Why Atheism?

[Windu Chi]

It's just as impossible to explain where that dot itself came from as it is to explain where 'Infinite gods" come from. There is no way of knowing, so why assume infinite gods? It is irrational and illogical.

Thats the same point I was making, ET, reality seems illogical.

[Mike Windu]

reality seems illogical.

 

Why, pray tell?

 

To believe in what is real seems pretty logical to me. To quote Morpheus, "What is real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

 

Then why do we believe in reality?

 

Because that's all we have. There is a choice between believing in something concrete and something that has no evidence of ever existing; for most people the choich would be to believe in something that is concrete.

 

But to break it down in that fashion, and then replace the second choice with an omnipotent being, many people fall into the trap of applying belief as evidence. Simply put, emotions are not evidence. Emotions hold no logical ground in argument.

[Grey Master]

Any comments Jae?? (remeber that this is your thread)

Its kinda getting interesting in here.

[Windu Chi]

Then why do we believe in reality?

I'm assuming because we are here now to have fascinating debates like this.

 

 

But to break it down in that fashion, and then replace the second choice with an omnipotent being, many people fall into the trap of applying belief as evidence. Simply put, emotions are not evidence. Emotions hold no logical ground in argument.

Yes, I know emotions can't be trusted, they bias our objective reasoning.

And also our senses can't be trusted completely.

But, I take the philosophical doctrine of realism.

 

realism:the philosophical doctrine that physical objects continue to exist when not perceived.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

It's just as impossible to explain where that dot itself came from as it is to explain where 'Infinite gods" come from. There is no way of knowing, so why assume infinite gods? It is irrational and illogical.

Exactly. And if God can have existed for ever, then why can' the "dot" (or singularity) have?

 

I admit no one knows for sure, but that doesn't mean I'll run off and find a god for an explanation.

[Jae Onasi]

Any comments Jae?? (remeber that this is your thread)

Its kinda getting interesting in here.

 

Spent Christmas enjoying lots of time with family.

 

I'm just skimming the last couple posts so sorry if this is addressed earlier--I'll adjust post as needed as I read through it at work today. That singularity--the math and science assert the universe came from that little singularity from which time and matter came. How? Don't know. Nonetheless, it had to be created, and something had to create it, unless you enjoy the idea of creating something out of nothing. Something more powerful than the singularity and this universe had to create it. 'Something' is God. Did something create God? If God had a beginning, then something had to create God, too. If God did not have a beginning, then no, he did not have to be created, so you don't get the 'million Gods regression' thing.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

Something more powerful than the singularity and this universe had to create it. 'Something' is God.

Nonsense. Say an alkali randomly comes into contact with an acid, and the reaction produces carbon dioxide. Does that make the alkali "more powerful" than the carbon dioxide? No, the concept of "power" is an irrelevance to this reaction. The concept of "intelligence" or "sentience" is an irrelevance to this reaction.

 

Your idea that whatever causes a reaction has to be "more powerful" than not only the reaction but all of its products as well, is nonsense. Your idea that whatever caused the coming together of the universe must have been intelligent is also a nonsense.

 

Another example: put much too simply, in a type of nuclear bomb, a small explosion (plastic explosive) can cause fissionable material to compress to such a degree that critical mass is reached and a massive nuclear explosion is the result. Does that make the small explosion "more powerful" than the larger nuclear blast? Of course not.

 

Another example: a small gust of wind dislodges some snow on a mountainside. The snow rolls down the mountain and becomes a huge snowball that crushes a village beneath! Was the gust of wind powerful enough to destroy a village by itself? No. Did the gust of wind intend to crush the village? No, it was unknowing.

 

Once again, the idea that whatever caused the universe to exist must have been 1. All-powerful and 2. All-knowing is a total, utter non-sequitur. Doesn't make any sense. Complex reactions can occur totally randomly, i.e: they don't always require "intelligence" behind them. You have JUMPED to the conclusion that your christian god, a character from a story book, is responsible for everything. This is a MASSIVE jump of illogic.

 

Don't jump to conclusions, be rational.

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

Did something create God? If God had a beginning, then something had to create God, too. If God did not have a beginning, then no, he did not have to be created, so you don't get the 'million Gods regression' thing.

Well you're insisting that time and space had to have a definable "beginning" so why do you insist that "god" doesn't have to have a beginning?

 

And no, "because he's god" isn't a logical nor a valid answer.

 

-

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen:

There's that, and there's the intolerents who attack any belief they do not agree with. These people, whether they be Christians who bomb abortion clinics, Muslim terrorists, ect, marginalise their religion and people see it in a very negative light. America has certainly done this with Islam, as bull**** as it is, but the actions of a few who do not hold such beliefs, only claim to, have ****ed things royally for everyone who follows Islam.

First of all, anyone who characterises a whole organised religion by the actions of its most violent, militant devotees isn't being serious.

 

Secondly, yes there are religious militants from all three major deistic faiths, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Yes, they all do evil things... but their presence is not a valid reason to become an atheist. The only valid reason to be an atheist (and the only reason we need) is that theism is irrational. It is a delusion.

[Windu Chi]

Nonsense. Say an alkali randomly comes into contact with an acid, and the reaction produces carbon dioxide. Does that make the alkali "more powerful" than the carbon dioxide?

No, the concept of "power" is an irrelevance to this reaction. The concept of "intelligence" or "sentience" is an irrelevance to this reaction.

Your idea that whatever causes a reaction has to be "more powerful" than not only the reaction but all of its products as well, is nonsense. Your idea that whatever caused the coming together of the universe must have been intelligent is also a nonsense.

Another example: put much too simply, in a type of nuclear bomb, a small explosion (plastic explosive) can cause fissionable material to compress to such a degree that critical mass is reached and a massive nuclear explosion is the result. Does that make the small explosion "more powerful" than the larger nuclear blast? Of course not.

Another example: a small gust of wind dislodges some snow on a mountainside. The snow rolls down the mountain and becomes a huge snowball that crushes a village beneath! Was the gust of wind powerful enough to destroy a village by itself? No. Did the gust of wind intend to crush the village? No, it was unknowing.

\Once again, the idea that whatever caused the universe to exist must have been 1. All-powerful and 2. All-knowing is a total, utter non-sequitur. Doesn't make any sense. Complex reactions can occur totally randomly, i.e: they don't always require "intelligence" behind them. You have JUMPED to the conclusion that your christian god, a character from a story book, is responsible for everything. This is a MASSIVE jump of illogic.

You are using a logical fallacy, of Appeal to ridicule.

 

Appeal to ridicule: is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument.

Don't jump to conclusions, be rational.

You are saying she is jumping to conclusions, you are concluding that is nonsense with no consideration, otherwise.

You are being bias!

It is nonsense to say random processes created this universe with no initial

starter input system that collapse the matter or whatever the hell it was that lead to this singularity, still if the postulates of logic are right, IT DON'T MAKE NO DAMN SENSE IF THERE IS A ULTIMATE BEGINNING TO EVERYTHING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KEEP CONTINUING EXPLAINING THE STARTER TO OUR UNIVERSE AND THE INFINITE REGRESSION OF ALL THE PREVIOUS STARTERS TO THAT ULTIMATE BEGINNING OF EVERY DAMN THING.

 

Also the singularity isn't fully understood yet the physics of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity don't not mix to well to describe equations of it.

In the singularity as in any singularity in every blackhole, spacetime is theorize to become foamy and bubbly where so called Planck scale physics take over.

The physics at this level is the limit to smooth spacetime curvature of General Relativity.

At this scale, the concepts of size, distance and time break down, so the field equations of General Relativity give infinite curvature, energy densities, and energy in a singularity at this level.

So, this description of the spacetime metric fails at this level.

And Quantum Mechanics uncertainity principle rules absolutely at this level.

A photon Compton wavelength is roughly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole at the Planck scale, a photon with sufficient energy to probe this level would yield no information whatsoever.

Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object could actually create a particle of that dimension, but it would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole, and completely distorting that region of space, that will destroy the photon.

So, no physical measurement with electromagnetic radiation of the singularity, because the information in the photon or photons are trap(the photon can only travel fast as 186282mi/s in our local spacetime) in a circulating loop, that prevent them from escaping back to the outside observer far from the Schwarzschild radius or close to the event horizon.

Also at this level when Quantum Mechanics is applied, it give a infinite probability for the location of a particle in the Quantum foam at Planck length

scale. Also the probability that a event will occur is infinity.

So, quantum mechanics fails too, at this level.

Scale length at Planck level is 1.616x10^-35 meters.

At the Planck length both general relativity and quantum mechanics simultaneously become important.

Also at this scale, the description of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory breaks down.

At the Planck scale, the strength of gravity is expected to become comparable to the other forces, and it is theorized that all the fundamental forces are unified at this scale.

Planck scale energy 1.22x10^19 Gev(billion electron volts) or 1,950,000,000 joules.

Also called the Planck mass.

Also at this level Quantum Gravity and M-Theory is theorize to explain the physics at this level.

When and if these two theories pan out.

So, the singularity that is this so called, "dot", that created us.

Don't make no physical sense yet, Spider.

So, it is nonsense presently.

 

event horizon: a surface round a black hole from which no light can (classically) escape from inside.

Compton wavelength: fundamental limitation on measuring the position of a particle, taking quantum mechanics and special relativity into account.

Schwarzschild radius: The radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no force could stop it from continuing to collapse into a singularity; spacetime is curve fast as light.

metric: A function of a topological space that gives, for any two points in the space, a value equal to the distance between them.

electron volt:A unit of energy equal to the work done by an electron accelerated through a potential difference of 1 volt.

[Jae Onasi]

Say an alkali randomly comes into contact with an acid, and the reaction produces carbon dioxide. Does that make the alkali "more powerful" than the carbon dioxide? No, the concept of "power" is an irrelevance to this reaction. The concept of "intelligence" or "sentience" is an irrelevance to this reaction.

 

That's an irrelevent example since the reaction can be reversed. And the usual byproduct in an acid/alkali reaction is water and a salt, rather than CO2.

 

put much too simply, in a type of nuclear bomb, a small explosion (plastic explosive) can cause fissionable material to compress to such a degree

The potential energy already exists in the nucleus of the fissionable material--all the explosive is doing is providing the initial energy required to change the potential energy in the nucleus to kinetic energy by the neutrons splitting. The explosive/uranium (or fissionable material of your choice) is not creating a nuclear explosion ex nihilo.

 

a small gust of wind dislodges some snow on a mountainside. The snow rolls down the mountain and becomes a huge snowball that crushes a village beneath!

 

That would be caused by a little concept called gravity.

 

The snow mound has a higher potential energy until such time as something dislodges it in such a way that gravity exceeds the friction that's keeping it lodged in the mountain. Once that happens, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, the snow moves, and you have an avalanche.

 

No extra energy was put into any of these systems. It was converted from one form to another, but not created out of nothingness.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

~~~

You've still failed to explain why "seed" for the energy in the universe is a deity.

[ET Warrior]

You are using a logical fallacy, of Appeal to ridicule.

Actually, it isn't a logical fallacy to use a comparison to similar events. Jae said that something more powerful than the singularity HAD to create it, and HAD to set it all in motion.

Al was showing that very powerful and complex reactions can occur without a more powerful starter or intent. He didn't make Jae's argument seem ridiculous, merely presented the point that just because it's complex and massive, does not mean extreme power or intent were behind it.

 

As for Jae's post, I will reiterate

I ask you, as a critical thinker, to examine your unquestioning acceptance that there can be an infinite omnipotent being that has always existed, while seeming to be of the belief that matter and energy itself had to have some sort of beginning. I'm not saying for certain that matter and energy always existed, I really don't know. But is it not just as likely, and perhaps MORE likely than for some infinite deity to have created them out of nothing?

You inferred in your last post that you dislike the idea of something created out of nothing, but that is EXACTLY what you are saying that god did. And why is it so easy for you to accept that god doesn't need a beginning but matter and energy do?

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

That's an irrelevent example since the reaction can be reversed. And the usual byproduct in an acid/alkali reaction is water and a salt, rather than CO2.

The alkali salt I was thinking of when I typed that example was a carbonate. Carbonate neutralisation reactions do produce CO2... And at no time did I type "All neutralisation reactions produce CO2". I think that clears your little tangent up. My example was logically correct, as far as it went.

 

Back to the point: whether the reaction is reversible is irrelevant to the point made. The point was, there was no intelligence behind the reaction, and neither the causative factors nor the component parts had any "power" in the divine or sentient sense of the word.

 

You don't need to explain the complex things that happen in the universe with an "ultimate intelligence", nor an "ultimate power".

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

The potential energy already exists in the nucleus of the fissionable material

 

...

 

The snow mound has a higher potential energy

Yep, and whatever "materials" (for want of a better term) the universe was created out of may also have contained vast potential energies. What's your point?

 

And of course, the point of that example once again was that the causative factor in a complex reaction does NOT have to be more "powerful" than the thing that results from the reaction. Nor does it have to have intelligence.

 

You said quite literally that the universe must have been created by an intelligent being more powerful than the universe itself. This is clearly nonsense, and I provided a couple of real-world examples to show that neither intellect nor comparitively greater power are necessary to accomplish "creation" of substances or circumstances.

 

So once again: Your assertion that a deity is a logical explanation for the existence of the universe = non-sequitur.

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

No extra energy was put into any of these systems. It was converted from one form to another, but not created out of nothingness.

Once again you assert that at some point in history there was "nothingness". Oh, except for a judaistic weather-god hanging around in the sea of infinite entropy just waiting to create a universe.

 

So once again I ask you: If matter and energy have to have a "beginning" as you're asserting, why doesn't your god also have to have a beginning?

[Windu Chi]

Actually, it isn't a logical fallacy to use a comparison to similar events. Jae said that something more powerful than the singularity HAD to create it, and HAD to set it all in motion.

So, his examples was not made to make her argument sound ridiculous.

Yeah, whatever!

Al was showing that very powerful and complex reactions can occur without a more powerful starter or intent. He didn't make Jae's argument seem ridiculous, merely presented the point that just because it's complex and massive, does not mean extreme power or intent were behind it.

I know what he meant there, but base off his last several posts it seem to me that he made her argument sound ridiculous.

Yes, I know physical processes can occur without god, but the fascinating questions still have to be answered, where do time come from and how can something create time if it don't have time itself.

The argument that there is no god, gods, surpreme beings, or some damn thing I can't think of yet, is not good enough.

If you, yourself follow logic so strongly you can't accept the concept that our universe came from nothing.

So, presently for me, I don't care what other people think, reality is bullsh*t, it is just bullsh*t.

These questions are so damn hard that people ignore them; I have been asking questions this perplexing since I was ten years old.

Still no one smart enough in our society have the answer to these questions yet.

Maybe there is no answers, but who knows?

[Nancy Allen``]

First of all, anyone who characterises a whole organised religion by the actions of its most violent, militant devotees isn't being serious.

 

Well talk to America because that's the stance they're taking.

 

Secondly, yes there are religious militants from all three major deistic faiths, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Yes, they all do evil things... but their presence is not a valid reason to become an atheist.

 

My point is their acts marginalise their religion. The same goes for Atheism, which is why I've been debating it for so long. For Atheists to believe they have the right and duty to go out and prove to people who follow religion as deluded, in my opinion if they were to go out and do that then they will demonise Atheism the way Middle Eastern Muslim terrorists have demonised Islam and they will marginalise the Atheist movement. Sound crazy? I think it's been shown that Atheists having this belief is enough to do so.

[igyman]

The problem with radical Atheists marginalizing their views, or radical religious people marginalizing their religions is that even though they are a minority, they are louder than that tolerant majority. I think we can all agree that nobody's opinion should be attacked just because it's different, but we can also agree that if a person's opinion is attacked, that person has the right to defend his/her opinion and try to prove the other's view wrong with valid arguments.

[Nancy Allen``]

Agreed. To draw on something that Spider AL would be familiar with the majority of anti war activists are peaceful, do not want war, and rightfully so. I am against war, I say we should not have gone into Iraq, so my heart goes out to them. But when they start comparing Bush to Hitler or calling for the deaths of American soldiers (I'll find the source if you like) then, again, it marginalises their stance and people look at them and think they are actually pro war just against America, and to be fair people who take that view are as anti war as the people who commit terrorist acts believe in Islam (not at all despite all claims to the contrary).

[Jae Onasi]

Actually, it isn't a logical fallacy to use a comparison to similar events. Jae said that something more powerful than the singularity HAD to create it, and HAD to set it all in motion.

Al was showing that very powerful and complex reactions can occur without a more powerful starter or intent. He didn't make Jae's argument seem ridiculous, merely presented the point that just because it's complex and massive, does not mean extreme power or intent were behind it.

 

There's nothing complex about the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy (or vice versa). The amount of energy being converted from one to the other may be massive, but the reactions themselves are very simple.

 

SpiderAl's examples are not similar at all, actually. No energy is being lost or gained in any of those reactions/events that he uses, merely converted to some other form. The amount of energy in the avalanche burying the town, for instance, is derived from gravity being exerted on the mass of snow, not from the a little wisp of wind. In none of those cases did a small thing create greater energy--the energy already existed in potential form within the snowpack or the nucleus of the fissioning element.

 

Most physicists agree that time and matter were created at the 'Big Bang' (Einstein theorizing matter, Hawkings and a couple fellow physicists theorizing time along with that matter). What they can't agree on is how one gets to the singularity--what injected the energy into the system to make that singularity and then give it the potential energy needed to later explode into the universe? Once you reach the singularity point, there is no way to catalyze the reaction, because there is no existing catalyst at that point, there's only the singularity. Science does not have the answer for what becomes a metaphysical issue at that point.

And why is it so easy for you to accept that god doesn't need a beginning but matter and energy do?

I never said it was easy.

The physics asserts matter/energy/time have a beginning; they're physical objects. Once outside the physical realm, things don't necessarily have to follow the same physical laws and therefore may not have a beginning.

 

And addressing the carbonate thing--carbonate is a salt, not an acid or base.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

SpiderAl's examples are not similar at all, actually. No energy is being lost or gained in any of those reactions/events that he uses, merely converted to some other form. The amount of energy in the avalanche burying the town, for instance, is derived from gravity being exerted on the mass of snow, not from the a little wisp of wind. In none of those cases did a small thing create greater energy--the energy already existed in potential form within the snowpack or the nucleus of the fissioning element.

You ignored my reply. I shall detail my response again:

 

Whatever "materials" (for want of a better term) the universe was created out of may also have contained vast potential energies. What's your point?

 

And of course, the point of my example once again was that the causative factor in a complex reaction does NOT have to be more "powerful" than the thing that results from the reaction. Nor does it have to have intelligence.

 

You said quite literally that the universe must have been created by an intelligent being more powerful than the universe itself. This is clearly nonsense, and I provided a couple of real-world examples to show that neither intellect nor comparitively greater power are necessary to accomplish "creation" of substances or circumstances.

 

So once again: Your assertion that a deity is a logical explanation for the existence of the universe = non-sequitur.

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

The physics asserts matter/energy/time have a beginning; they're physical objects. Once outside the physical realm, things don't necessarily have to follow the same physical laws and therefore may not have a beginning.

Okay, let's accept as fact your idea that the universe's creation was triggered by something totally outside physical laws for a moment. (Even though it's a standard fallacy.)

 

So if physical laws didn't apply before the beginning of the universe... why couldn't the energy (which you insist was necessary) just spontaneously appear and trigger the explosion?

 

If physical laws don't apply, then there's nothing to stop a big cloud of energy spontaneously appearing and triggering the big bang. The energy doesn't have to be intelligent, it doesn't necessarily have to be more powerful than the singularity, and it CERTAINLY doesn't have to be a judaistic weather god.

 

So why have you picked the christian "god" out of the hat as the only explanation you will accept? Perhaps it is because you've been brought up to believe in a fictional deity, and faced with a complete lack of evidence for said deity, you're struggling to fit the deity in somewhere.

 

This is the classic "god of the gaps" syndrome. As science discovers more about our universe, there are fewer and fewer places for an omniscient deity to hide out. And so, people like yourself are now reduced to saying "well, god does exist... but totally outside all physical reality". And all things we don't yet understand quickly become "god".

 

It just doesn't wash. It isn't logical.

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

And addressing the carbonate thing--carbonate is a salt, not an acid or base.

Of course carbonates can be alkali salts.

 

Take a look here for confirmation: http://www.answers.com/topic/alkali

 

And that's definitely the end of that tiny debate. As previously stated, my terminology was perfectly accurate as far as it went. You can continue to quibble if you like, but you've been inaccurate so far, and it wouldn't help (and hasn't helped) your case. I won't bother to address any further statements of this type.

 

-

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Agreed. To draw on something that Spider AL would be familiar with the majority of anti war activists are peaceful, do not want war, and rightfully so. I am against war, I say we should not have gone into Iraq, so my heart goes out to them. But when they start comparing Bush to Hitler or calling for the deaths of American soldiers...

I wondered how long it would be before we came back to this.

 

Yes Nancy, we are all aware by now that you think that atheists who have the temerity to talk about how irrational theism is are militants who "give atheism a bad name". (Me in particular)

 

And you had a similar attitude in the Iraq-related threads that you're referencing here.

 

But frankly, no atheist in this thread has attacked anyone, no atheist in this thread is "forcing religious people to give up their beliefs", and this has been established time and time again. End of story.

[Mike Windu]

Allll right. Lot of brainpower clashing in here; I personally despise chemistry, so we'll just avoid any unnecessary hurting of my brain by trying to remember what I learned so long ago about acids and alkali and bonding.

 

Let's get back to the core argument.

 

If physical laws don't apply, then there's nothing to stop a big cloud of energy spontaneously appearing and triggering the big bang. The energy doesn't have to be intelligent, it doesn't necessarily have to be more powerful than the singularity, and it CERTAINLY doesn't have to be a judaistic weather god.

 

zOMG, the nonexistence of entropy?!

 

The physics asserts matter/energy/time have a beginning; they're physical objects. Once outside the physical realm, things don't necessarily have to follow the same physical laws and therefore may not have a beginning.

 

Wouldn't it be a metaphysical conceit to assume that a diety possesses the power to defy physical law and create matter/energy?

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Most physicists agree that time and matter were created at the 'Big Bang'

 

As far as I'm aware, this is incorrect, at least the part I have bolded. What we 'know' wasn't present before the 'big bang' was:

 

* Time (as we know it)

* The laws of physics (as we know it)

 

Matter may or may not have existed before the big bang - I don't know of many / any respectable physicists who claim to 'know' either way...

But what is known is that time and our physical laws didn't exist until after the big bang. If matter didn't exist before the big bang (possible I suppose, at least in our 'universe'), then the reason why time nor physics didn't exist is obvious - there was nothing to 'operate' on.

...however, even if matter did exist before the instant of the 'big bang', it was all scrunched up in the beginning singularity - which meant infininately curved space-time, and hence, no time or physical laws (as we know them).

 

 

Anyway - moving on...

 

 

The idea that some kind of 'God' is required to explain existence doesn't actually explain anything, and only adds unnessesary complication.

 

Saying "The universe needs to have been created, and therefore there is a 'creator'" only begs the question "Who created the creator?", resulting in an infinite regression.

To answer in the vein of "The creator exists outside of the physical universe, and therefore is 'excempt' from the 'all created things require a creator' rule" is just to give up with logical inspection of the problem, and to make desperate use of the 'magic' card.

 

A more sensible answer would be to propose an idea based on evidence and logic (e.g. Hawkings theory of a 'closed' time/space model which makes a 'moment' of creation unnessesary - although I still personally, even if I accepted the theory, wouldn't see how this explains how this 'closed' system comes to exist in the first place)...

...perhaps the most honest answer is to say that existence itself is unexplainable. (And I personally can't see myself believing anything else - at least as far as I'm concerned - anytime soon...)

 

 

Occam's razor makes it plain:

Take the statement:

 

God created the universe.

God just exists.

 

...use the Razor to cut out the needless complexity in the hypothesis, and you are left with...

 

The universe

Just exists.

 

...no God required....

[Jae Onasi]

OK, let me explain the physics again--you have to put energy _into_ a system in order for it to have potential energy to later release. I'll be happy to provide someone the formulas if they wish. You certainly can continue to believe that the singularity came out of nothing. I think the idea that a physical entity coming from nothing to be entirely ridiculous, considering we've never seen that anywhere else in science.

 

I did not specify the Christian God, either. We haven't gotten anywhere close to the debate on which God it might be, and that's a different thread anyhow.

 

I wasn't 'debating' chemistry. There is no debate on that. I was clarifying so that no one gets the mistaken impression that acids and bases routinely react to form carbon dioxide, because they do not. It would be inappropriate not to inform them of the truth. Yes, salts can be acidic or alkaline in that they can donate or accept protons respectively, and some carbonates are higher than others on the pH scale though carbonates in the body typically act in a buffering system to prevent the blood from getting to acidic or basic. I'll make sure to bookmark that site right along with my ACS/chemistry.org site, however. I might even copy it and tape it inside one of my 8 college chem/organic/biochem books.

 

If I'm a bit incommunicado over the next few days it's because I just found out my dad had a stroke.

[Mike Windu]

If I'm a bit incommunicado over the next few days it's because I just found out my dad had a stroke.

 

I'm very sorry to hear that.

 

I wasn't 'debating' chemistry.

 

Didn't say you were. Said the analogy was becoming too convoluted.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

If I'm a bit incommunicado over the next few days it's because I just found out my dad had a stroke.

I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope that the stroke was minor, and that your dad makes a speedy and complete recovery.

 

I considered not responding to your points, in case my responses depressed you further at an already emotional time... but then I reasoned that you probably won't be reading this thread while such important things are occurring. So I feel free to respond without fear of being insensitive, because chances are you won't have time to read what I type, at least not for some time to come.

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

I think the idea that a physical entity coming from nothing to be entirely ridiculous, considering we've never seen that anywhere else in science.

We've never seen a god anywhere in science either.

 

If one believes that such an outlandish thing as an intelligent, omnipotent being existed before the dawn of the universe, and outside the constraints of all physical laws,.. why couldn't anything else exist outside physical laws at that time just as well? like a distinctly unintelligent cloud of energy which spontaneously erupted and imparted itself to the reaction we term the "big bang"?

 

Why do religious folk believe that the postulated "causative factor" must have been intelligent? Why does it have to be all powerful? The answer is, it doesn't. It isn't a logical step to presume that a deity caused everything, when there are literally infinite amounts of other possible explanations that DON'T involve old-fashioned concepts of gods.

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

I did not specify the Christian God, either. We haven't gotten anywhere close to the debate on which God it might be, and that's a different thread anyhow.

Well since you're a christian by your own admission... it's obvious that you're referring to the christian concept of "god" when you maintain that "god" exists. You're certainly not referring to "Allah", at least I cannot imagine so.

[Samuel Dravis]

OK, let me explain the physics again--you have to put energy _into_ a system in order for it to have potential energy to later release. I'll be happy to provide someone the formulas if they wish. You certainly can continue to believe that the singularity came out of nothing. I think the idea that a physical entity coming from nothing to be entirely ridiculous, considering we've never seen that anywhere else in science.

Could you expand on what you consider viable alternatives, and why? As far as I know, there is no evidence that any of the common God-entities created something anywhere in science. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that any of those Gods exist at all, regardless of their supposed acts of creation. Does this lack of evidence make those propositions equally rediculous? If not, why not?

 

When there is a lack of information, I ask why you would create any explanation other than that which is evident: matter came into existence by a means not currently known. If the cause is eventually discovered, then this particular bit will be cleared up. If not...well, people have never lived completely free of ignorance. I daresay we will survive somehow.

[edits]Got to it a bit faster than I, eh spider. Oh well.[/edits]

 

 

If I'm a bit incommunicado over the next few days it's because I just found out my dad had a stroke.

Very sorry to hear that Jae. I hope he recovers soon.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Sorry, Jae. Hoping for a fast recovery:(.