K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Because my eyesight is not as good as others’.
- Status
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Hopeless conversations where everyone talks past each other are great. We’ll rarely convince die hard theists to seriously consider the merits of their faith. Even if they eventually do, they won’t admit it here (we all have pride).
The same arguments get circulated, like communism was an atheist system (which is an illogical statement). Atheism was one component seen in some communist countries, Many Latin American countries that are borderline communist are very Catholic. Indeed Christianity has many elements in its doctrine (such as its mode of charity) that are arguably socialist.
I’m an atheist, yet politically libertarian (meaning I’m the polar opposite of communist, I believe very limited government is the most efficient economic model, although I also realize it won’t happen anytime soon). Western Europe (at least northern and central Europe) is a post-Christian society at this point – I don’t see them running to the polls to usher in communist rule. Indeed, Italy, probably the most Catholic country on earth, is one of the few western countries where there’s still an active communist party.
Anyways …
The same arguments get circulated, like communism was an atheist system (which is an illogical statement). Atheism was one component seen in some communist countries, Many Latin American countries that are borderline communist are very Catholic. Indeed Christianity has many elements in its doctrine (such as its mode of charity) that are arguably socialist.
I’m an atheist, yet politically libertarian (meaning I’m the polar opposite of communist, I believe very limited government is the most efficient economic model, although I also realize it won’t happen anytime soon). Western Europe (at least northern and central Europe) is a post-Christian society at this point – I don’t see them running to the polls to usher in communist rule. Indeed, Italy, probably the most Catholic country on earth, is one of the few western countries where there’s still an active communist party.
Anyways …
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
you mean our biological survival instinct, our intelligence, what? If you propose natural law comes from a divine source … then two simple words, prove it?Or reasons rooted entirely in “morals” not subjective “values” IMHO. The fact that Gates and others give suggest a Natural Law, or a Tao as C.S. Lewis called it, which is common to all beings, and which Lewis argues has its basis in God. But on this I know you won’t agree. Have you ever read up on Natural Law or its provenance, not that it matters now as I’m about to pass out, but thought I’d ask.
All the sophistry on earth can’t prove that proposition. C.S. Lewis lived a long time ago, we’re a lot smarter today & we know a lot more about human psychology and why we behave the way we do (and we understand much more about human patterns then we ever did). All the real evidence refutes your view.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I think the irony is atheists tend to be very charitable and active in terms of involvment in social activities and occupations. We are this way because we’re humanists, we know no invisible friend will be helping the homeless guy normalize his life, we know poverty in Africa or other regions of the world isn’t part of any divine plan. We promote and are active in impacting change because we believe in ourselves and our capabilities, whereas theists tend to have a lesser view of humanity.
Definitely. We’re just now beginning to learn about our subconsciousness, and eventually we’ll be able to deleniate what characteristics stem from our biological evolution and which stem from our subconscious. Obviously, not all people are altruistic in an objective sense, some are sociopaths (even though they might appear very sane).
Even though we could argue sociopaths might subjectively believe they’re altruistic (even though objectively they’re anything but) it strains reason to believe the rest of us get our altruism from a divine source (since you’d think it would be more uniform if that were true). Obviously we know enough about our evolutionary, psychological, and intellectual development to know we’re not guided by an invisible force, but even without that evidence it doesn’t make much sense (or it at least makes this god out to be not very effective or good at his job). The theist response is we have free will, but that makes even less sense. I guess god imparts us with his divine characteristics, yet our “flesh” is inherently sinful. We get to choose whether to follow this divine persuasion or our flesh, yet which part of us makes this choice? Is it our inherently sinful flesh, or is it the divine part of us? If it’s the latter then it’s really not our choice is it? If it’s the former, then there must be some fleshly (or biological) characteristic that distinguishes those who “choose” god from those who don’t?
It really makes no sense at all.
E
Elric
Guest
Hello?
I have been following this thread with a lot of interest (Loved the Cthulhu reference), but one thing that I have found to be strange is trying to argue against atheism as though it was like an organised religion. It simply isnt.
The only thing that is common with athiests is the belief that there is no god (I say god because this has basically turned into a christian vs atheism debate) and nothing else really. It doesnt have things like scripture or rules telling you how you should live like christianity and other organised religions do, its quite simply a belief.
I think that comparing it to christianity is a mistake, because they are two very different things.
Debating the existance of God or belief vs non-belief however, is very interesting. I have enjoyed reading the theories on the beginning of the universe (the multiverse theory screams of Michael Moorcock), although I do believe that God is behind it (maybe this isnt Gods first crack at it).
Please keep it up.
I have been following this thread with a lot of interest (Loved the Cthulhu reference), but one thing that I have found to be strange is trying to argue against atheism as though it was like an organised religion. It simply isnt.
The only thing that is common with athiests is the belief that there is no god (I say god because this has basically turned into a christian vs atheism debate) and nothing else really. It doesnt have things like scripture or rules telling you how you should live like christianity and other organised religions do, its quite simply a belief.
I think that comparing it to christianity is a mistake, because they are two very different things.
Debating the existance of God or belief vs non-belief however, is very interesting. I have enjoyed reading the theories on the beginning of the universe (the multiverse theory screams of Michael Moorcock), although I do believe that God is behind it (maybe this isnt Gods first crack at it).
Please keep it up.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Well, here’s an interesting thought experiment: take an average religionist who does a lot of charitable work. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, we can somehow provide proof to that person that there are absolutely no gods and no afterlife rewards for behavior.
Would that person immediately stop engaging in charitable actions?
I submit that the vast majority of people who do charitable work would continue to do charitable work whether or not they have a belief in gods. The reason for this is that they have plenty of good, non-religious reasons for being charitable.
So “morality” is really an utterly irrelevant issue when we’re discussing whether or not the belief in gods is true.
I notice that you like to point out logical contradictions in beliefs. That’s all well and good, but religious believers are notoriously good at finding ways of dancing around logical objections.
I find that it’s best to leave the particulars of their claims alone and just ask where the evidence is. It’s not like their beliefs would be any more likely to be true if they were internally consistent.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
From the Catholic News Agency: New astrophysical discoveries leave little to no room for Atheism, expert says:
Fr. Spitzer explained that, since science is based on a empirical model, it can change at any time. Nevertheless, as science develops and the so called “Big Bang” theory of the origin and existence of the universe becomes more refined, “it becomes less and less possible for other explanations (of the universe) to be scientifically viable.”
The theory, developed by the Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître, proposes that the Universe has expanded from a primordial dense initial condition at some time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.
The model, according to Fr. Spitzer, has been revised, refined and scientifically established to a point that any other theory of the origin and existence of the universe has become harder and harder to defend.
Fr. Spitzer explained that, what we know from the most recent scientific evidence is that “the universe is not the universe of Mr. Newton anymore, it is not infinite, it is finite, it started at some point, and is in constant expansion.”
He then explained the complexity of the universe, saying it is based on “an incredibly delicate balance of 17 cosmological constants. If any of them would be off by one part of a tenth at a forty potency, we would be dead and the universe would not be what it is.”
“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe,” Fr. Spitzer said.
The priest physicist then proceeded to explain the different, complex versions of the various Bing Bang theories.
He quoted Roger Penrose, the world-famous English mathematician and physicist, who corrected some of the theories of his friend and colleague Stephen Hawkins to conclude that every Big Bang theory, including the one known as Quantum theory, confirms the existence of singularities. Therefore, said Spitzer, the need to find an explanation to the universe’s existence drives us to seek “a force that is previous and independent from the universe.”
Fr. Spitzer also quoted the 2003 experiments by three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, who were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
“The concept at this point is clear: nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes, since nothing is… nothing!” Fr. Spitzer said, to explain the fact that contemporary astrophysics demands “something with sufficient power to bring the universe into existence.”
“It sounds like a theological argument, but is really a scientific conclusion.
“There is no way to ignore the fact that it demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time,” he added.
More at catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17267
Fr. Spitzer explained that, since science is based on a empirical model, it can change at any time. Nevertheless, as science develops and the so called “Big Bang” theory of the origin and existence of the universe becomes more refined, “it becomes less and less possible for other explanations (of the universe) to be scientifically viable.”
The theory, developed by the Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître, proposes that the Universe has expanded from a primordial dense initial condition at some time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.
The model, according to Fr. Spitzer, has been revised, refined and scientifically established to a point that any other theory of the origin and existence of the universe has become harder and harder to defend.
Fr. Spitzer explained that, what we know from the most recent scientific evidence is that “the universe is not the universe of Mr. Newton anymore, it is not infinite, it is finite, it started at some point, and is in constant expansion.”
He then explained the complexity of the universe, saying it is based on “an incredibly delicate balance of 17 cosmological constants. If any of them would be off by one part of a tenth at a forty potency, we would be dead and the universe would not be what it is.”
“Every single Big Bang model shows the existence of what scientists call a ‘singularity,’ and the existence of each singularity demands the existence of an external ‘element’ to the universe,” Fr. Spitzer said.
The priest physicist then proceeded to explain the different, complex versions of the various Bing Bang theories.
He quoted Roger Penrose, the world-famous English mathematician and physicist, who corrected some of the theories of his friend and colleague Stephen Hawkins to conclude that every Big Bang theory, including the one known as Quantum theory, confirms the existence of singularities. Therefore, said Spitzer, the need to find an explanation to the universe’s existence drives us to seek “a force that is previous and independent from the universe.”
Fr. Spitzer also quoted the 2003 experiments by three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, who were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.
“The concept at this point is clear: nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes, since nothing is… nothing!” Fr. Spitzer said, to explain the fact that contemporary astrophysics demands “something with sufficient power to bring the universe into existence.”
“It sounds like a theological argument, but is really a scientific conclusion.
“There is no way to ignore the fact that it demands the existence of a singularity and therefore of a Creator outside space and time,” he added.
More at catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17267
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
You really believe this news report leaves little room for atheism? That’s a ridiculous statement. The big bang is well accepted, but we have a long way to go and many future refinements to make before we understand our origins clearly.
Two of the three hypothetical models of physics beyond the big bang propose that the big bang is an event in a much larger and older universe, and not the literall beginning.
Nevertheless, yours is just another argument from incredultiy. The universe is so complex therefore god. Never mind that religion has had to continually conform its doctrines to scientific discovery … but nahhh that’s not a relevant fact
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
maybe, but maybe not (it’s pretty speculative I guess).
I agree; but I don’t think I was ever the first to use the issue of behavior to bolster my view. I’m usually stuck defending my views against preposterous charges like atheism leads to communism or a chaotic crime ridden society.
The post you’re referring to is perhaps the only time (or one of the few times) on this board I’ve pointed to internal inconsistencies in the bible. I agree it’s not a very relevant point, but I felt like it was worth mentioning at the time?
W
wcknight
Guest
There have been many miracles that have no scientific explanation for them, including many in recent times. The Cloak of Juan Diego has been examined on many occasions. I suspect it may be under investigation even now. It was recently discovered that the reflection of Juan Diego can be seen under high magnification in eye of Mary. There is no conspiracy to hide the fact that it is authentic.
Yes, look at some of the incorrupt saints. St. Rita is about the only one who is looking a bit ghastly because she happens to be placed near candles that give off smoke PLUS it has been about 500 years since she died. But St. Bernadettes body is no different than when she died almost a hundred years ago. St Padre Pio is the same after 50 years and St Catherine of Sienna is virually the same after almost 200 years.
Dig up someone’s grave after 50 years they may be nothing much more than a skeleton.
Folks have had access to miraculous events or items and no one has "debunked’ the incorruptability of these saints and no one can even reproduce the Tilma of Juan Diego and make it last more than a few years. It has lasted for 400 years and the first few years it was available for folks to touch, kiss and handle. It alone was responsible for about 4 million conversions during the first few years of its existence, probably many more times that.
The fact that you personally do not have access to these items to examine does not make them myths. But you can view many of them fairly close and determine for yourself if they are frauds or the real deal.
But faith is not only about about things or miracles. The fact that God made you and gave you life and how you respond to Him is the name of the game. Do you give Him the respect and honor that is due to Him or do you ignore or insult Him with your indifference or cynicism determines your eternal fate.
To roll the dice and say, I don’t really care about God or eternity, is a high risk gamble, one where the stakes are insanely high. It’s like us betting one dollar to win a billion, or like you risking everything you own or ever will own to win one dollar.
Let’s look at the risks. IF you are wrong, like most of us Catholics and Christian believe you are, you could end up like toast for all eternity, not a pretty picture.
Even IF you are right, if there is no God, there is no upside. You may have your freedom or fun times for about a hundred years of so, but you end up as nothing as everyone does.
BUT if we are right, and I’ve already given you a bunch or reasons why we know we are, we have the joy of having life everlasting with the God we love. And IF by some infitessimally small chance that we are wrong, we get the same nothingness that you too will share with the rest of us.
The way I look at it. You have nothing to gain but everything to lose, while we have everything to gain with nothing to lose.
Yes, I suppose, we would have spent a lifetime of doing good amd avoid evil, but those are the chances we are more than willing to take. 100 years of sin/fun/perversion/whatever versus a trillion, trillion zillion years of joy and eternal bliss, I’d take those odds in a heart beat everytime.
J
josie_L
Guest
eternity
A noun 1 eternity, timelessness, timeless existence
a state of eternal existence believed in some religions to characterize the afterlife
Category Tree:
state
╚being; beingness; existence
╚eternity, timelessness, timeless existence
What is so important about the Big Bang theory?
The most important idea is that it tells us the universe had a beginning.
In the 1930s to the 1960s, many intelligent people did not like the idea that the universe had a beginning. These scientists “held onto the view” that the universe had always existed (did NOT have a beginning). To make the “Big Bang” theory credible, more evidence and facts were needed to support the idea that the universe had a beginning. A new finding in 1965 gave the Big Bang theory a new boost. This new finding and as well as others in the last 50 years support that the Big Bang theory appears to be true. Just below, five ideas are summarized that support the universe had a beginning.
harvardhouse.com/universe_began.htm
The Big Bang Points Towards an Ultimate Beginning
After the Big Bang theory became the dominant theory of the origin of the universe many cosmologists still tried to get around the idea of a beginning and an initial cause by suggesting that the Big Bang was a re-occurring event. The idea was that the universe expands for a period of time until gravity slows the expansion and then causes the universe to collapse, slowly at first and then faster and faster as matter is pulled tightly together. The result would be the universe ending up back at the singularity, then another big bang would occur and the process would start all over again. If this was true then the idea of a beginning and its cause could be explained away.
Unfortunately, for those who held to this idea, their hopes were dashed when it became clear that the total mass of the universe was far below the critical value. For those of you who are not familiar with this problem it can be described this way. There is simply not enough stuff in the universe to allow gravity to be strong enough to halt the expansion. In the mid 1990s astronomer Brian Schmidt and his team in Chile were attempting to measure the rate of expansion of the universe and to their complete surprise they discovered that the rate of expansion was increasing not decreasing. Another team led by Saul Permutter also made this discovery around the same time.[iii] The Nova program, Runaway Universe tells the story of this discovery and the role of dark energy in the expansion.
Since then we have been able to estimate the mass of the universe in relation to the critical mass. With all the mass of the universe the total is less than one hundredth the amount necessary to halt the expansion. Now an objection is always raised when this is brought up because it is now estimated that ninety-five percent of the universe’s mass is the mysterious dark matter, not the luminous matter. However, with the dark matter added, even the most optimistic estimates put the number up to only twenty-five percent of the total required.[iv] This is significant because it means that the universe did have a beginning and it was a onetime event. **There are still some secular cosmologists (and young Earth creationists) fighting against the Big Bang, but they are by far an extreme minority now. **
theoriginsdebate.com/ultimatebeginning.htm
The universe, as we see it today, is expanding from a widely accepted theoretical event in spacetime called the Big Bang that occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago.
astronomytoday.com/cosmology/bigbang.html
Missing Mass
In order for the universe to halt expansion and eventually contract into a ‘Big Crunch’, the mass of the universe must be above a certain value. The stars and galaxies in the universe detectable by our telescopes and instruments only account for a small fraction of this total mass, an assertion clearly supported by indirect evidence e.g. the rotation of galaxies.
Therefore neutrinos were thought to make up a large fraction of the dark matter in the universe. But with an upper limit on their mass, the total mass of the universe cannot reach the critical level so our universe will surely expand into infinity with all its remaining consequences.
astronomytoday.com/cosmology/universe.html
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I’d rather be toast then capitulate to the psychological extortion of the choice you present.
There’s plenty of downside. The first that comes to mind is I base my life on a delusion.
I don’t believe any of your reasons. Here’s some reasons why:
The Catholic Church claims there are many incorruptible bodies and that they are divine signs of the holiness of the persons whose bodies they used to be. Perhaps, but they are more likely signs of careful or lucky burial, combined with ignorance regarding the factors that affect rate of decay. Some alleged cases of incorruptibility border on the piously fraudulent. For example, a television program showed a corpse in a case of a very lifelike woman the narrator said was the preserved body of St. Teresa of Avila who died in 1582. The corpse was actually that of St. Bernadette Soubirous, who died in 1879. A photo of her corpse can be seen on the cover of a book called The Incorruptibles, which claims the body has been “preserved intact since 1879 without embalming or other artificial means.” Actually, the face and hands that look so real in the photo are made out of wax. The wax was added because the face was “emaciated” when the body was first exhumed (Nickell 1993: 92). Perhaps St. Bernadette’s corpse should be moved to Madame Tussauds.
skepdic.com/incorrupt.html
I do good and avoid evil as well, I just don’t need religion to inspire my good behavior
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Another one (my 20 minutes ran out):
*Bartolache was not the only one who doubted the heavenly origin of the image. In 1883, Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta was directed by Archbishop Labastida to investigate the matter. After an intensive and thorough examination of the tilma, Icazbalceta conceded that the image was in fact a fraud. In his report back to the Archbishop, Icazbalceta stated “With all my heart, I had hoped this miracle which would prove to be such a great honor for my country would prove to be true, But I do not find it to be. If we are obliged to believe in and proclaim miracles which have occured, we are also prohibited from publicizing false ones.’’ Incidently, after Izcalbacet died, the Catholic Church had a Jesuit historian write a book to refute what Izcalbacet had writren. The result was the “Historical album of the Virgin of Guadalupe” which had 25 worthless, unprovable and long since debunked “proofs” of the Virgin’s appeaarance. Among the “proofs” presented in the Album were varying stories describing the event, and dates which did not match for the events described.
By 1895 the tilma had deteriorated beyond repair and Father Antonio Plancarte ordered that it be switched with a new one. Plancarte’s statement can be read in the Dec. 3rd, 1895 issue of El Universal. However, when the new image was put into place, the priests made a stunning discovery - the artists had completely left out the crown which rested on “La Virgin’s” head! In an attempt to cover up this mistake, the church declared that the crown had miraculously disapeared, and those faithful to the image actually believed it. This entire sordid event was recorded in great detail in the book “Echoes of Olvido” which was published in 1900 by Bishop Sanchez Camacho.
In 1928 the new, crownless version of the image was examined by the great painter and Mexikanista Dr. Atl. Dr. Atl concluded that the image was definitely not on maguey fiber as claimed, and he went on to add that “The painting of Guadalupe is a parody of her image which is in Fuenterrabla Spain, which is in turn a parody of Byzantine images of decadence. The Virgin of Guadalupe is a purely decorative work, executed by someone with mediocre imagery. “*
mexika.org/Lavirgin.html
*Despite his prestige as Mexico’s pre-eminent historian of the time, his political conservatism and his devout Catholicism, attacks were made against his reputation by defenders of the historicity of the apparition. In response to a demand made by Pelagio Antonio de Labastida, Archbishop of Mexico, he wrote a detailed account of “what history tells us about the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Juan Diego”.
In it, he detailed all of the historical problems with the traditional legend of the apparition. These included the silence of historical documents on the phenomenon, especially that of Zumárraga, the lack of any of the Nahuatl documents mentioned by previous historians, the unremarkability of the blossoming of flowers during the month of December (an important aspect of the traditional narrative), and the improbability that “Guadalupe” was a Nahuatl name. He further cited inconsistencies between the studies of the icon as reasons to doubt the apparition’s historicity.*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_Garc%C3%ADa_Icazbalceta
*Bartolache was not the only one who doubted the heavenly origin of the image. In 1883, Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta was directed by Archbishop Labastida to investigate the matter. After an intensive and thorough examination of the tilma, Icazbalceta conceded that the image was in fact a fraud. In his report back to the Archbishop, Icazbalceta stated “With all my heart, I had hoped this miracle which would prove to be such a great honor for my country would prove to be true, But I do not find it to be. If we are obliged to believe in and proclaim miracles which have occured, we are also prohibited from publicizing false ones.’’ Incidently, after Izcalbacet died, the Catholic Church had a Jesuit historian write a book to refute what Izcalbacet had writren. The result was the “Historical album of the Virgin of Guadalupe” which had 25 worthless, unprovable and long since debunked “proofs” of the Virgin’s appeaarance. Among the “proofs” presented in the Album were varying stories describing the event, and dates which did not match for the events described.
By 1895 the tilma had deteriorated beyond repair and Father Antonio Plancarte ordered that it be switched with a new one. Plancarte’s statement can be read in the Dec. 3rd, 1895 issue of El Universal. However, when the new image was put into place, the priests made a stunning discovery - the artists had completely left out the crown which rested on “La Virgin’s” head! In an attempt to cover up this mistake, the church declared that the crown had miraculously disapeared, and those faithful to the image actually believed it. This entire sordid event was recorded in great detail in the book “Echoes of Olvido” which was published in 1900 by Bishop Sanchez Camacho.
In 1928 the new, crownless version of the image was examined by the great painter and Mexikanista Dr. Atl. Dr. Atl concluded that the image was definitely not on maguey fiber as claimed, and he went on to add that “The painting of Guadalupe is a parody of her image which is in Fuenterrabla Spain, which is in turn a parody of Byzantine images of decadence. The Virgin of Guadalupe is a purely decorative work, executed by someone with mediocre imagery. “*
mexika.org/Lavirgin.html
*Despite his prestige as Mexico’s pre-eminent historian of the time, his political conservatism and his devout Catholicism, attacks were made against his reputation by defenders of the historicity of the apparition. In response to a demand made by Pelagio Antonio de Labastida, Archbishop of Mexico, he wrote a detailed account of “what history tells us about the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe to Juan Diego”.
In it, he detailed all of the historical problems with the traditional legend of the apparition. These included the silence of historical documents on the phenomenon, especially that of Zumárraga, the lack of any of the Nahuatl documents mentioned by previous historians, the unremarkability of the blossoming of flowers during the month of December (an important aspect of the traditional narrative), and the improbability that “Guadalupe” was a Nahuatl name. He further cited inconsistencies between the studies of the icon as reasons to doubt the apparition’s historicity.*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_Garc%C3%ADa_Icazbalceta
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Did I see someone talk about “missing mass” in the universe? It’s dark matter and dark energy (and we can detect it through gravitational lensing). Moreover, it’s confusing the issue to define the big bang as an absolute starting point for the universe. We simply don’t know. It may be an event that occurred shortly after the very beginning of our universe, or it may not be.
Many physicists believe there are alternate universes (given it’s the best mathematical model). This idea is mainstream enough that Fermi Labs (a government laboratory) in IL is looking for evidence of alternate universes right now.
However, it still doesn’t change the fact that the universe we live in today was essentially started by an explosion, or series of explosions, followed by about a billion year dark period (not dark exactly, but rather opaque with a bunch of ionized plasma floating around), and then the formation of stars began (followed by galaxies, clusters, planets, etc.).
We don’t what existed prior to the big bang (although the requisite conditions had to exist for the big bang to occur, so the big bang could not have been an absolute starting point in the way you guys believe), we don’t have a unified theory of physics, and using cosmology to bolster theism is I must say an amusing twist of irony (given that science has debunked much of your bible; and your creation story is chief among those debunked myths)
Many physicists believe there are alternate universes (given it’s the best mathematical model). This idea is mainstream enough that Fermi Labs (a government laboratory) in IL is looking for evidence of alternate universes right now.
However, it still doesn’t change the fact that the universe we live in today was essentially started by an explosion, or series of explosions, followed by about a billion year dark period (not dark exactly, but rather opaque with a bunch of ionized plasma floating around), and then the formation of stars began (followed by galaxies, clusters, planets, etc.).
We don’t what existed prior to the big bang (although the requisite conditions had to exist for the big bang to occur, so the big bang could not have been an absolute starting point in the way you guys believe), we don’t have a unified theory of physics, and using cosmology to bolster theism is I must say an amusing twist of irony (given that science has debunked much of your bible; and your creation story is chief among those debunked myths)
J
josie_L
Guest
Wendy Freedman and her team at the Carnegie Observatories took the better part of a decade with the Hubble Space Telescope to calibrate the Hubble constant, which measures the rate of the universe’s expansion. Though there are complications, of course, to a first approximation, it seems one can run the movie of the universe’s expansion in reverse and calculate a beginning (now set at 13.7 billion years ago).
Is it that simple? Does a tight Hubble constant “prove” that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning? What impresses me are the multiple tests and independent measurements, all of which converge on a similar origin and age of the universe. Most meaningful is the cosmic background radiation, that “afterglow” of the heat of the big bang, which fills the sky in all directions and which shows the steady state universe to be false. Experimental astrophysicist George Smoot won the Nobel Prize for these measurements; he calls the pictorial representations “an ultrasound of the embryo universe”—galaxies and clusters of galaxies germinating from quantum fluctuations, seeds smaller than protons.
So it seems that our universe did have a beginning. We call it the “big bang,” but technically, under the most widely accepted cosmological model—inflation—the big bang was not the beginning. It emerged from the cauldron of cosmic inflation, when something infinitesimally small expanded majestically in an astonishingly brief instant, cooking up space, time, energy, and matter in a colossal cosmic stew.
The fundamental question is this: No matter the theory, was there ever a “something from nothing” start? In Guth’s inflation, no matter how high the number of universes that exist at any moment, inflation had to start with a beginning. Cosmic inflation may engender infinite universes forever into the future, but it cannot do so forever into the past. Under inflationary theory, there must be a finite number of universes in the past. Time’s arrow is not symmetrical. So unless something like the Steinhardt-Turok model of cyclical universes is correct, inflation demands that the universe had a beginning and that it had to start with some stuff, however small.
scienceandreligiontoday.blogspot.com/2008/10/did-our-universe-have-beginning.html
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn’t have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won’t return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.
hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62
Is it that simple? Does a tight Hubble constant “prove” that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning? What impresses me are the multiple tests and independent measurements, all of which converge on a similar origin and age of the universe. Most meaningful is the cosmic background radiation, that “afterglow” of the heat of the big bang, which fills the sky in all directions and which shows the steady state universe to be false. Experimental astrophysicist George Smoot won the Nobel Prize for these measurements; he calls the pictorial representations “an ultrasound of the embryo universe”—galaxies and clusters of galaxies germinating from quantum fluctuations, seeds smaller than protons.
So it seems that our universe did have a beginning. We call it the “big bang,” but technically, under the most widely accepted cosmological model—inflation—the big bang was not the beginning. It emerged from the cauldron of cosmic inflation, when something infinitesimally small expanded majestically in an astonishingly brief instant, cooking up space, time, energy, and matter in a colossal cosmic stew.
The fundamental question is this: No matter the theory, was there ever a “something from nothing” start? In Guth’s inflation, no matter how high the number of universes that exist at any moment, inflation had to start with a beginning. Cosmic inflation may engender infinite universes forever into the future, but it cannot do so forever into the past. Under inflationary theory, there must be a finite number of universes in the past. Time’s arrow is not symmetrical. So unless something like the Steinhardt-Turok model of cyclical universes is correct, inflation demands that the universe had a beginning and that it had to start with some stuff, however small.
scienceandreligiontoday.blogspot.com/2008/10/did-our-universe-have-beginning.html
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn’t have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won’t return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.
hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
No one states the universe as we know it now existed forever (at least I don’t). What we can see with our telescopes can and has been rewound and used to compute an age of the universe of around 13 billion years.
However, that doesn’t tell us whether or not something existed before the big bang (since our observations measures things like the rate of expansion and distance, it’s only telling us when the explosion that formed the universe occurred); but all this does is help prove the big bang true (which few at this point dispute anyway).
We know certain conditions had to exist to make the big bang possible. Matter had to exist before the big bang (whether in the form of a dense singularity or something else). Moreover, this doesn’t add any insight into the question of alternate universes.
Alternate universes could exist while at the same time a big bang occurred (with a traceable starting point). At any rate this speculation is grossly premature. No matter what physicists, astronomers, or cosmologists discover … I strongly doubt they’ll ever find a god with their telescopes
If some of you folks took the time to understand physics (and not think you’re an expert in physics because you’ve read a few Wikipedia articles, or whatever) you would understand how theoretical many of the things you’re touting as fact actually are.
However, that doesn’t tell us whether or not something existed before the big bang (since our observations measures things like the rate of expansion and distance, it’s only telling us when the explosion that formed the universe occurred); but all this does is help prove the big bang true (which few at this point dispute anyway).
We know certain conditions had to exist to make the big bang possible. Matter had to exist before the big bang (whether in the form of a dense singularity or something else). Moreover, this doesn’t add any insight into the question of alternate universes.
Alternate universes could exist while at the same time a big bang occurred (with a traceable starting point). At any rate this speculation is grossly premature. No matter what physicists, astronomers, or cosmologists discover … I strongly doubt they’ll ever find a god with their telescopes
If some of you folks took the time to understand physics (and not think you’re an expert in physics because you’ve read a few Wikipedia articles, or whatever) you would understand how theoretical many of the things you’re touting as fact actually are.
J
Joan_of_Bark
Guest
You’ve completely misunderstood the gist of my point. I agree there is absolutely no evidence for what happened before our big bang. I never claimed in any of my posts that we had evidence, beyond the fact that we know that mass-energy in this cycle can be neither created nor destroyed. I was merely responding to the assertation that the physical universe at some point obviously failed to exist, and therefore a god must have created it. I am putting forth the hypothesis (which is not original with me) that the universe goes through endless cycles of big bangs and big crunches, with no beginning and no end – hence, no creator is necessary. I see this as a simpler explanation than that of a timeless god who created it all. Obviously you disagree.
Again, just to make sure I am clear on this point: I’m only saying that a creator God is not the only possible explanation for the existence of the universe.
If you want me to speculate on what the universe looked like before this most recent big bang, well, I can do that, but it doesn’t count for much. I would guess it looked a lot like this one, with stars, planets, life, and sentient creatures arguing on the internet.
J
Joan_of_Bark
Guest
After I hung up, this explanation actually occured to me. Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Anyway, I’m going to be away from computers for a week or so, so this will be my last post on this thread. Please carry on without me.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
No I do understand your point completely as, of course, I have heard this before Joan.You’ve completely misunderstood the gist of my point. I agree there is absolutely no evidence for what happened before our big bang. I never claimed in any of my posts that we had evidence, beyond the fact that we know that mass-energy in this cycle can be neither created nor destroyed. I was merely responding to the assertation that the physical universe at some point obviously failed to exist, and therefore a god must have created it. I am putting forth the hypothesis (which is not original with me) that the universe goes through endless cycles of big bangs and big crunches, with no beginning and no end – hence, no creator is necessary. I see this as a simpler explanation than that of a timeless god who created it all. Obviously you disagree.
Again, just to make sure I am clear on this point: I’m only saying that a creator God is not the only possible explanation for the existence of the universe.
If you want me to speculate on what the universe looked like before this most recent big bang, well, I can do that, but it doesn’t count for much. I would guess it looked a lot like this one, with stars, planets, life, and sentient creatures arguing on the internet.
What you said to Josie was:“Again I say, the universe(s) have always existed in physical form; they merely go through endless cycles. There was no ‘first cause’ because there was no beginning (except to the current cycle in which we live).”
Those are your words directly from post # 204 in this thread. That appears a statement of fact. Now you believe it a “hypothesis” which is fine by me and appears like progress. I did post in post # 226 above arguments pointing to a Creator God today in that regard. In any event, believer or not, don’t get too heated over this thread as it seems you are going for a week I thought I glimpsed so best not to leave in an argumentative mood.
K
KyivAndrew
Guest
I am not so sure what you call “good” is necessarily different from what other atheists you mention call “morality”. You seem to find grounding for “values” in reason and in evolutionary biology. You’ve explained elsewhere that “altruism” is a result of the survival instinct from evolution.
In your opinion, is there not also a desire to KILL then in our so-called evolutionary biological makeup? I mean around 200 million people were killed in last century’s world wars and genocides (Communist genocides, Nazi crimes, the Holocaust). You seem to have a reasonably positive spin on Human Nature and its intrinsic “good value” base from what I can reckon from your posts. Do you believe then in the ultimate perfectibility of human nature by ways of evolution or are we stuck with the same natures we’ve always had as humans in history. It would seem from last century’s Mega Death Toll that the urge to Kill quite often overrides any evolutionary-based “altruism”.
This may be a tangent on this thread but the original O.P. was about rationality in atheists – on your reading of History AntiT where did all this bloodletting of the 20th century, the most progressive and secular in history, come from? Are you at all troubled that, in the absence of Morality, the evolutionary urge to Kill won’t overwhelm your understood urge towards Altruism? I am seeking to understand your irreligious thinking and whether it appears more “rational” than Christian/theist thinking on morality or, in your words, “values”. I am asking out of curiosity as the original question was on the rationality of atheism.
- Status