W
wolpertinger
Guest
That’s a rhethorical question, right?
- Status
N
ncgolf
Guest
Back to the original title of this thread which is “How to combat atheism”. Athesism is nothing more than the free will being exercised. Atheists, pagans, et al, these are people we as Christians should not combat, they are not our enemies. Combat is something you do to an enemy.
The one thing that bothers me about the God, no god debate is many times the atheist determines he is the sole owner of logic and reason. There is a presuppostion on the atheists part that if one does believe in God one must do so only after letting go of all logic and reason. From a philosophical point of view ther are plenty of arguments that point to the existance of God. These arguments are not infalliable. The arguments point to the existance of God but not God himself. That is a big difference. The atheist or any other can read the same evidence or other evidence and draw the opposite conclusion of the believer.
I must admit though I nor any scientist has ever proven God from a test tube, experiment or mathematical formula. By the same token no experiment, formula has ever disproved God either. That leaves what one can determine from all other evidence presented in the world.
These discussions remind me of being on a jury. We see the same evidence and yet cannot draw the same conclusions. To reach a verdict someone must change their vote and that is a very difficult thing to do.
The one thing that bothers me about the God, no god debate is many times the atheist determines he is the sole owner of logic and reason. There is a presuppostion on the atheists part that if one does believe in God one must do so only after letting go of all logic and reason. From a philosophical point of view ther are plenty of arguments that point to the existance of God. These arguments are not infalliable. The arguments point to the existance of God but not God himself. That is a big difference. The atheist or any other can read the same evidence or other evidence and draw the opposite conclusion of the believer.
I must admit though I nor any scientist has ever proven God from a test tube, experiment or mathematical formula. By the same token no experiment, formula has ever disproved God either. That leaves what one can determine from all other evidence presented in the world.
These discussions remind me of being on a jury. We see the same evidence and yet cannot draw the same conclusions. To reach a verdict someone must change their vote and that is a very difficult thing to do.
J
James_Kanatous
Guest
Huiou Theou:
Since, according to this view, the universe is “running down,” it was only a matter of time until someone suggested that the universe must have been “wound up,” energetically speaking, at some time in the past. And who did the winding? It is at this point that we have god, the great energy winder, thrust upon us as an explanation.
You know it’s interesting–Clausius (Rudulf Clausius 1822-1888) proposed a forerunner of the entropy argument when he predicted the eventual “heat-death” of the universe, which asserted (in the words of Arthur Koestler) “that the universe is running down like clockwork affected by metal fatique, because its energy is being steadily, inexorably degraded, dissipated into heat, until it will finally dissolve into a single, shapeless, homogeneous bubble of gas of uniform temperature just above absolute zero, inert and motionless. . . .”Is it possible to show the neccesity of a first cause in terms of the logical science of today?
I think so.
The best of scientific advancement has led to concepts like density (which is clearly not infinite in the local sense in our real universe), conservation of matter, energy, and Entropy.
That third one is the universe killer.
No experiment, not even of Einstein’s caliber has ever shown the law of Entropy (third law of thermodynamics) to be incorrect.
In every chemical change, or physical change, and reaction, there is an irreversable component.
This law means that in any closed experiment, ever conducted, that any machine which does not receive energy from the outside will eventually cease to function (although it will still exist matter is not created or destroyed… ).
The energy will still be present, but unable to drive the machine any furthur.
No perpetual motion machines.
If the universe, which has a finite density, had been around forever it (as a machine) should have stopped functioning already.
Hence, it is illogical to say that the universe has been around forever.
The measurable density of the universe makes the size of the universe irrelevant. Make many small (closed) experiments. Have them running in parallel, all of them will stop.
Join them pair wise, they still stop.
Join all of the experiments to make a universe any size.
It will still stop.
The relitive uniformity, (finite density), of the universe makes the outcome certain.
So, there does (at least) have to be a point source of inexhaustable energy supply to posit that the universe has always existed, or one must speculate that the known laws of the universe change at some point to suit ones philosophy.
The former has not been found yet, and the latter is pure pride.
(Who knows, though, someone MIGHT discover an experiment…)
In any event, the universe does have a source of some kind, or the third law of thermodynamics is wrong (which is absurd).
And the source, logically, must have always existed…
St. Thomas was no Newton, but he didn’t do too badly.
Since, according to this view, the universe is “running down,” it was only a matter of time until someone suggested that the universe must have been “wound up,” energetically speaking, at some time in the past. And who did the winding? It is at this point that we have god, the great energy winder, thrust upon us as an explanation.
J
James_Kanatous
Guest
A recent statement of this argument was made by John Robbins in The Intercollegiate Review:
. . . . if the existence of the eternal personal transcendent God is denied, then there is no alternative but to maintain that the material universe has existed infinitely backwards in time, and will exist infinitely forwards. . . . But if the physical universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, there could be no order, no complexity, nothing except evenly distributed atoms in space. Infinite time, coupled with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, must yield infinite randomness, i.e., zero organization. There could certainly be no stars and planets, and most certainly no men.
Two fallacies are obvious in this argument, even to the person unfamiliar with physics. First, Robbins wishes to make some mysterious creature responsible for a primordial state of minimum entropy, from which he claims the universe is now running down. But even if this were true, how does Robbins arrive at the dubious attributes of eternal, personal and transcendent? At best, the entropy argument is capable of demonstrating the existence of some primitive energy source, and this source need bear no resemblance to the Christian man-made God–none at all.
Second, Robbins, like most advocates of the entropy argument, is inconsistent. Is the second law of thermodymanics an inexorable law of nature? Yes, according to Robbins, because it “has never been contradicted.” Never? Then what prevented his eternal, personal and transcendent god from suffering a gruesome heat-death? If the second law is not applicable to god, it is not inexorable. If this is so, on what grounds can the theist assert that the second law applies to the entire universe and cannot, under any circumstances, be contradicted?
The universe has not “run down”; on this, theists and atheists can agree. Thus, the question arises: “Why?” The theist, true to the style of primitive man who explained lightening by inventing a lightening god, posits an anti-entropic god. Rather than re-examine his application of the second law of thermodynamics, the theist prefers to argue that it applies without exception–and he then posits an exception to it as an explanation. It is an evasion, and a poor one besides. If the theist cannot solve the entropy problem, a simple “I don’t know” would be much more honest.
. . . . if the existence of the eternal personal transcendent God is denied, then there is no alternative but to maintain that the material universe has existed infinitely backwards in time, and will exist infinitely forwards. . . . But if the physical universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, there could be no order, no complexity, nothing except evenly distributed atoms in space. Infinite time, coupled with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, must yield infinite randomness, i.e., zero organization. There could certainly be no stars and planets, and most certainly no men.
Two fallacies are obvious in this argument, even to the person unfamiliar with physics. First, Robbins wishes to make some mysterious creature responsible for a primordial state of minimum entropy, from which he claims the universe is now running down. But even if this were true, how does Robbins arrive at the dubious attributes of eternal, personal and transcendent? At best, the entropy argument is capable of demonstrating the existence of some primitive energy source, and this source need bear no resemblance to the Christian man-made God–none at all.
Second, Robbins, like most advocates of the entropy argument, is inconsistent. Is the second law of thermodymanics an inexorable law of nature? Yes, according to Robbins, because it “has never been contradicted.” Never? Then what prevented his eternal, personal and transcendent god from suffering a gruesome heat-death? If the second law is not applicable to god, it is not inexorable. If this is so, on what grounds can the theist assert that the second law applies to the entire universe and cannot, under any circumstances, be contradicted?
The universe has not “run down”; on this, theists and atheists can agree. Thus, the question arises: “Why?” The theist, true to the style of primitive man who explained lightening by inventing a lightening god, posits an anti-entropic god. Rather than re-examine his application of the second law of thermodynamics, the theist prefers to argue that it applies without exception–and he then posits an exception to it as an explanation. It is an evasion, and a poor one besides. If the theist cannot solve the entropy problem, a simple “I don’t know” would be much more honest.
J
James_Kanatous
Guest
Reconciling the Second law of Thermodynamics with the present state of the universe is not as hopeless as theists like to pretend. To begin with, the Second Law is a statement of statistical probability, and there is nothing inherently contradictory in supposing that a closed system can decrease in entropy or fluctuate between incresing and decreasing entropy states. But this probability, is extremely unlikely, so it is usually ignored in practical applications.
More importantly, however, the Second Law pertains only to closed systems, which, according to many physicists, renders it inapplicable to the universe as a whole. Professor Grunbaum, a physicist, writes:
An inherent limitation on the applicability of the . . . entropy concept to the entire universe lies in the fact that it has no applicability at all to a spatially infinite universe. . . .
Professor E.A. Milne, commenting on another physicist’s acceptance of the heat-death thesis, writes:
Jean’s own studies in the realm of the second law of thermodynamics were all concerned with the kinetic theory of gases, in which the specimen under discussion is supposed walled around in a finite vessel; and to such systems the notion of a heat-death is applicable. But by no means is the same result to be predicted of the universe at large.
Finally, according to Landau and Lifshitz, authors of statistical Physics:
. . . in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must be regarded not as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the application of the law of increase of entropy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium.
Since the concept of entropy can be defined only with reference to closed systems, it cannot legitimately be applied to the universe as a whole. The theist takes a scientific principle derived from a specific context, and attempts to shift this context in order to manufacture a need for god. In the name of science, the theist posits a “god of the gaps,” a god who allegedly fills in the gaps of human knowledge. But gaps of knowledge eventually close, leaving god without a home.
The entropy argument is a cosmological argument draped in scientific jargon–but an invalid argument, even when presented in scientific terms, is still invalid.
More importantly, however, the Second Law pertains only to closed systems, which, according to many physicists, renders it inapplicable to the universe as a whole. Professor Grunbaum, a physicist, writes:
An inherent limitation on the applicability of the . . . entropy concept to the entire universe lies in the fact that it has no applicability at all to a spatially infinite universe. . . .
Professor E.A. Milne, commenting on another physicist’s acceptance of the heat-death thesis, writes:
Jean’s own studies in the realm of the second law of thermodynamics were all concerned with the kinetic theory of gases, in which the specimen under discussion is supposed walled around in a finite vessel; and to such systems the notion of a heat-death is applicable. But by no means is the same result to be predicted of the universe at large.
Finally, according to Landau and Lifshitz, authors of statistical Physics:
. . . in the general theory of relativity the universe as a whole must be regarded not as a closed system, but as one which is in a variable gravitational field. In this case the application of the law of increase of entropy does not imply the necessity of statistical equilibrium.
Since the concept of entropy can be defined only with reference to closed systems, it cannot legitimately be applied to the universe as a whole. The theist takes a scientific principle derived from a specific context, and attempts to shift this context in order to manufacture a need for god. In the name of science, the theist posits a “god of the gaps,” a god who allegedly fills in the gaps of human knowledge. But gaps of knowledge eventually close, leaving god without a home.
The entropy argument is a cosmological argument draped in scientific jargon–but an invalid argument, even when presented in scientific terms, is still invalid.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Bravo.
This feeling is often reciprocated… The problem in these debates is that theists accept an axiomatic god belief, while atheists insist that the necessity of this axiom be shown from within their own worldview (i.e. without begging the question).
Faith is an unjustified belief whose truth value cannot be established.
And there are plenty of arguments against, and refutations of either. Who is persuaded by what is a different question. Further, an argument shouldn’t be confused with evidence.
Science cannot prove or disprove the proposition that god exists, because by definition, such is out of scope.
Again, what evidence on either side? It’s nothing but special pleading.
B
buffalo
Guest
I thought the oscillating universe theory was disproven by cosmological observations.
W
wanerious
Guest
James Kanatous said:
Current understanding runs like this: There is no debate that the Universe is expanding, and has been for roughly 13 billion years since the Big Bang. A very intriguing result that has become apparent over the last 10 years or so as we are able to take spectra of very distant supernovae is that the expansion, instead of slowing down as everyone expected (and you describe), seems to be accelerating. The source of energy for this accelerating expansion is, as of now, an utter mystery. The oscillating Universe seems to be ruled out by current observations. Modern physics can model the environment and evolution of the Universe from roughly a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, but it is true to say that there is no rigorous explanation for the presence of the matter/energy field to begin with.
J
James_Kanatous
Guest
Of which are?
You have not changed my argument one bit; you have merely elaborated it. If you are going to assert that the notion of an oscillating universe is no longer adhered to, then you must substantiate the claim with factual evidence. An empty assertion is unacceptable.
B
buffalo
Guest
James Kanatous:
Slam Dunk!
**Do alternative models disprove the Big Bang? ** Christopher Isham has said: "Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory."[21]
Slam Dunk!
B
buffalo
Guest
Oscillating model. This is the theory that the universe is continually expanding, collapsing again, then expanding again, and repeating this cycle eternally. Craig brings out two “very well-known difficulties” with this theory. The first problem is that the oscillating model contradicts the known laws of physics. The late Yale professor Tinsley reports that “even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seem to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end.”[26]
Code:
The second problem with the oscillating model is that the observational evidence contradicts it. Craig shows two pieces of this observation evidence which contradict the oscillating model. First, matter appears to be evenly distributed throughout the universe. There is no way for this to be on the oscillating model, because if the universe were to contract black holes would begin to suck everything up. "But when the universe (supposedly) rebounds from its contracting phase, there is no mechanism to `iron out' these lumps and make the distribution smooth."[27]
Secondly, it appears as if "the force of the expansion is greater than the force of gravity so that the expansion will never stop but will just go on and on forever." Density is the main factor in determining the strength of gravity. If the universe is expanding at a speed beyond the "escape velocity" that will allow it to overcome the force of gravity, then it will keep expanding forever. In order for the universe to re-contract, it must be expanding at a speed slower than the escape velocity. Craig points out in one of his articles that "recent work on calculating the speed and deceleration of the expansion confirms that the universe is expanding at, so to speak, `escape velocity' and will not therefore re-contract." Measurements indicate that there is not enough density in the universe to provide the gravity necessary to re-contract the universe.
Jastrow elaborates on how calculation of the rate of expansion reveals that there is not enough density to provide the gravity necessary for re-contraction. If the universe has slowed down a lot over the eons, then it indicates a high density that would be able to make the universe re-contract. But if the universe has only slowed down a little, it indicates that there is not a significantly high density to bring about re-contraction. Jastrow relates that the rate of expansion of the universe has not slowed down very much over the billions of years--the "Hubble age" is only slightly more than the "true age," revealing only a slight decrease. The implications of this are that "there is a relatively low density of matter in the Universe"--a density level that is "not sufficient to halt the expansion" and make the universe recontract. This yields "the result that the Universe will expand forever."[28] This method seems to be highly accurate because it does not require the direct observation of matter, or even direct knowledge of the density of every form of matter (such as that of neutrinos), as it calculates the density from velocity instead.
Other forms of calculating the density of the universe confirm that there is not enough density to bring about re-contraction. Goldsmith points out that observational evidence indicates that the luminous matter in the universe amounts to less than 2 percent of the critical density needed for re-contraction.[29] In a frantic search to account for this extra matter needed to provide the density for re-contraction, there are two theories of extra-ordinary, non-luminous matter posed to account for it.
W
wanerious
Guest
James Kanatous:
Sure — you needn’t be defensive. As you say, I was merely elaborating the point that the notion of an oscillating universe is no longer held in favor by “most cosmologists”. The current standard model certainly implies an arrow of time leading from the initial expansion to the present, with little or nothing to say regarding the origin of the matter to begin with. You are free to assert and infinity of universal expansion/contraction cycles, but there is now observable evidence contradicting this. I am an astrophysicist, so it ought to be easy for me to dig up some references. I’ll get a list together and post a follow-up.
W
wanerious
Guest
buffalo said:
Thankfully, the process of science eventually roots out and exposes those hypotheses that are not supported by observable evidence.
W
wanerious
Guest
Hi James,
Here’s some more detailed explanation. It has long been known that, for an expanding universe, there is a relation between the apparent brightness of an object and the redshift it exhibits (due to its distance from us, and thus, its relative velocity). Since this relation depends on the rate of expansion, measuring precise brightnesses for objects at vast distances should enable us to favor one model of expansion over another — indeed, it should be possible to measure the rate of expansion using this method. It is something like measuring the diminishing angular size of a receding person to calculate their recessional velocity. The problem was that this discrimination is only possible for very distant objects — you can see the problem in the following graph:
deceleration graph
The different curves represent different values for the universal acceleration. The bottom curve represents a truly “flat” universe, one in which the expansion continues to slow asymptotically forever, where at infinite time the universe comes to “rest”. A cyclic universe, where the expansion reverses, would be a curve further below this. The top (solid) line represents a universe that accelerates forever, with an expansion that is currently accelerating (the lambda term). You can see that for small (local) redshifts, one cannot discriminate between the models. Only at high (distant) redshifts can one say with more confidence that one model is supported above the others. These results began to trickle out in 1995, and Saul Perlmutter (leader of the most active distant supernovae search team) published the first difinitive set in 1998. Here’s a quick publicity page about Saul with an overview of the research,
review article
And a more detailed review paper:
overview
That the universal expansion is accelerating is the common understanding, and much effort now is concentrated in finding the mechanism behind the “repulsive” force.
Here’s some more detailed explanation. It has long been known that, for an expanding universe, there is a relation between the apparent brightness of an object and the redshift it exhibits (due to its distance from us, and thus, its relative velocity). Since this relation depends on the rate of expansion, measuring precise brightnesses for objects at vast distances should enable us to favor one model of expansion over another — indeed, it should be possible to measure the rate of expansion using this method. It is something like measuring the diminishing angular size of a receding person to calculate their recessional velocity. The problem was that this discrimination is only possible for very distant objects — you can see the problem in the following graph:
deceleration graph
The different curves represent different values for the universal acceleration. The bottom curve represents a truly “flat” universe, one in which the expansion continues to slow asymptotically forever, where at infinite time the universe comes to “rest”. A cyclic universe, where the expansion reverses, would be a curve further below this. The top (solid) line represents a universe that accelerates forever, with an expansion that is currently accelerating (the lambda term). You can see that for small (local) redshifts, one cannot discriminate between the models. Only at high (distant) redshifts can one say with more confidence that one model is supported above the others. These results began to trickle out in 1995, and Saul Perlmutter (leader of the most active distant supernovae search team) published the first difinitive set in 1998. Here’s a quick publicity page about Saul with an overview of the research,
review article
And a more detailed review paper:
overview
That the universal expansion is accelerating is the common understanding, and much effort now is concentrated in finding the mechanism behind the “repulsive” force.
T
tevaughan
Guest
There are also purely immaterial things like justice.
Yet we know them.
The Church teaches that both a true mind capable of the
three acts of the mind and a free will are present in the
human person because of his immaterial, spiritual,
supernatural soul. A mere animal has a soul, but it is not
spiritual; an animal soul ceases to exist when the body
dies. The human soul, however, is indestructible. A mere
animal, operating as it does only according to the rules of
nature, cannot in its brain apprehend an idea; nor can it
judge whether the idea be true; nor can it combine in reason
true ideas as premises to deduce a conclusion via a
deductively valid argument. The freedom of the will,
moreover, ensures that, at least on the occasion of a free
choice, the person’s body may behave in a way that it would
not have behaved if only the physical laws of nature were at
work on and in the body.
In any event, self-awareness (which I think a dog, for
example, has to some degree) does not imply the presence of
a supernatural soul.
Right. And a sword through the aorta can separate the
supernatural soul from the body.
Remember that what you are calling “the brain” is really a
scientific model. The materialist—who thinks that matter
and the natural laws that govern its behavior are the only
reality—thinks that the human brain operates as a true
mind only because of natural causes influencing the matter
in the brain. (For the moment at least, let’s not discuss
whether he might believe in free will.) Because he is
confident that everything made of matter is ultimately
describable in sufficient detail by a scientific model, the
materialist is confident that a true mind can be constructed
in a machine; this is related to your notion of tracing
“aspects of consciousness” to “physical processes in the
brain”.
Interestingly, therefore, the Catholic would appear to
predict that there will never be a scientific model of a
true mind, neither in the description of the human brain nor
as a simulation in a machine.
You have hit on the difference between, on the one hand,
wrong philosophies like materialism or naturalism, and, on
the other hand, right philosophy that recognizes the
existence of supernatural things like truth and justice.
S
siamesecat
Guest
I am an atheist. Its not a matter that can really be combatted. The whole point of religion is that no scientific proof is needed, you’re just supposed to believe in him. This is confusing to atheists. But I dont spend my time trying to prove God doesnt exist because I dont think it can be proved either way. Atheism is not a choice I feel I have to defend. I didnt choose to be an atheist. My family is Catholic but not real religious…and I started questioning my religion long ago when I started to find things I didnt agree with. In my quest of looking into all religions to find one I believed in I realized that I looked at these religions as more of an interesting story…I found I had a lot of interest in studying religion and what people believed. We studied religion in history this year and had a chart listing like 15 major religions both dead and alive and what they believed in. I looked down and I realized that that was all these religions, including Catholicism, were to me. Religions analyzed on a chart…up there with Greek mythology and zoaroastrianism…neither of which (im fairly certain) are practiced any more and are dismissed as fiction. I suddenly realized I didnt even believe there was a god. Id prayed before because I felt that I should but realized I didnt believe anyone was hearing me. Atheism isnt a choice…its a realization. I can no more believe in God than I can believe there is a monster under my bed. Im not a bad person, I have morals, Im an honor student, I help others. I mean…I wish I believed there were a god…its much nicer to think that theres a Heaven to go to and someone watching over you but the fact is I just dont. I feel we’ve come too far in technology to have to make up a god to explain why things happen. Im not a satan worshiper or a bad person, I dont refuse to believe there is a god…I just dont. I know god doesnt exist in the same way I know the sky is blue. Its just a knowledge. This got off topic but I thought I’d try to give some insight into atheism…and I dont think you can really fight it, I just think its something you believe or dont believe. And if I do someday find god I will never join a religion because I dont agree with all the things in any religion…and Catholicism is definately out. I just cant believe half of the things this religion teaches, except for good teachings like the 10 commandments, which I follow without a god. Any questions about atheism, my AIM is siamesecat1414 and my email is snailgirl4@aol.com
S
squirt
Guest
Hi Siamesecat,
Thanks for sharing your perspectives.
Thanks for sharing your perspectives.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Exactly. The problem is, most christians cannot or are not willing to understand that worldview.
I wanted to make a remark that atheists don’t follow the first commandments, but while thinking of it, we do in a sense!
We do not have other gods, as we have none at all.
We are not idolaters, as we do not worship anything.
B
buffalo
Guest
I am curious as to why atheists spend so much energy on this board.
One thing to think about is that God has revealed Himself through science. He is the author of all things and therfore there is no conflict between faith and reason. Technology doesn’t discount God it glorifies him. God can neither deceive or be deceived.
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
In the interest of my own honesty I have to come clean and admit I feel that I wish I had written this post word for word. I admire the people here who brace themselves against their scorn to dialogue with them. Apologists who grapple against people infected with this My Human-Intellect is Supreme Attitude are shining a light, not cursing the darkness, so I just wanted to cheer you on in such a dreary task.
- Status