Atheism is proven irrational by science and mathematics

[warpspeedpetey]

I disagree, as I have shown by using your own sources.

no, i did not do more than cursory inspection as i do not intend to defend their particular research. that is outside the scope of the OP.

their purpose is to show that there is indeed a ‘standard cosmological model’ which you have repeatedly denied.

for their intended purpose they serve well, it is evidence that imminent authorities in the field do indeed, talk about a ‘standard cosmological model’

unless you mean to say that they are all wrong in the matter, i think we should now accept that the BB is the standard cosmological model.

surely you are not saying that these authorities in the field are wrong?

Cosmologists are agreed on the existence of the Big Bang. They disagree on the details, especially on the times immediately before and immediately after, when the information we have is very patchy.

we have no information, other than conjecture, concerning any pre big bang environment. there are differences of opinion concerning those conjectures but as they are only conjectures, and arguments about opinion, they are not germane to the OP.

You are more correct about the theory at later times, after inflation for example, where there is a lot more information available and so less room for alternative theories. Your OP relied on events very close to the ‘B’ of the Bang. That close to the ‘B’ there is not the degree of certainty that such an argument would require.

i have no real concern with any time post t=10x1(-35). that is the approximate point at which the math hits the wall.

in effect that lack of information is the point. the values given approach infinity at that approximate time. anything prior to it is unprovable in the “standard model”

following that reasoning we can say that no monobloc (i like that word) is provable, therefore i interpret the math, those infinite values, to be the last thing that we have any evidence of as we regress the math back to the BB.

i am not saying there are no other options, i am saying that the ‘standard cosmological model’, the BB cannot prove the existence of any monobloc.

that aside, i would like to know, in a direct manner whether you have an argument that proves the existence of that monobloc.

 

[rossum]

no, i did not do more than cursory inspection

I thought so. You should have done so because the ones I looked at did not say what you thought they said. Sloppy research does not go down well in a scientific discussion. You are not doing yourself any favours here.

their purpose is to show that there is indeed a ‘standard cosmological model’

Unfortunately for you the references you gave do not serve your purpose, as you would have noticed if you had read them.

surely you are not saying that these authorities in the field are wrong?

No, I am saying that you have misinterpreted what they are saying.

i have no real concern with any time post t=10x1(-35). that is the approximate point at which the math hits the wall.

There is very little point in discussing things with you if you do not read what I post.

THERE IS MORE THAN ONE ‘MATH’!

Sorry to shout but it seems to be required. Using a continuous Einsteinian model for space some values do indeed shoot off to infinity. This is not an indication that infinity happens in real life, it is an indication that the Einsteinian model (and its associated math) is an incorrect description of real life. As you pointed out earlier, there are no real infinities in the universe. The infinity in the maths is an indication that modeling space as smooth and continuous at the Planck scale is an incorrect model. Instead we need to move to a quantised model where space is no longer smooth and continuous at that scale. Using a different math, fitted to the quantised model, the infinity should disappear.

This is science where the mathematics has to follow reality, so if the mathematics gives us infinities we know that the math is wrong.

that aside, i would like to know, in a direct manner whether you have an argument that proves the existence of that monobloc.

The existence of the universe. If there were no monobloc then there would be no universe. The universe exists hence the monobloc existed.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

this is the meat of my assertions, quoted from the OP, a monobloc is an assumption, and only an assumption.

that singularity is an assumption that explains from ‘what’ the universe expanded, it is not actually mathematically possible to show that the singularity existed, the math does not extend past the ‘moment’ in which no time or physical laws existed

here is your quote

The existence of the universe. If there were no monobloc then there would be no universe. The universe exists hence the monobloc existed.

rossum

above you admit the assumption, an argument from necessity for the monobloc. therefore you have verified the assertion of the OP.

frankly, if you replaced the word ‘monobloc’ with the word ‘G-d’ the above statement is Aquinas’ First Cause.

i think it is interesting that modern observational cosmology still intersects, at its core, with the philosophy of a 783 year old monk, who never knew of the existence of any physical laws. somehow i find satisfaction in the eloquence of that.

 

[hecd2]

the point, nicely expressed by rossum , is that the standard cosmological model is the big bang.

Yes, but which Big Bang? The Big Bang with all matter/radiation in an infinitely small point followed by a uniform expansion of matter or the Big Bang originating from a quantum fluctuation where the energy in the scalar field creates the matter/radiation in the universe over inflationary time, and leaves quantum fluctuations with no entropy fluctuations and matter and energy fluctuations in phase(adiabatic) or has entropy fluctuations with matter and energy fluctuations in antiphase (isocurvature)?

The key point is that you keep talking about a standard Big Bang model, and rejecting all others on the grounds that they are not supported by authority and are “fatally flawed”, when in fact your “standard model” (singularity at the origin, uniform expansion), is rejected by all authority and is itself fatally flawed. To the extent that there is a “standard model”, it originates from a quantum event in a scalar field, it includes an inflationary phase during which matter/radiation is created from the potential energy of the scalar field, it has 4% baryonic matter, 20% dark matter and 76% dark energy and it is subject to late phase expansion.

Apart from the fact that attempting to make a theological argument from a scientific premise is a very questionable undertaking, you don’t know nearly enough science to make your case. That is what I will concentrate on. Let’s begin with your statement that the dimensions and mass of the universe are not infinite. If so, what are they and how do you know?

Only the actual BB is at question in the OP

Which Big Bang theory are you referring to?

as to the variability observed in the cmbr, so what? it says nothing about any pre-big bang environment,

Not necessarily - how do you know that some pre-Big bang information is not imprinted on the CMB anisotropy? Be specific - how do you know?

it only says at the light speed horizon the microwave radiation was not uniformly distributed. from this it is inferred that there ‘must’ have been some cause of that variability as though the natural state of the expansion should have been smooth, admittedly that is my opinion of the interpretation of the data.

In one sentence you dismiss the hugely important and vast enterprise of the cosmological findings of WMAP which have resulted in the CURRENT standard or concordance model of cosmology. Why was the CMB not completely isotropic and what does the anisotropy spectrum tell us about cosmology - have you ever heard of the Sachs-Wolfe effect? Do you understand how the acoustic properties of the early universe might affect the CMB and allow us to recover in detail conditions prior to decoupling.

as to dark matter, it is a nice idea, they believe that they have found the proof of the phenomena, good for them, yet i have heard these stories before.

Nevertheless dark matter is absolutely part of the standard or concordance model of the universe because MOND fails to explain, amongst other things, gravitational lensing. See the models that YOU posted as being examples of the standard model below.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

To continue:

As for these, Rossum pointed out the fact that you have neither read nor understood them, even though you posted them, but here is some more detail to illustrate how little you understand, if you post them as all supporting the high school version Big Bang:

cfa.harvard.edu/research/cos.html
Includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model
osti.gov/bridge/product.b…sti_id=6139356
Includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu…tro/cosmo.html
Points out the problems with the simple Big Bang scenario (antimatter problem, galaxy formation problem, flatness problem and horizon problem all addressed by more modern Big Bang scenarios
nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level…s1/frames.html
Is ten years old and out of date. Suggests that the adiabatic cold dark matter model is a good approach to explain the problems in the simple model described above. Won’t accept ACDM into the standard model because isocurvature was a viable alternative. But isocurvature has now been rejected on observation and ACDM is now part of the standard model.
pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Cosmo.html
Proposes an ALTERNATIVE to the standard model called the Continuum Cosmological model that has not been accepted
plato.tp.ph.ic.ac.uk/conferences/cosmology/
Includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art…gi?artid=34186
Is not explicit about the parameters of the model, but also predates WMAP
74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=U…icp=1&.intl=us
Describes the simple cosmological model to undergraduates - this model does not represent the current standard model
74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=U…icp=1&.intl=us
Includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model
citebase.org/abstract?id=…o-ph%2F0509800
Is not explicit about their meaning of the standard model, but contextually includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model

So these papers propose different things as the standard cosmological model - but the recent ones are remarkably consistent, and include inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explain galaxies and galaxy clusters, and include dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is the standard model - nothing like the model that you propose. And although this is evidence you presented yourself, ostensibly in support of your case, it refutes your assertions. If you haven’t the knowledge of the will to make sure that what you post supports your case, then what credibility have you got.?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To continue:

As for these, Rossum pointed out the fact that you have neither read nor understood them, even though you posted them, but here is some more detail to illustrate how little you understand, if you post them as all supporting the high school version Big Bang:

cfa.harvard.edu/research/cos.html
Includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model
osti.gov/bridge/product.b…sti_id=6139356
Includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu…tro/cosmo.html
Points out the problems with the simple Big Bang scenario (antimatter problem, galaxy formation problem, flatness problem and horizon problem all addressed by more modern Big Bang scenarios
nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level…s1/frames.html
Is ten years old and out of date. Suggests that the adiabatic cold dark matter model is a good approach to explain the problems in the simple model described above. Won’t accept ACDM into the standard model because isocurvature was a viable alternative. But isocurvature has now been rejected on observation and ACDM is now part of the standard model.
pages.drexel.edu/~garfinkm/Cosmo.html
Proposes an ALTERNATIVE to the standard model called the Continuum Cosmological model that has not been accepted
plato.tp.ph.ic.ac.uk/conferences/cosmology/
Includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art…gi?artid=34186
Is not explicit about the parameters of the model, but also predates WMAP
74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=U…icp=1&.intl=us
Describes the simple cosmological model to undergraduates - this model does not represent the current standard model
74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=U…icp=1&.intl=us
Includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model
citebase.org/abstract?id=…o-ph%2F0509800
Is not explicit about their meaning of the standard model, but contextually includes inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explains galaxies and galaxy clusters, and includes dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is their standard model

So these papers propose different things as the standard cosmological model - but the recent ones are remarkably consistent, and include inflation, quantum fluctuations in matter density as a source for CMB anisotropies which are Gaussian, adiabatic and spectrally scale invariant, explain galaxies and galaxy clusters, and include dark matter, and late phase expansion driven by dark energy. That is the standard model - nothing like the model that you propose. And although this is evidence you presented yourself, ostensibly in support of your case, it refutes your assertions. If you haven’t the knowledge of the will to make sure that what you post supports your case, then what credibility have you got.?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

your missing the point, there is a standard cosmological model, i dont seek to defend their work, only that they speak about a standard cosmological model, i dont care to re-argue the same posts with you, my answer to rossum should suffice

 

[warpspeedpetey]

To continue:

the matter seems to be settled in post #43,

do you have something original to add?

 

[hecd2]

the matter seems to be settled in post #43,

Yes, you seem to have settled the matter entirely to your own satisfaction. The trouble for you is that you don’t seem to have convinced anyone else, and particularly not those who actually understand the science.

The best that you can claim is that the standard model of cosmology (a standard model, by the way, that is quite different from what you believe it to be) is compatible with the existence of God. However, to claim that it *proves *the existence if God is to misunderstand the science itself, the philosophy of science and the nature of proof. You cannot justifiably claim that a quantum fluctuation in a scalar field which is as likely or more likely to be contingent as it is likely to be absolute and unconditional is necessarily identical to the infinite and uncaused agent. But that is what you have attempted to do in that post.

Attempting to fashion proofs for God from science is unwise for those who are most knowledgeable in science and philosophy - it results in absurdity from those who misunderstand science and philosophy as profoundly as you do.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, you seem to have settled the matter entirely to your own satisfaction.

actually, i seem to have an admission of my assertion, to wit the monobloc, is an assumption. i refer you to post #43

The trouble for you is that you don’t seem to have convinced anyone else, and particularly not those who actually understand the science.

funny that, but someone specifically trained in these matters made said admission concerning the assumption of a monobloc.

The best that you can claim is that the standard model of cosmology (a standard model, by the way, that is quite different from what you believe it to be) is compatible with the existence of God.

that would seem to be the point of such conversations on these forums, did you expect my goal to be different?

However, to claim that it *proves *the existence if God is to misunderstand the science itself, the philosophy of science and the nature of proof.

where in the OP is that claim made?

You cannot justifiably claim that a quantum fluctuation in a scalar field which is as likely or more likely to be contingent as it is likely to be absolute and unconditional is necessarily identical to the infinite and uncaused agent. But that is what you have attempted to do in that post.

to the way i understand it no such scalar field is known to actually exist, and as such, no quantum fluctuations
could occur in this not yet proven field of imaginary particles,

which means whether or not one assumes contingency or absoluteness of those fluctuations they are still hypothetical in nature,

i.e. a flying pig may or may not be pink, but why argue it until we actually see a flying pig?

so what you are referring to here is a guess about what is happening about a guess. which is why i excludes such things from the specific area of inquiry.

most assuredly, i did not in the OP do any such thing. please show me where in the OP you find such nonsense.

[Edited]

 

[hecd2]

actually, i seem to have an admission of my assertion, to wit the monobloc, is an assumption. i refer you to post #43

All you have is a statement that the universe is contingent on a natural phenomenon.

funny that, but someone specifically trained in these matters made said admission concerning the assumption of a monobloc.

No more trained than me. But in any case, all he said was that the universe is contingent on evolving from a very small region of space with appropriate boundary conditions

The best that you can claim is that the standard model of cosmology (a standard model, by the way, that is quite different from what you believe it to be) is compatible with the existence of God.

that would seem to be the point of such conversations on these forums, did you expect my goal to be different?

Yes - your claim is that the standard model of cosmology *proves *the existence of God. That is a claim that is in your title for the thread (atheism is proven irrational by science and mathematics), in the OP and in post #43.

where in the OP is that claim made?

Here:

warpspeedpetey:

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

to the way i understand it no such scalar field is known to actually exist, and as such, no quantum fluctuations
could occur in this not yet proven field of imaginary particles,

Inflation, first proposed by Guth, initiated by the value of a scalar field rapidly rolling off a potential energy peak is now part of the standard model of cosmology. Whether or not one regards it as “known”, it is certainly a credible explanation for the initiation of the Big Bang, and therefore the standard model of cosmology does not exclude contingent origins. Cosmology therefore cannot be a *proof *for God (or referring to the title of the thread, we cannot "prove atheism irrational by science and mathematics.)

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

 

[frankblahnik]

I think what the OP is saying is the world of math and science have enough examples for atheism to be proven irrational by someone of rational mind. npatrol:

 

[hecd2]

I think what the OP is saying is the world of math and science have enough examples for atheism to be proven irrational by someone of rational mind. npatrol:

No - that’s not what the OP is claiming. The OP is proposing a specific proof from a particular scientific premise.He is proposing a deductive, not an inductive proof.

On the other hand, if you have any examples from the world of maths or science that prove atheism irrational, I’d be delighted to hear them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[frankblahnik]

Math has examples of Gods existence through deductive reasoning. Science has examples of Gods existence through inductive reasoning. Do atheist have any examples God does not exist? If not, atheism is irrational.

 

[rossum]

Math has examples of Gods existence through deductive reasoning.

Mathematical resoning works from a set of axioms and deduces the consequences of those axioms. Start with a different set of axioms and you end up with a different set of consequences. It is difficult to prove things in the real world with mathematics, since mathematics sets up its own worlds by chosing which set of axioms to start from. There is no requirement for the axiomatic worlds set up by mathematics to have any connection to the real world.

Science has examples of Gods existence through inductive reasoning.

References please.

Do atheist have any examples God does not exist?

Pass, I am not atheist.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Math has examples of Gods existence through deductive reasoning. Science has examples of Gods existence through inductive reasoning. Do atheist have any examples God does not exist? If not, atheism is irrational.

as the OP let me repost for you exactly what i meant, you have to forgive the language police, they are not so much serious thinkers as lawyers.

here you go frank

it has come to my attention in various conversations that the accepted big bang theory proves the existence of an infinity prior to the expansion.

here is why.

the mathematical regression from the observable universe back to the big bang posits a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word) when no physical laws and no time existed. it also posits a singularity from which the universe expanded.

this is standardly taught theory, there exist other theories that disagree but they all postulate conditions prior to the expansion in order to progress the math through the singularity, or monobloc. postulations that are nothing more than guesses.

that singularity is an assumption that explains from ‘what’ the universe expanded, it is not actually mathematically possible to show that the singularity existed, the math does not extend past the ‘moment’ in which no time or physical laws existed

as admitted in post #43, we talk about a singularity or monobloc, prior to the expansion, only because it seems necessary, not because the math actual regresses back to it. the values hit infinity when the math regresses back to aproximately 1x10(-35) seconds it never actually makes it to a monobloc or singularity.

with no singularity the theory reduces to a mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe

that is as simple as it seems

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

in other words one infinity is all that can be existent by the nature of an infinity

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

indeed that seems to be what the mathematical regression shows

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

here i am relating how both the implication of that infinite ‘moment’
and the qualities that we claim for G-d are alike, one may say that his friend bob is remarkably like his friend tom, but that is a far cry from actually saying that bob is tom

however let me point out that the monobloc or singularity is a the point of the post

the argument for the reality of a singularity, or monobloc, was lost in post #43

anything else is simply beyond the intentions of the OP

 

[hecd2]

Math has examples of Gods existence through deductive reasoning.

For example?

Science has examples of Gods existence through inductive reasoning.

For example?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[bquinn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankblahnik
Math has examples of Gods existence through deductive reasoning.

For example?

Watson, from Watson and Crick, who deducted the structure of DNA was an atheist. He showed that it is statistically impossible for a living cell to evolve in the amt of time that it is believed the earth has existed. I’m at work and can’t access the article from here, but as close as I can remember to be statistically possible would be a 1 out of 10 to the 14th power. Just for molecules to come together (under the conditions thought to exist), and to form a functioning polypeptide, let alone a whole cell was something in the range of 1 out of 10 raised to the 52nd power. He compared the likelihood to flying over the Sahara desert in a plane and dropping one grain of sand which has been microscopically etched with an id #, Having someone go out into the desert randomly picking up one grain of sand and it be the one dropped from the plane, & repeating this 9 times in a row.

The presentation was on EWTN and I looked up the article. I believe you can find it by searching James Watson and theory of evolution. This may not ‘prove’ there is a God, but it sure makes it more rational than the current scientific explanation. (PS I’m a scientist, I’m not belittling science, I just believe God created science and the laws of science follow His guidelines)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Inflation, first proposed by Guth, initiated by the value of a scalar field rapidly rolling off a potential energy peak is now part of the standard model of cosmology.

so an imaginary value of an imaginary field of imaginary numbers are rolling off of a potential, not actual, energy peak, all of which is dependent on an imaginary higgs boson. yeah sounds like evidence to me.

postulations of phenomenon that are simply unproven

Whether or not one regards it as “known”, it is certainly a credible explanation for the initiation of the Big Bang, and therefore the standard model of cosmology does not exclude contingent origins.

Cosmology therefore cannot be a *proof *for God (or referring to
the title of the thread, we cannot "prove atheism irrational by science and mathematics.)

all conjecture, no more true because it comes from the imminent dr. guth, than if it came from an ancient shaman.

 

[hecd2]

so an imaginary value of an imaginary field of imaginary numbers are rolling off of a potential, not actual, energy peak, all of which is dependent on an imaginary higgs boson.

Seems like you have no idea what the definition of an imaginary number or potential energy is. Potential energy versus actual energy indeed. Hah!

And yet beyond all your errors and misconceptions, the fact remains that the standard model of cosmology includes an inflationary epoch, as shown in many of the references that you yourself posted (that’s called being hoist with your own petard - or, for those who don’t know what a petard is, blown up by your own grenade). I’m sorry that that doesn’t suit your all-too-convenient “proof” against atheism, but nevertheless, it is a fact.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Seems like you have no idea what the definition of an imaginary number or potential energy is. Potential energy versus actual energy indeed. Hah!

imaginary, as in made up, assumed, unproven.

potential, not actually existent, as in not yet expressed

And yet beyond all your errors and misconceptions

which errors and misconceptions are those? the ones where i dont assume that string theory or its variations are correct?

the fact remains that the standard model of cosmology includes an inflationary epoch

,

maybe it is the error that i think inflation has nothing to do with the existense of a monobloc, no, wait, that was admitted by an actual physicist

as shown in many of the references that you yourself posted (that’s called being hoist with your own petard - or, for those who don’t know what a petard is, blown up by your own grenade).I’m sorry that that doesn’t suit your all-too-convenient “proof” against atheism, but nevertheless, it is a fact.

thats funny, the argument was won in post #43 where a physicist, an actual trained physicist, said there was no monobloc, yet you continue to argue the point. are you a physicist claiming the first physicist was wrong?

thats called ''being hoisted with your own petard"