaking under the theist who argues the point. ] 

Quote:
Let me give a similar example. I say that there is extraterrestrial life in the universe. I don't have any proof, but I believe it to be so. Now you come along and say that there isn't because we haven't found any yet. But we have barely begun to discover our own solar system - how can you be so confident in your assertion? You can't, and neither can I.

You're asserting that extraterrestrial life exists, the burden of proof is on your assertion.

If I said that there is, as yet, no proof to reasonably suggest that there is extraterrestrial life therefor I do not subscribe to your claim...I would be perfectly reasonable and would be making no claims other than the absense of evidence.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Thank you Marcusfish and

Thank you Marcusfish and Shaun.

 xamination,

Theists make the assertion god exists, atheists reject the assertion due to lack of information. We can not come to the conclusion because we don't seen enough information to know a god is there.  We don't know - period.  We dismiss the claim because it is as wild and unsupported as the idea that an invisible, undetectable ring worm in my butt is responsible for the universe -  

Hard Proof of God:

- None

- Zip

- Nadda

Subjective (unverifiable) proof of God:

- Some people get feelings they think might be a god 

 

Proof of Invisible, Undetectable Ring Worm in my butt:

- None

- Zip

- Nadda

Subjective (unverifiable) proof of the Invisible, Undetectable Ring Worm in my Butt:

- Sometimes my ass feels itchy and I don't know why

 

Lets compare:  Evidence of God...NONE ... Evidence of Ring Worm...NONE.... Which is more likely....neither

 

Do you lack belief in the all powerful ring worm of my neather regions?  Perhaps you just don't know --- then you are an Atheist to it... perhaps you dismiss it entirely because I can't present any evidence other then my receipts for "Scratchaway" and my claim of unexplained butt itchees...if so, you are an Atheist wrt. the magical ringworm in my undies.

0 evidence = 0 reason to believe

if I told you that billions of people now worship my butt as the holy place of the great and powerful ring worm...would that make it more likley?  NO

If I told you there is a book that describes the way the ring worm created the universe and you and everyone else and sent it's only begotten son to inhabbit the butts of all men...would that make it more likely? NO

If I told you there were historical proofs of some of it, places my butt have been are real...millions of people have experienced unexplained itches in the cracks...etc... would that make it more likley?  NO

This is why Atheists disbelieve in god...there are wild claims of god without any proof of god...we just don't have any real evidence so it is dismissed as a wild claim with no more merrit then the mighty butt worm in my ass.

 


"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


e303
Theist
e303's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
LOL a few hours of poker

LOL a few hours of poker and things become unglued around here. 

Atheism is irrational as we are all pretty sure we exist and there IS a cause and a process that brought us into being. There must have been a FIRST CAUSE.

Why?

Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything.

Side thought... Does everyone understand a thing can exist whether we know it or not? If so what is wrong with the agnostic view?

"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish wrote: If I

marcusfish wrote:

If I said that there is, as yet, no proof to reasonably suggest that there is extraterrestrial life therefor I do not subscribe to your claim...I would be perfectly reasonable and would be making no claims other than the absense of evidence.

Yes, if you had fully explored the universe and found that no life exists besides our own or that some weird law of physics prevented life from existing elsewhere, then you could assert that we are alone in the universe.  But as we are sitting here without putting one foot onto another planet, it would be unwise at this time to make a judgement like that.

That is what e303 was saying(i believe).  You cannot make a judgement on the state of the universe based solely on the little information we have.

Heres another example:

Imagine I was a police officer and I was called in after a report of the death of someone.  I enter the persons house, and find the body of the person lying on the floor, covered in blood.  After making sure the person was actually dead, I start to inspect the room.  After looking over about 1/20th of the room I find no evidence of anyone else being in the room at the time of the person's death and conclude it was suicide.  Was that a fair conclusion?

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Vorax - Let me first say

Vorax - Let me first say that that was a very disturbing example.  Second, if you were to come up and tell me you had a worm in your butt, I really wouldn't care.  Maybe your telling the truth, maybe your lying, maybe your deluded.  If someone asked me if you had a worm in your butt, I would say "Maybe.  At least that's what he told me."  Now if I sent you to a doctor, and he thoroughly examined you, and concluded you were telling the truth, then I would believe that yes, you have some serious problems.  If the doctor said otherwise, I would say that you have some other serious problems.  Yet in this scenario, no doctor has examined you, and so the status of your butt remains a mystery.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
e303 - Cmon now, you were

e303 - Cmon now, you were doing so well, don't try and use the ol' prime mover arguement. We will ignore the first arguement, mainly being the title of this thread. Instead, I ask you why the universe cannot stretch back infinatly, that the whole itself is outside of time, that we can simply say IT IS and leave it at that. There are some ideas about how this could actually be. I, being the compassionate soul that I am, decided to put up a few links so that you wouldn't have an excuse for ignorance.Smiling

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060514_bouncefrm.htm

http://www.exitmundi.nl/eternity.htm

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.