What's new
By:
Guest viewing is limited

ask the athiest

Ok heres the thing about option b. Ill try and explain it a little better. In an infinately repeating universe there exists X amount of time. As there is a point of repetition there is only so much time in the universe. Therefor their must be a limiting factor on time. Some law that states that there is X amount of time. There HAS to be some force or factor govorning the loop and defining it. It is impossible to deny that. We live in a universe bound be rules. Even in the complete randomness and chaos of quantum physics there rules that all matter and energy and time fall under. Time progresses forward, why? There is some sort of force that causes time to act the way it does. To have a limited universe you must have a law without limits to govorn it. Some thing that controls it or it cannot exist. This force would be true unifying theory. It would be the law that governs and connects all other laws and is in turn not bound by any higher laws. It must be an all encompasing, infinate, unchangeable, with no exeption, law. A law that is not bound by any other. There is such a law that exists. There cound be no existance without it. And no Im not talking about string theory. THe problem with this law is that there is absolutly no possible way we could understand and define it. If we could the law would have limits and then there would have to be another law that encomposes it!
This law is (to quote Douglas Adams) The answer to life the universe and everything. And no its not 42. You see Universe B is possible but only with that law. So until science discovers it. Which as I said cant happen. Then Im going to call that law God.

As for the universe being created by beings from another universe or whatever. Those beings had to come from a universe too, they had to have existed or exist. They must BE in order to DO. Therefor they must come from a universe also bound by "The Law"
Now riddle me this. (oh I hope I dont get smited for this) Say there is another universe not bound by "the law". In that univers there is a being that is not bound by time or the laws a physics. Say that being had the "technology" to create another universe and apply any law that being liked to that universe. Who is to say that I didnt just describe God.
 
I was looking for the article I originally read regarding the origin/fate of the universe, but while I was unable to find it, I did find a rather interesting article regarding one of the scientific theories that may replace the big-bang theory. If you'd like, you can read about it here.
http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/sciam/Inflation2.pdf
41
 
The Fractal universe is one Ive read about already. Unfortunatly it still falls under the problem of universe B. The fractal is exponetially expanding and there has to be some law that defines that expantion and is not limited by any other law.
 
Here's a fun little CNN article that relates to evolution. Some modern evidence for evolutionary theory is discussed. Enjoy.
"BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- Is it a squirrel, a rat, a guinea pig? Maybe a chinchilla?

The long-whiskered rodent with stubby legs and a tail covered with dense hair resembles them all but has turned out be a previously unknown species that actually represents an entire new family of wildlife, the Wildlife Conservation Society said.

The kha-nyou, as local people call it, was discovered by a team of scientists in a hunter's market in central Laos, according to a news release from the New York-based group.

"It was for sale on a table next to some vegetables. I knew immediately it was something I had never seen before," Robert Timmins, a WCS researcher, was quoted as saying of his find.

Another colleague, Mark Robinson, later discovered other specimens caught by hunters, and also identified bone fragments in an owl pellet. Based on morphological differences in the skull and bone structure, coupled with DNA analysis, it was estimated that the animal diverged from other rodents millions of years ago."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/05/12/new.species.ap/index.html
 
Sicander said:

This law is (to quote Douglas Adams) The answer to life the universe and everything. And no its not 42. You see Universe B is possible but only with that law. So until science discovers it. Which as I said cant happen. Then Im going to call that law God.
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here. I see how there would need to be a set of rules regarding expansion of the universe in this scenario, but I see no reason that it is necessarily a god or gods.

"You've got your phenomenon on one hand. Concrete and knowable. On the other hand you've got the incomprehensible. You call it God, but to me, God or no, it remains just that, the unknowable." - Robin Green and Mitchell Burgess

It may also be true that none of these models are correct, in which case the whole argument on this topic may be a waste of time.
 

God or no, it remains just that, the unknowable
Click to expand...
believe what you want god is knowable

It may also be true that none of these models are correct, in which case the whole argument on this topic may be a waste of time.
Click to expand...

What model would you suggest where something comes from nothing? I would like to know.

 
Actually, according to quantum physics something comes from nothing all the time. At very small scales anomalies such as wormholes and black holes are thought to pop into existence briefly, borrowing the energy to exist from the universe and then disintegrating back into nothing, returning this energy and ultimately causing no change in the overall energy of the universe (quantum foam). It is also possible to cause an area of space to have less than no energy, (negative energy) and this negative energy has some very interesting properties. It could, for instance, be used to create a "warp bubble" that would distort space, allowing a vessel to travel faster than light by "taking a shortcut." It could also be used to stabilize wormholes to allow near instantaneous transit between two points. However, there are several limitations involved in using negative energy.
1) For every pulse of negative energy there must be a corresponding pulse of positive energy
2) A certain level of negative energy can only be maintained for a finite period of time before the positive energy pulse must follow
3) Large amounts of energy are required to create an area of negative energy (For instance, in order to create a warp bubble large enough to engulf the Enterprise from Star Trek, you would have to use more energy than exists in the entire visible universe)
There are also some more specific limitations, such as that a warp bubble cannot be "popped" from the inside. Some outside force must destroy it (Thus if you were to use a warp bubble in the way it is used on Star Trek, the vessel would take of at superluminal velocities, and travel forever in its direction of motion).
It seems I am getting off topic.

One of the biggest reasons that I don't believe in a god or gods, is that most every society in human history has created some sort of religion, yet these religions differ on such things as how many gods there are, what capabilities these gods have, and what they want people to do. Many of them are mutually exclusive. Most of these religions have been abandoned and are now scoffed at. Yet all of them claimed some form of divine intervention. Thus, either this god or gods is not very good at delivering its message, or most of these religions are not the result of divine intervention (Yes, it is also possible that the message was altered by those that received it, but if the chosen messenger couldn’t even keep the number of gods straight perhaps god/the gods should have chosen someone else). So, since we can only hope that an omnipotent deity would be able to send a simple message, the other option is that most, if not all religions, are man-made. Why people would create these religions puzzled me, but after looking at some statistics, it made sense. Religion is evolutionarily advantageous. Those who believe in some religion (regardless of which) tend to live longer than those who do not. This is most likely do to three things (Keep in mind before proceeding that depression actually ranks above cancer in terms of its potential to shorten human life, both actively through suicide, and passively by affecting healing and survival rates from disease).
1) Religions provide satisfying answers to troubling questions, so the individuals who believe them have less to worry about.
2) Humans are aware of their own mortality, and religion assures them that they will continue in some form or another after death.
3) Religion gives them power, however illusory, over their environment. Praying and performing rituals have no power, other than the placebo effect, but performing them gives those who perform them the illusion that they are in control.
All of these things place those who follow a religion at a lower risk of depression than those who do not, and since depression does have a substantial capacity to shorten human life, those who believe in a religion tend to live longer and produce more children.

It is also natural to view natural events as being the work of a deity or deities. Humans are programmed to assume, at least subconsciously, that almost everything is sentient. This was necessary for the development of language, as in order to develop a language you must make the assumption that there is someone to talk to. However, while this originally allowed our ancestors to develop complex languages, it was also applied in other situations, giving us a tendency to view even inanimate objects as being sentient (How many here have yelled at a computer when it crashed, or a car that wouldn't start. You may know academically that these things are not alive, but the instinct is to assume that they are.). These assumptions are common in the brain, as it is built for survival, not accuracy. Since communication was such a large advantage, the small price of personifying non-sentient life forms or even inanimate objects did not justify eliminating the heuristic altogether.
 
What they are on to is creating convenient ways to explain the unexplainable. You missed the point of the post: the fact that religion is so widespread but so different across cultures indicates that worship is a part of human nature but says nothing for the accuracy of any of those religions. You might praise the old Grecian gods or the one Jewish God or whatever the hell you like. It doesn't mean your beliefs are right and certaintly doesn't mean they are more valid than anyone else's beliefs. Because all they are is beliefs. They aren't based on fact.

Science, on the other hand, is based on logical deduction. If A then B, if B then C, etc. People may believe in the promises offered by science, but the facts obtained and reported by logical scientific method can only be refuted by other scientific studies. Not by personal beliefs. I can prove the rate of acceleration due to gravity. I can demonstrate the phyical properties of neuronal signalling. I can prove that the modern model for an atom is accurate. You can't prove the existence of a god or gods. You can believe, have as much faith as you want, preach til your face is red, but there's not an ounce of proof in any of it. All that is is you expressing your beliefs. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just don't confuse a belief with proof.
 
Atheist, eh. Doesn't yank my chain. To each his own. It is a God given right to believe what you want to believe. The only draw back I see in it - when you are all dressed up in your coffin and no where to go! I prefer to believe in a Higher Power - God - and I also believe in Angels. If we spent more time looking for the positives in this universe and not for the negatives, we would begin to see the Hand of God in many of our everyday experiences.
 
i dont understand all the atheists who dont beleve. assuming christans, or any other religion for that matter, are wrong. so what atleast we die happy,spread peace love and help with feeding poor not to mintion all the christan cheritys red cross and salvation army. without a higher power what is the point ? survival of the fittest? is the gangsta on the street corner with a gun considered fitter than you ? does he get to kill you? there is no reson for law.
 
You make some valid points, Rickey. The Red Cross and Salvation Army are two Christian organizations in the world who do good for others.

Like you I don't understand why atheists get their shorts in a knot and want to continuously bash Christians or those who believe in a Higher Power. When was the last time an atheist group did anything for anyone? Is there atheist groups? Aside from disclaiming God what exactly is their purpose? Strange as it may seem, I do not know an atheist! Must be the company I keep!
 
Atheist... it's such a horrible sounding word. Well, my parents have tried to raise me in several different religions, and i'm sorry, but i can't do churches. The people that try to act holyer than thou are irritating because when they act like that, then they're more in the wrong. it's easy to believe there's no god. now i don't believe in evolution, but is it that hard to believe that we aren't meant to serve someone. now personally, i've always thought that since god wants us spend all of our lives serving him and worshipping that he was a very selfish god. because the way i've been treated in every church by the so called "christians" just pushes me farther away from god.
 
chica_dulce_04 said:
Atheist... it's such a horrible sounding word. Well, my parents have tried to raise me in several different religions, and I'm sorry, but i can't do churches. The people that try to act holier than thou are irritating because when they act like that, then they're more in the wrong. it's easy to believe there's no god. now i don't believe in evolution, but is it that hard to believe that we aren't meant to serve someone. now personally, I've always thought that since god wants us spend all of our lives serving him and worshiping that he was a very selfish god. because the way I've been treated in every church by the so called "Christians" just pushes me farther away from god.
Click to expand...

There is such a thing as an ethical atheist, chica_dulce. You may[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] not believe in the existence of any gods yet you feel a personal duty and obligation to live by a set of principles, standards of conduct and philosophy in hopes of living in peace with fellow human beings.

I know when I would attend Mass and see my "Altar-Biting" brother receiving communion knowing what I know about his adulterous ways and dirty politics, I would absorb his sins and refuse to accept communion. At my Mother's funeral during the drape ceremony at the back of the Church beside the casket, I stared him down and he raised his fist to me. He was at the front of the casket on one side and my sister was on the opposite side in front. I was across from him in the back as was my other sister (the baby).

Being the big " sissy" that I am and I readily acknowledge that I never could fight ( I would say that I fight like a girl but I have seen girls fight and there are some I would never get into the ring with! They would mop the floor with me!) I just stepped back and allowed the undertakers assistant to take my spot at draping the coffin.

With the exception of funerals I have not been back to Church even to do my Easter duty. I watch Mass for Shut-Ins on TV and I say the rosary occasionally. I still consider myself a practicing Catholic.

Someone once said when I too complained about the hypocrisy in the parishioners at Mass and Communion that I should be in Mass for myself and God. So now God is on my TV and in my heart. I don't need a fancy church to pray!

People may push you from the physical proximate of the Church however if you are a believer then don't allow them to drive a wedge between you and your spiritual beliefs.You can find God everywhere. Wherever you are, God is also there.[/font]
 
rickey said:
i dont understand all the atheists who dont beleve. assuming christans, or any other religion for that matter, are wrong. so what atleast we die happy,spread peace love and help with feeding poor not to mintion all the christan cheritys red cross and salvation army. without a higher power what is the point ? survival of the fittest? is the gangsta on the street corner with a gun considered fitter than you ? does he get to kill you? there is no reson for law.
Click to expand...
Okay, answering each part in turn:

I could no sooner believe in God without evidence than I could believe in life on Mars without evidence. Perhaps you can choose to believe, and if it makes you a better, happier person then I encourage it. However, I cannot lie to myself and give any religion validity that it does not earn on its own merits. Furthermore, I have found substantial evidence over the years that suggests that God is a product of man and not vice versa. In addition to the argument I presented a while back I have many more. Here are a couple of the simplest.

1) When abused the drug ketamine commonly elicits an out-of-body or near-death experience. Both appear to merely be extreme forms of a dissociative state.
2) A portion of the brain has been found to be tied to religion. Those experiencing seizures affecting this portion of the brain believe that God is talking to them during the seizure and often become extremely religious. The same effect can be produced by stimulating the area with an electrode.

As far as I'm concerned people should be allowed to believe whatever they want provided they accept the consequences (If you believe that the earth is the center of the universe in spite of scientific data to the contrary, you can expect to have a hard time getting a job as an astronomer). Problems arise when religious groups try to have their belief system taught in science classes without solid empirical evidence. If you want something taught in a science class that involves defining it as a theory from which testable hypothesis can be drawn and performing experiments to test those hypothesis. Then, only if your experiments support your theory and other scientists reproduce your experiments and get the same results could your theory be remotely admissible in a science classroom. Not being able to disprove the theory is not sufficient, you need at least tentative support. I am sick of religious groups trying to sidestep the process because their view is "an alternative theory to the scientific one.” True, there is nothing in science beyond the theory, and theories are by definition uncertain and un-provable, but what you believe in isn't EVEN a theory. Theories are held to higher standards, and until you meet those standards you have no right to call your religion a theory. This does not just apply to religions, but religions tend to be the worst offenders. Also, this does not mean that religion cannot be taught, say in a class on comparative theology.

Must everything have a purpose? Here's an example: In Oklo Gabon about 2 billion years ago, a combination of chance conditions led to the creation of 15 or so natural fission reactors which geologists estimate ran intermittently for a few million years. What was the point of this formation? Did God need to boil some water (teatime perhaps)? I see it as a massive chaotic system. What will happen is dependant upon the present conditions which in turn are based on what happened previously, which was in turn dependant on previous conditions and so on in an endless chain of causality with no underlying reason or point. Trying to assign a point or purpose is the equivalent of looking for shapes in the clouds.

More info on the natural nuclear reactors here:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

Morality and law are not dependant on religion. Primates have been shown to possess basic concepts of morality such as fair play. However, in lower primates morality is, for the most part, firmly based in what Kohlberg would consider pre-conventional morality (where the individual does good primarily in hopes that their good deeds will be repaid by those they have helped). Also, some philosophies such as utilitarianism provide a basis for moral behavior and justice that does not depend on religion. I won't go any further here, as I have already started a thread on this topic elsewhere.

On a side note: The Red Cross is not a Christian organization. It was originally based on a Swiss organization, and takes its symbol from the Swiss flag with its colors reversed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top