Atheism is proven irrational by science and mathematics

[hecd2]

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.

Now you are home, perhaps you could give us a reference for this.

Alec
ttp://www.evolutionpages.com

 

[rossum]

imaginary, as in made up, assumed, unproven.

No, imaginary number, as in mathematics.

potential, not actually existent, as in not yet expressed

No, potential energy, as in physics.

which errors and misconceptions are those?

The ones where you show that you do not understand either mathematics or physics. That is rather unfortunate when you are trying to make an argument based on mathematics and physics. Both words are terms of art within mathematics and physics. You should have recognised them.

rossum

 

[hecd2]

imaginary, as in made up, assumed, unproven.

Wrong

potential, not actually existent, as in not yet expressed

Wrong again.

thats funny, the argument was won in post #43 where a physicist, an actual trained physicist, said there was no monobloc,]

This is like Saddam Hussein’s ‘victories’. Did Rossum say that there was no monobloc? I don’t think so. He said: “If there were no monobloc then there would be no universe. The universe exists hence the monobloc existed.”

yet you continue to argue the point. are you a physicist

Yes, I am an actual trained physicist

claiming the first physicist was wrong?

No. I am agreeing with the first actual trained physicist that the universe is expanding from a singularity or a very small region and also agreeing with him that the theological conclusions you draw from that are entirely unjustified (and also that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about when it comes to physics).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

No scientific theory is ever proven. Not one. Science does not do “proof”, that is for mathematics. Science can only ever give the best answer we currently have.

Now that must be some new kind of science, a science that does not do “proof.”

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Yes, I am an actual trained physicist

So what?

Every decent physicist knows there is no proof that God does NOT exist. The origin of the universe has not been proven. There are only theories about it. The Big Bang is the closest explanation we have thus far. Some scientists even claim that we live in a unique time in the history of the universe. If we had been born some 75 TRILLION years from now, the proof of the Big Bang would have disappeared. At that point we’d be at the Buddhist level of understanding about the universe - that it has always existed.

 

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Yes, I am an actual trained physicist

So what?

You really should read the thread. I said that in response to a direct question.

Every decent physicist knows there is no proof that God does NOT exist.

I agree.

Some scientists even claim that we live in a unique time in the history of the universe. If we had been born some 75 TRILLION years from now, the proof of the Big Bang would have disappeared.

I don’t think we are likely to be born in a universe in which the evidence for the Big Bang has disappeared. That will be a cold dark place.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

I don’t think we are likely to be born in a universe in which the evidence for the Big Bang has disappeared. That will be a cold dark place.

You really should read what the cosmologists who came up with that theory (it is all only theory anyway) have to say about that. If they have anything at all to say about your feelings about their theory, that is. (Be warned cosmologists don’t do feelings.)

 

[hecd2]

You really should read what the cosmologists who came up with that theory (it is all only theory anyway) have to say about that. If they have anything at all to say about your feelings about their theory, that is. (Be warned cosmologists don’t do feelings.)

What *are *you talking about?

By the time the CMB is completely swamped by stellar background radiation, and the expansion of the universe can no longer be directly inferred from the observation of galaxies, stellar formation will have ceased and the stars will all have gone out. Humans aren’t likely to be born in that universe. Cold and dark.

Now, do you understand?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, imaginary number, as in mathematics.

No, potential energy, as in physics.

The ones where you show that you do not understand either mathematics or physics. That is rather unfortunate when you are trying to make an argument based on mathematics and physics. Both words are terms of art within mathematics and physics. You should have recognised them.

keep up with whats going on, he didnt propose they were mathematically imaginary numbers, i said they were imaginary as in made up.

and potential energy even in physics is energy stored, not yet expressed.

or an imagination about an imagination, involving no existent things.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is like Saddam Hussein’s ‘victories’. Did Rossum say that there was no monobloc? I don’t think so. He said: “If there were no monobloc then there would be no universe. The universe exists hence the monobloc existed.”

actually he made the argument for the monobloc from necessity. essentially giving the First Cause argument and inserting the word monobloc in the place of the word G-d.

the point of the post is that no such monobloc existed. you cant regress back to it from current conditions

Yes, I am an actual trained physicist No. I am agreeing with the first actual trained physicist that the universe is expanding from a singularity or a very small region

but not a monobloc.

and also agreeing with him that the theological conclusions you draw from that are entirely unjustified

funny, but i never drew a theological conclusion, i only compared the regressed mathematical values, to the qualities that we claim G-d to have.

you keep assuming that is a statement of theological fact,

(and also that you haven’t a clue what you are talking about when it comes to physics).

last i looked physicists were subject to the same ‘publish or perish’ principle of all other academics.

i have access to all the same information you do. so other than not having a professional tone to my discussion, how does that make me clueless?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What *are *you talking about?

By the time the CMB is completely swamped by stellar background radiation, and the expansion of the universe can no longer be directly inferred from the observation of galaxies, stellar formation will have ceased and the stars will all have gone out. Humans aren’t likely to be born in that universe. Cold and dark.

Now, do you understand?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

If we had been born some 75 TRILLION years from now, the proof of the Big Bang would have disappeared. At that point we’d be at the Buddhist level of understanding about the universe - that it has always existed.

notice the word ‘if’ is the first word of his post?

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

What *are *you talking about?

By the time the CMB is completely swamped by stellar background radiation, and the expansion of the universe can no longer be directly inferred from the observation of galaxies, stellar formation will have ceased and the stars will all have gone out. Humans aren’t likely to be born in that universe. Cold and dark.

Now do you understand?

If the Big Bang could come into existence from nothing (that is the atheist view, remember?), why shouldn’t a whole new universe with people like you and me (maybe with five ears, eighteen eyes and seven legs) come into existence from nothing again on some planet, after this one has expanded to its outer limit and burned/thinned out, just vanished into thin air, sorry, empty non-existent space, or something like that?

Buddhists believe in cyclical universes - universes that come into existence and disappear again time and again, so do Hindus (except that Hindus believe God creates and destroys them). Christians believe in a new heaven and a new earth.

If the new universe is created cold and dark (Christians believe the new universe will have God as the light), you are sure to be born with a body and mind that can survive in a cold and dark environment. So don’t worry. Besides, there is absolutely no evidence that a new world has to be cold and dark.

Now do you understand?

Here a book that discusses the concept (no, no, not my concept, just the concept of other universes):

Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang by Paul J Steinhardt and Neil Turok

endlessuniverse.net/

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

notice the word ‘if’ is the first word of his post?

I don’t know if this personal information is relevant to the topic or not: I’m female. Thanks for chiming in on my behalf.

 

[frankblahnik]

Who is the author of the laws of physics? Who is the author of the laws of mathematics?

They are what they are. Why?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t know if this personal information is relevant to the topic or not: I’m female. Thanks for chiming in on my behalf.

oh, sorry, a little culture centric of me. and your welcome.

 

[cerad]

Now that must be some new kind of science, a science that does not do “proof.”

It is somewhat new. Got it’s start roughly 500 years ago.

Science has fairly precise definitions of certain terms that differ from their normal layman usage.

From chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.

Notice that all scientific theories can be disproven therefore science never formally claims to provide absolute proof for anything.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is somewhat new. Got it’s start roughly 500 years ago.

Science has fairly precise definitions of certain terms that differ from their normal layman usage.

From chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Notice that all scientific theories can be disproven therefore science never formally claims to provide absolute proof for anything.

not using the word ‘proof’ doesnt carry much weight. if you assign a theory such as ‘evolution’, ‘global warming’, ‘abiogenesis’ or variations on ‘string theory’,the same weight as if it were proven, in other words you ridicule, or denigrate those whose opinions at variance with those, then you are giving that theory the weight of proven fact, having never used the term ‘proof’. so it boils down to a 6 of one, half dozen of the other situation.

 

[hecd2]

If the Big Bang could come into existence from nothing (that is the atheist view, remember?), why shouldn’t a whole new universe with people like you and me (maybe with five ears, eighteen eyes and seven legs) come into existence from nothing again on some planet, after this one has expanded to its outer limit and burned/thinned out, just vanished into thin air, sorry, empty non-existent space, or something like that?

We were talking about Lawrence Krauss’s recent description of how other galaxies in the universe will move beyond the event horizon owing to the increasing rate of expansion of the universe, and thus eliminate what he believes to be the crucial evidence for the Big Bang. We were not talking about new universes coming into existence, which is a different thing altogether, although if you want to talk about that, which is one hypothesis amongst many, then I am happy to do so.

Buddhists believe in cyclical universes - universes that come into existence and disappear again time and again, so do Hindus (except that Hindus believe God creates and destroys them). Christians believe in a new heaven and a new earth.

Well, there are some respectable, but as yet untestable scientific hypotheses which more or less agree with the Buddhist belief as you represent it here.

If the new universe is created cold and dark (Christians believe the new universe will have God as the light), you are sure to be born with a body and mind that can survive in a cold and dark environment.

But the Christian “new universe”, ie new earth and new heaven, is a religious, not a scientific belief, and I don’t expect to be born ever again.

So don’t worry. Besides, there is absolutely no evidence that a new world has to be cold and dark.

I really am not worried about what happens 75 trillion years or 4.5 billion years or even one million years hence. Just to remind you though: when we started talking about a cold, dark universe, we were talking about this one in 75 trillion years time - not some other hypothetical new one.

Here a book that discusses the concept (no, no, not my concept, just the concept of other universes):

Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang by Paul J Steinhardt and Neil Turok

endlessuniverse.net/

Yep, it seems to be a good book. There are others, most notably Andrei Linde who first started doing serious work on this quite some time ago.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

actually he made the argument for the monobloc from necessity. essentially giving the First Cause argument and inserting the word monobloc in the place of the word G-d.

On the contrary, he didn’t give the First Cause argument at all, but merely A Cause argument (based on the observations of science), as he has been, like me, very careful to include the possibility of the Big Bang as a physically contingent event.

funny, but i never drew a theological conclusion, i only compared the regressed mathematical values, to the qualities that we claim G-d to have.

What? Immensely small, dense and hot?

i have access to all the same information you do. so other than not having a professional tone to my discussion, how does that make me clueless?

What makes us think that you don’t understand what you are talking about is the large number of elementary mistakes that you have made in attempting to discuss physics and the cavalier way that you post references without understanding what is in them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

On the contrary, he didn’t give the First Cause argument at all, but merely A Cause argument (based on the observations of science), as he has been, like me, very careful to include the possibility of the Big Bang as a physically contingent event.

the question asked, below

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

the answer to that question

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

rossum

as you see in the above quotation, the most basic form of Aquinas’ First Cause argument is stated with the word monobloc replacing the word G-d, as in the example below

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

pretty clear

What? Immensely small, dense and hot?

if there was no monobloc, there was nothing small dense and hot.

What makes us think that you don’t understand what you are talking about is the large number of elementary mistakes that you have made in attempting to discuss physics

funny, but i dont seem to have made the mistake, there is no monobloc, as admitted, supporting it would seem to have been the mistake.

and the cavalier way that you post references without understanding what is in them.

you keep assuming that i dont understand, because i dont agree, there is a huge difference between the two.