Question to the rational responders.

spacebuddha
Posts: 22
Joined: 2006-07-26
User is offlineOffline
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.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I don’t really know enough

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.


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I'm gonna venture a guess

I'm gonna venture a guess that Spacebuddha, you are familiar with the Integral approach =)


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I tend to pick and choose

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.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:Matter in

Voiderest wrote:
Matter in its most basic form, probably unknown, has always existed.

Are you denying the big bang?

Thanks,
Ned


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Are you

nedbrek wrote:
Are you denying the big bang?

Thanks,
Ned

No he isn't.
Do you even know what the big bang is?


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:No he

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
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!


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:I am not a

nedbrek wrote:
I am not a cosmologist.

Neither am I.

Quote:
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!

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...


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:So what

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
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...


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:The state the

nedbrek wrote:
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".

Sure, but nothing about what you said here makes the proposition that matter/energy always existed contradict the Big Bang.

Quote:
The difference between "nothing" and "a super dense lump that sits idle for infinity" is largely semantics...

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.

Quote:
You can declare that time doesn't exist before then, but that makes the beginning of time "the beginning".

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?


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote: I hardly

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

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.

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.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Because you

nedbrek wrote:
Because you need something outside the system to perturb it.

Why?


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:nedbrek

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
Because you need something outside the system to perturb it.

Why?

Because if it existed for eternity in a stable state, it wouldn't ever become unstable.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Because if it

nedbrek wrote:
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.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote: Pay

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

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?


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Ivan_Ivanov

nedbrek wrote:
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

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.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Ivan_Ivanov

nedbrek wrote:
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

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?


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


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:Quoting wikipedia:

qbg wrote:
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."

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.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:The t=0 is the

nedbrek wrote:
The t=0 is the creation event, right?

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?


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote: You

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

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.


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Something that

nedbrek wrote:
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?

Quote:
It has no meaning, it cannot be reasoned about.

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.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:qbg wrote:

nedbrek wrote:

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.

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


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Wondering what

qbg wrote:

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.

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?


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:It seems to me

nedbrek wrote:
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.

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.

Quote:
You come up with things like "indefinite, indescribable" states. What does that even mean? What is the purpose?

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.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wow, I had no idea people

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.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:These ideas

Voiderest wrote:
These ideas are not original or new. They were kind of thinking about this before Socrates.

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.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Where did I support steady

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.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:Where did I

Voiderest wrote:
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...


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline

Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Jacque?

Quote:
The idea that matter has always existed is called the steady state theory.

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?

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest

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).


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote:Quote:The idea

Ophios wrote:
Quote:
The idea that matter has always existed is called the steady state theory.

Wrong.
I support the idea that matter has always existed, but I think that the universe's history matches the oscillating universe theory.

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.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
I would like to find an

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)

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
http://news-service.stanford.

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.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest

Both these articles are from 2002, the findings I've seen are from the last year or two... is there a more recent source?

Voiderest wrote:

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.

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" Smiling


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The thing I claimed was that

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.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:Like I said,

Voiderest wrote:
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.

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!


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
And god did it isn't an

And god did it isn't an assumption?


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:And god did

Voiderest wrote:
And god did it isn't an assumption?

"God did it" is an assumption. But given "God did it", what are the logical consequences?


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Probably something like the

Probably something like the kind you would get if you assume Santa gives presents.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:Probably

Voiderest wrote:
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?"


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
It is not my job to prove

It is not my job to prove something exists when I don't think exists...


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:It is not my

Voiderest wrote:
It is not my job to prove something exists when I don't think exists...

What we think is irrelevant, only what is true.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ned that goes both ways and

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.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:ned that

Voiderest wrote:
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.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Most logical set? A book is

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...


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote:For an all

Voiderest wrote:
For an all loving god he sure kills a lot of people and allows a lot of suffering...

God is also just. Murderers and rapists who escape mankind's justice will be punished. That punishments extends to all people for all crimes.

Voiderest wrote:

Maybe you should look at this for stuff about jesus...

Thanks! I will look into this...


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
But the suffering in life

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.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
All suffering is the result

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!


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:All suffering

nedbrek wrote:
All suffering is the result of human action and the consequences of those actions.

Please tell me how human action is responsible for: earth quakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, droughts, floods, hurricanes, cancer, AIDS, etc.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Please tell me

KSMB wrote:
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.