Atheists: Prove that beauty exists

[Thing]

humble:

The universe had a starting point, we think, but we also think reality may contain more than four dimensions. If that’s true your entire argument goes out the window.

The universe had a starting point.

Thats fine.

Reality may contain more than four dimensions.

Multidimensions are not real.

If they are real your argument goes out the window.

Why? Multidimensions are imagined to help explain gravitons and missing stuff; but they are *imagined *places to house real stuff that was also created at the starting point of the universe.
Where is this going?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Thats fine.
Multidimensions are not real.

Why? Multidimensions are imagined to help explain gravitons and missing stuff; but they are *imagined *places to house real stuff that was also created at the starting point of the universe.
Where is this going?

In reality theories like string-theory are simply an attempt to find a unified theory of physics (and to figure out how the universe is constructed). As you might know relativity and quantum mechanics conflict with each other (or it’s perhaps more accurate to say quantum mechanics works well at the sub-atomic level, while relativity works well with larger objects).

In the M-theory way of thinking string theory requires space-time to have eleven dimensions. M-theory is perhaps the most inclusive theory out there, and the premise of string theory is a good one, however, it is true that we lack the technology to actually examine strings. However, the theory does work very well on paper (just as many past theories that were eventually proven by observation first existed only on paper).

So when you say multi-dimensions don’t exist, you either need to qualify that statement or if you disagree that M-Theory could be right, then please say so directly (and also please tell me what your credentials are so I can judge whether or not I should give your opinions any weight).

Here’s two sites I referred to for the purposes of this post (the Nova site is particularly interesting):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

So my point is you can’t base your theology on physics or science of any kind & not expect to eventually be proven wrong (and look silly), like the CC was eventually proven wrong with regard to assertions like the earth stands at the center of the universe & remains stationary (due to its literal interpretation of certain passages in scripture). BTW protestants also agreed that the earth stood at the center of the universe (before Kepler debunked geocentrism once and for all).

 

[Thing]

In reality theories like string-theory are simply an attempt to find a unified theory of physics (and to figure out how the universe is constructed). As you might know relativity and quantum mechanics conflict with each other (or it’s perhaps more accurate to say quantum mechanics works well at the sub-atomic level, while relativity works well with larger objects).

In the M-theory way of thinking string theory requires space-time to have eleven dimensions. M-theory is perhaps the most inclusive theory out there, and the premise of string theory is a good one, however, it is true that we lack the technology to actually examine strings. However, the theory does work very well on paper (just as many past theories that were eventually proven by observation first existed only on paper).

So when you say multi-dimensions don’t exist, you either need to qualify that statement or if you disagree that M-Theory could be right, then please say so directly (and also please tell me what your credentials are so I can judge whether or not I should give your opinions any weight).

Here’s two sites I referred to for the purposes of this post (the Nova site is particularly interesting):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

So my point is you can’t base your theology on physics or science of any kind & not expect to eventually be proven wrong (and look silly), like the CC was eventually proven wrong with regard to assertions like the earth stands at the center of the universe & remains stationary (due to its literal interpretation of certain passages in scripture). BTW protestants also agreed that the earth stood at the center of the universe (before Kepler debunked geocentrism once and for all).

Your contention is that multidimensions contradict a first cause.

Multidimensions’ function is to give a home to part of this universes mass and energy.

Multidimensions are imaginary only because that is how science describes them.

I want to know why you think imaginary multidimensions negate a first cause.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Your contention is that multidimensions contradict a first cause.

Multidimensions’ function is to give a home to part of this universes mass and energy.

Multidimensions are imaginary only because that is how science describes them.

I want to know why you think imaginary multidimensions negate a first cause.

M-theory itself doesn’t have to contradict the big bang theory (albeit there are many competing models of the big bang i.e. the big splat). However, M-theory helps us try to deal with what happened the “before” the big bang. Moreover, there are compelling emerging theories out there that posit more than one universe (i.e. embedded in higher dimension space).

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm

BTW scientists aren’t out there trying to prove there are hidden dimensions just to disprove religion. It’s easy enough to disprove religion with simple logic (physicists are concerned with real science, not worthless endeavors like ancient mythology).

You still haven’t told me what sort of credentials you have in this subject (I sense you’re dodging the question, so shall I assume you have no credentials in physics?).

 

[Thing]

M-theory itself doesn’t have to contradict the big bang theory (albeit there are many competing models of the big bang i.e. the big splat). However, M-theory helps us try to deal with what happened the “before” the big bang. Moreover, there are compelling emerging theories out there that posit more than one universe (i.e. embedded in higher dimension space).

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm

BTW scientists aren’t out there trying to prove there are hidden dimensions just to disprove religion. It’s easy enough to disprove religion with simple logic (physicists are concerned with real science, not worthless endeavors like ancient mythology).

You still haven’t told me what sort of credentials you have in this subject (I sense you’re dodging the question, so shall I assume you have no credentials in physics?).

Your contention is that multidimensions contradict a first cause.

I am interested in this.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Your contention is that multidimensions contradict a first cause.

I am interested in this.

If there’s hidden dimensions, multiple universes, etc. the idea of a temporal first cause goes back on the drawing board. In other words it doesn’t necessarily contradict a first cause, but the big bang is no longer “necessarily” the first cause either (and we’re back to scratch, we don’t know whether or not there was a first cause, whether we’re in some sort of infinite loop, or whatever). This is all I’ve ever contended.

Yes classical physics, philosophy, and common sense seem to demand a first cause for everything, the law of causation. When the big bang was first discovered many (particularly in the religious community) felt affirmed and believed that was incontrovertible proof that indeed there was a first cause (which proved the ancient Greeks wrong about an infinite universe). However, M-Theory and some of its variations toss us back to square one in a sense (although it answers many other questions at the same time).

Imagine if there are other universes outside of our perception? I guess you already do right, you call it heaven or hell. Now you said (or at least strongly inferred) numerous times that the idea of multiple universes is impossible. Yet you continually backtrack, narrow your objections, and still continue to dodge my question about your credentials (which I’m now convinced do not exist).

So now I ask you … what’s the point of your continued fallacious objections to my assertions (which really aren’t my assertions … they’re just evolving science). You don’t seem to have a cognizant point, except to prove me wrong (because I don’t buy into your religious views). Yet you continue to insert thy foot into thy mouth. I have to imagine at some point you won’t want to continue tasting your shoe leather … let’s see how long it takes?

You see I don’t base my theories of life or its beginnings on unproven science. I’m open to whatever physicists discover (it won’t destroy my theology because I have no theology). I don’t need physics to debunk religion, nor are any of my objections to religion based on anything besides simple logic (as I’ve said continually). I look at the pattern of religion generally speaking, the fact that its claims can’t be substantiated, and the fact that no claimed miracle has ever withstood rigorous scrutiny (much less ever been exposed to rigorous scrutiny). I see a god who coincidentally became absent from human history just as mankind began to examine natural phenomena through the prism of science. Is all this circumstantial evidence mere coincidence? I balance that very low probability against what I know about human nature and the motives of man (and how entrenched interests are determined to retain their power or position).

 

[Thing]

If there’s hidden dimensions, multiple universes, etc. the idea of a temporal first cause goes back on the drawing board. In other words it doesn’t necessarily contradict a first cause, but the big bang is no longer “necessarily” the first cause either (and we’re back to scratch, we don’t know whether or not there was a first cause, whether we’re in some sort of infinite loop, or whatever). This is all I’ve ever contended.

Yes classical physics, philosophy, and common sense seem to demand a first cause for everything, the law of causation. When the big bang was first discovered many (particularly in the religious community) felt affirmed and believed that was incontrovertible proof that indeed there was a first cause (which proved the ancient Greeks wrong about an infinite universe). However, M-Theory and some of its variations toss us back to square one in a sense (although it answers many other questions at the same time).

Imagine if there are other universes outside of our perception? I guess you already do right, you call it heaven or hell. Now you said (or at least strongly inferred) numerous times that the idea of multiple universes is impossible. Yet you continually backtrack, narrow your objections, and still continue to dodge my question about your credentials (which I’m now convinced do not exist).

So now I ask you … what’s the point of your continued fallacious objections to my assertions (which really aren’t my assertions … they’re just evolving science). You don’t seem to have a cognizant point, except to prove me wrong (because I don’t buy into your religious views). Yet you continue to insert thy foot into thy mouth. I have to imagine at some point you won’t want to continue tasting your shoe leather … let’s see how long it takes?

You see I don’t base my theories of life or its beginnings on unproven science. I’m open to whatever physicists discover (it won’t destroy my theology because I have no theology). I don’t need physics to debunk religion, nor are any of my objections to religion based on anything besides simple logic (as I’ve said continually). I look at the pattern of religion generally speaking, the fact that its claims can’t be substantiated, and the fact that no claimed miracle has ever withstood rigorous scrutiny (much less ever been exposed to rigorous scrutiny). I see a god who coincidentally became absent from human history just as mankind began to examine natural phenomena through the prism of science. Is all this circumstantial evidence mere coincidence? I balance that very low probability against what I know about human nature and the motives of man (and how entrenched interests are determined to retain their power or position).

Your contention is that multidimensions contradict a first cause.

So your contention is wrong.

I am satisfied.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Your contention is that multidimensions contradict a first cause.

So your contention is wrong.

I am satisfied.

How old are you? You sound very young that’s why I ask (and my apologies … I assumed you were an adult when I engaged you in this conversation, if I knew you were a kid I wouldn’t have talked about such advanced ideas). At any rate if you’re satisfied then great

Remember kid … do well in school, stay away from drugs, don’t get in a car with drunk friends, don’t screw up your credit, and don’t ever get arrested (follow this simple advice & life will be good). Oh yeah … go to college for something useful that will earn you a good living (believe me, if you take something useless like philosophy you’ll be sorry when those student loan bills come due).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Communist Russia was atheistic. Was that a Utopia?

CR was spoiled by having an outlook on the world that was Messianic - likewise its German contemporary. ​

They were not atheistic enough. Get rid of what makes people hate one another, & they lack the motive power that causes hate & genocide & whatnot. Stoicism & Epicureanism have no blood on their hands - yet both were ultimately as materialist as Marxism.

What about Communist China? Cuba? North Korea?

They too are regimes with a Messianic outlook - the Kingdom of God without God is still in essence the Kingdom of God,even if its name is changed & the theology of it becomes an “atheology” of it.​

None of them has any room for what is not itself. As “otherness”, in the form of disagreement, is certain to be found even so, they are always persecutory in temper, even if not in power. Allow for otherness & disagreement as a feature of an atheistic state, & a lot of the danger is avoided almost from the start. Which suggests that a pluralist state is desirable; not a state that is (so to call it) an atheocracy. A confessional but pluralist atheist state might work

 

[Thing]

How old are you? You sound very young that’s why I ask (and my apologies … I assumed you were an adult when I engaged you in this conversation, if I knew you were a kid I wouldn’t have talked about such advanced ideas). At any rate if you’re satisfied then great

Remember kid … do well in school, stay away from drugs, don’t get in a car with drunk friends, don’t screw up your credit, and don’t ever get arrested (follow this simple advice & life will be good). Oh yeah … go to college for something useful that will earn you a good living (believe me, if you take something useless like philosophy you’ll be sorry when those student loan bills come due).

No problem, Grandpa.

 

[josie_L]

No problem, Grandpa.

 

[josie_L]

CR was spoiled by having an outlook on the world that was Messianic - likewise its German contemporary. ​

They were not atheistic enough. Get rid of what makes people hate one another, & they lack the motive power that causes hate & genocide & whatnot. Stoicism & Epicureanism have no blood on their hands - yet both were ultimately as materialist as Marxism.

They too are regimes with a Messianic outlook - **the Kingdom of God without God is still in essence the Kingdom of God,even if its name is changed & the theology of it becomes an “atheology” of it. **​

None of them has any room for what is not itself. As “otherness”, in the form of disagreement, is certain to be found even so, they are always persecutory in temper, even if not in power. Allow for otherness & disagreement as a feature of an atheistic state, & a lot of the danger is avoided almost from the start. Which suggests that a pluralist state is desirable; not a state that is (so to call it) an atheocracy. A confessional but pluralist atheist state might work

Oh, what a bunch of bull dooey!!!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m glad you find that funny Josie … under that logic I guess you’re old enough to be a grandma

 

[humble_in_doubt]

CR was spoiled by having an outlook on the world that was Messianic - likewise its German contemporary. ​

They were not atheistic enough. Get rid of what makes people hate one another, & they lack the motive power that causes hate & genocide & whatnot. Stoicism & Epicureanism have no blood on their hands - yet both were ultimately as materialist as Marxism.

They too are regimes with a Messianic outlook - the Kingdom of God without God is still in essence the Kingdom of God,even if its name is changed & the theology of it becomes an “atheology” of it.​

None of them has any room for what is not itself. As “otherness”, in the form of disagreement, is certain to be found even so, they are always persecutory in temper, even if not in power. Allow for otherness & disagreement as a feature of an atheistic state, & a lot of the danger is avoided almost from the start. Which suggests that a pluralist state is desirable; not a state that is (so to call it) an atheocracy. A confessional but pluralist atheist state might work

sounds too complicated. I like the way things are going now, though I concede I wish they would move along faster. Western society is moving beyond religion, most of our European counterparts are ahead of us in this regard … but we’re beginning to catch up. With every generation religion’s influence wanes a little bit more.

I’m never a fan of any sort of centralized efforts at social engineering. Religion will go away naturally … just as pagan mythology eventually became extinct. The only way we can accelerate things is if atheists continue to assert ourselves, however, there’s also a drawback. We don’t want to assault religion to aggressively (because that will only give its purveyors ammunition … i.e. rally around the cross because the world and the devil is moving against us type of jargon).

 

[josie_L]

I’m glad you find that funny Josie … under that logic I guess you’re old enough to be a grandma

 

[josie_L]

I’m glad you find that funny Josie … under that logic I guess you’re old enough to be a grandma

Well, in all seriousness, you were being patronizing, so that being said Thing administered a well-deserved repartee.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Well, in all seriousness, you were being patronizing, so that being said Thing administered a well-deserved repartee.

Be that as it may … Thing was nonsensical throughout our entire dialog, so I have no remorse for my little snipe. The guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and won’t simply concede facts that I got directly from web sites like Nova. Why shouldn’t such absurd renderings of science be exposed for what it is and challenged?

Nothing urks me more than the purveyors of bad science, who really only seek to advance their religious agenda (at the expense of such an important subject and endeavor).

 

[josie_L]

Be that as it may … Thing was nonsensical throughout our entire dialog, so I have no remorse for my little snipe. The guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and won’t simply concede facts that I got directly from web sites like Nova. Why shouldn’t such absurd renderings of science be exposed for what it is and challenged?

Nothing urks me more than the purveyors of bad science, who really only seek to advance their religious agenda (at the expense of such an important subject and endeavor).

Be that as it may . . . you were being rude. And I can’t really comment on your conversation in it’s totality and/or content, but it didn’t seem like Thing was being nonsensical. Maybe your reading into Thing’s posts more than what really is.

 

[sympathy07]

You can visit this link for better results: beautyexists.blogspot.com/

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You can visit this link for better results: beautyexists.blogspot.com/

This whole thread is so darn misguided. Of course beauty exists, and indeed atheists create beauty every day. Art finds its roots in humanism, which is of course a very atheistic idea.

To say only religion can provide humanity with beauty is not only false, it’s perhaps the opposite of reality. I know few artists who are religious (though there are obviously some). You guys seem prone to these illogical absolutist assumptions, when real life is truly far more abstract then you imagine. When you create a mold that everyone must fit into … everyone must then compete to be the perfect form of that template. When an individual discovers they cannot fit into that mold they might be compelled to find their individual identity through deviancy. This, might I suggest, is a major flaw with religion (as it is with other ideas like nationalism).

When people understand we’re not all the same, nor can we be, they understand that their individual identity is inherent within themselves. Objective morality is only useful insofar as it’s utility. Don’t kill, good idea that few would argue against right? Yet your mold goes far beyond utility, and it’s neither realistic nor desirable that everyone fit into the same mold or take the same form. Catholicism draws to a large extent from Greek philosophy (a Roman preoccupation that predates Christianity). The idea that there can be a perfect form for everything is, however, untrue and even absurd. To promulgate such an extreme objective standard is not only fallacy, but might I suggest in many cases it’s the root behind radical deviancy.