Thread: Atheism...

Originally Posted by Chirios

Define the universe.

If you mean spacetime well, nobody knows.

Which is precisely my point - The search is asymptotic, it will get closer and closer to the finishing line, but will never cross it.

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

Which is precisely my point - The search is asymptotic, it will get closer and closer to the finishing line, but will never cross it.

What search?

Originally Posted by Chirios

So you don't believe that knowledge is real?[/COLOR]

The reality of knowledge is contingent on many things, not least, a finite comprehension which often insists on certain irreductable verities. Like the idea the universe has to be in something. Or that causality must be all pervasive. The former despite the predictive utility of general realitivity; the latter despite the predictive utility of quantum mechanics.

Edit: I've inadvertantly ommitted a word here. Please insert 'nevertheless' between 'which' and 'often.' Sorry for the error and thanks. pp

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

Ever since I heard of the Big Bang, I imagined it to be a recurring event, like the throbbing pulse of a jellyfish over billions of years, in which after the Big Expansion there would follow a Big Implosion.. Currently scientific theory shows that I was half right (and, of course, half wrong).. the Big Bang is a cyclical event, but there is no implosion, as dark energy is pushing everything apart at an accelerating rate.

So how, then is the Big Bang is a cyclical event, which repeats endlessly into the future, and infinitely into the past?

I'm willing to offer a wager in any amount and to all comers that within 100 years the notion of dark-matter and dark-energy will have joined the invisible-planet-which-causes-perturbations-of-the-mercury-orbit as a laughing stock of science.

Originally Posted by luckyscars

you're entirely right about everything except your last point. assuming that God is responsible does not, or at least should not, deaden our ability to find out anything. it simply suffices as a logical assumption, a kind of 'stop-gap' if you will, until the time, if and when, we work out that causality does not explain the origin of existence.

Let me put it another way, by quoting from another forum:

[quote]Let's take a working example: creationists often say that the enormous complexity of the biosystem is explained by a creator. The question no one ever asks is: why? Why would a creator make an incredibly complex biosystem instead of a simple and elegant one? Consider the following thought experiment: suppose we lived in an alternate universe where the biosystem was incredibly simple: 10 species of plant, 5 species of animal. In that universe, the creationists would say "the elegant simplicity of our biosystem cannot be explained without a creator!" In other words, no matter what the biosystem looked like, creationists would say it is evidence of a creator.The idea of a creator explains absolutely nothing, because without further definition, the "creator" has no discernible characteristics, no elements, no mechanisms, nothing which can be measured, analyzed, examined, observed, or tested. Nothing you find or observe could ever contradict the idea, because the idea is a formless blob. It has no characteristics, and therefore cannot be disproven. That is also why it is utterly worthless from a rational standpoint.[/quote]

All this searching for the meaning of life, the universe and everything is secondary to the real question - What do women want...

Originally Posted by ppsage

I'm willing to offer a wager in any amount and to all comers that within 100 years the notion of dark-matter and dark-energy will have joined the invisible-planet-which-causes-perturbations-of-the-mercury-orbit as a laughing stock of science.

When I first heard of the idea several years ago, I too thought it sillly and absurd.

But after learning more about it, I don't see it as so ridiculous anymore.

You may already know about Dark Energy, so forgive me if I explain things you're already aware of (they are, if not for you, also for anyone else who is interested in Dark Energy):

When Einstein was working on his Theory of Relativity (a theory the majority, if not all of us, consider reputable), he encountered issues, physically speaking, with the behavior of the universe in regards to his models of gravity and his calculations. If his theory was correct, the universe would implode onto itself from the collective pull of gravity. Einstein recognized this wasn't happening, and he realized something was missing, and so began the work to re-examine his calculations. After checking over his work thoroughly, he concluded the existance of something he called The Cosmological Constant, a mysterious force which counter-acted gravity, working against it in order to maintain a static, steady universe.

With his Cosmological Constant in place, his physical models and calculations now seemed to work in harmony, and his Theory of Relativity was, most importantly, now without flaws.

Later, when he discovered the universe was not static, but in a state of flux, he believed his work on the Cosmological Constant to be a blunder.

Today, however, scientists are considering the validity in Einstein's calculations.. and his genius in recognizing the necessity, and existence, of a mysterious repelling universal force, which has been coined Dark Energy, because of its cloaked qualities.

Though not visible (just like gravity), the effects of Dark Energy are observable in measurements of celestial bodies being pushed apart over time.

So, actually, what has been happening is Dark Energy, or the Cosmological Constant, was originally dismissed (even by its own creator/discoverer), but now as modern science is advancing, it is becomming more accepted and studied.

John Moffat (physicist); Reinventing Gravity. The first crack.

I like Modified Gravity theory.. it's an attractive theory as it aims to preserve Einstein's relativistic theory without the addition of dark matter/dark energy, and it has been shown as a plausible explanation in certain visual data, however dark energy itself has also never been ruled out by those same tests (and in many cases, the conclusions leaned heavily towards dark energy as a superior explanation for the data)

So, while modified gravity may in fact exist, that does nothing to debunk the existence of dark energy.. in fact, some astrophysicists are even suggesting a duality where both MG and DM/DE co-exist.

[QUOTE=Chirios;1495213]Let me put it another way, by quoting from another forum:

Let's take a working example: creationists often say that the enormous complexity of the biosystem is explained by a creator. The question no one ever asks is: why? Why would a creator make an incredibly complex biosystem instead of a simple and elegant one? Consider the following thought experiment: suppose we lived in an alternate universe where the biosystem was incredibly simple: 10 species of plant, 5 species of animal. In that universe, the creationists would say "the elegant simplicity of our biosystem cannot be explained without a creator!" In other words, no matter what the biosystem looked like, creationists would say it is evidence of a creator.The idea of a creator explains absolutely nothing, because without further definition, the "creator" has no discernible characteristics, no elements, no mechanisms, nothing which can be measured, analyzed, examined, observed, or tested. Nothing you find or observe could ever contradict the idea, because the idea is a formless blob. It has no characteristics, and therefore cannot be disproven. That is also why it is utterly worthless from a rational standpoint.[/quote]

it's still missing the point. you're putting way too much stock in the creator. the creator could be a giant alien or it could be a formless blob. it makes no difference and the fact you can consider such an entity to be 'worthless' somewhat answers your own argument. yes indeed the creator may be worthless. but so is a bolt of lightning on its own. the worth is derived from the result. if a bolt of lightning hits a tree which causes a forest fire and burns down a city and causes the city to become a mass of charcoal we see in that a methodology for how something worthless can begin a chain of scientific cause-and-effect which can cause a physical thing 'to come into existence' by apparent accident. obviously the process that began the universe is a good bit more impressive than that, but the action is similar in that we see matter changed by a physical being (lightning) that it had no apparent link to. the creator is not worthless if he represents what i attribute to him which is the eternal. the infinite. eternal and infinite is all the creator would need to make him the creator, because it is through that eternity and infinite presence that we can answer every single question about the basis for the universe. in other words, you can substitute all references to 'God' for the term 'eternal source of infinite energy' and it would work. that's all I mean by God for the purposes of this argument, and it makes sense to agree to that much if one wishes to hold an opinion on what the universe probably originated from, otherwise you have a problem of explaining away the infinite regress WITHOUT using the terms 'infinite' or 'eternal' or 'source' or 'first-mover' or 'big bang'

I totally agree that astrophysicists make a lot of suggestions, to a few of which I can sort of attach meaning. And that it's usually entertaining to try. I do draw the line at scalar tensors though. What's not clear is whether you're accepting the wager and proposing a stake?

Originally Posted by luckyscars

... otherwise you have a problem of explaining away the infinite regress WITHOUT using the terms 'infinite' or 'eternal' or 'source' or 'first-mover' or 'big bang'

If I say quantum effect, will it dispell your illusion of an all pervasive causality?

Originally Posted by Chirios

Define the universe.

Universe is a widespread colliquial term for everything that exists. More technically it refers to the underlying conditions (predominently theoretical mathmatical models, but supported by much suggestive experimental and observational evidence) which allow existence, also sometimes popularly termed spacetime. Generally it's used as a shorthand way of referring to those models and evidence without taking the bother of understanding that much about them.

Originally Posted by Cadence

I don't fully understnad God. But that doesn't stop me from believing him. It's not about logic.

That's because there's no logic behind the belief in God.

The claim is that there's this 'God' that's all powerful, and all knowing. Well that's an automatic fail right there.
The only thing which can be all knowing of everything is the universe itself. Only the entire universe can know everything about everything in it. But here's the thing. The universe can only be all knowing for that point in time. A simple droplet of water has zero knowledge where it's been before, who it's been a part of before, what it's been a part of before. All it knows is its current state, nothing else. It's simply a fail to claim that there's something all knowing in the universe, for the entire universe itself can't meet this claim.

Therefore, there can be no such thing as an all knowing God; and any such claim is an automatic fail.

Originally Posted by KyleColorado

You may already know about Dark Energy, so forgive me if I explain things you're already aware of (they are, if not for you, also for anyone else who is interested in Dark Energy):

Hmmm, 'Dark Energy' is simply nothing more than the unknown. Theory is that there's a lot more out there than currently proven to exist, so all of this unknown is called 'Dark Matter' or 'Dark Energy'.
Everything else is unproven theory.

So you don't believe that knowledge is real?

Knowledge can come in a form which we cannot comprehend. So, we either accept our inability to understand it, or we delude ourselves into believing that it does not exist.
It is a matter of perception getting in the way of fact.