Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-03-09, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jack Dominey wrote:
In <1139274321.630313.296430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jim
Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

Everything that occurs needs a cause. If there is no cause for an
event, then why did the event occur in the first place?

You've got two different mistakes here. The first is that cause and
effect describes how things work in the universe, where time is
unidirectional. It is not clear, even to the very smart people who
work on topics like this, that the universe itself can be considered
an effect.

Are there really scientists who believe that there may not be cause and
effect in this universe? Well, then they need to get out of their
cubicles more often.


If not, then show me something that occurs anywhere in the universe
today without any cause.

Your second mistake is that at the quantum level, many actions are
uncaused. In a sample of a radioactive element, for example, there is
no cause for one particular atom decaying at a particular time.

Are you kidding? Are you really saying that there is no cause for a
radioactive atom to decay?

Yes. He is. To every known test, the decay of a particular atom is
random. That is why they form the heart of some of the strongest random
number generators.


The decay of the atom is NOT random. It is impossible with today's
technology to predict which atom will decay and when. But, the cause
of each type of decay is known. It's not like you have a perfectly
stable atom which just spontaneously decays on a whim.

OK. You're going to ask for some backup for what I said. Let me
Google.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_types_body.html
Notice the words "occurs" and "because".

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00774.htm
http://www.physchem.co.za/Atomic/Radioactivity.htm

Now, we may not understand it or even be able to predict the decay of
any particular atom. But, not knowing is a far cry from stating that
such a decay has no cause.

Science cannot differentiate between something which has no cause and
something which has no observable cause. The two are in fact, one and the
same. If you'd like to argue that God causes each atom to decay, science
can't prove that you are wrong, but it seems rather vacuous.

Ah! You are taking the position that a null answer has the same
significance as an unknown answer.


<snip>
I mean, what are the odds that the universe is expanding slow enough to
let once-disassembled matter combine to form stars and planets but fast
enough to prevent gravity from collapsing the universe?

The answer the question as you wrote it is still 1:1. What you seem
to mean is, could the expansion rate have been different? Nobody
knows.

Also, what are the odds that the strong nuclear force is just as we see
it? Too weak and a nucleus with more than one proton would not hold
together and hydrogen would be the only element in existence. Too
strong, as little as 1%, and hydrogen and elements heavier than iron
(formed in stars using hydrogen) would be rare.

Again, no one really knows if the values of these constants could have
been different. So to ask "what are the odds" presupposes that they
could.

<snip>

But don't the odds of everything appearing this way and being stable
make you think twice about how it happened?

Sure. Why is there something instead of nothing? Hard to get more
fundamental than that. But the people who actually think hard about
this question don't find your preferred response (<entity> made it
that way) good enough to be even considered an answer.

Your response is accurate only when applied to precommitted atheists,
agnostics, and skeptics.

<snip>

Someday, we will create life from non-life. I don't doubt that. What
I am trying to ascertain is how nature did it and how we know that
nature did it.

Really? Here's a link to a list of references, then.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/modorlife.html

Have a good time researching.

Been there already. Talk about assumptions, unsupported guesses, and
assertions based on those assumptions and unsupported guesses.

I wouldn't think of impinging on your territory.

No. Feel free to imping as much as you like. :-)


Mark

--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... that the universe itself can be considered ... no cause for one particular atom decaying at a particular time. ... the decay of a particular atom is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... You've got two different mistakes here. ... that the universe itself can be considered ... Think of radioactive decay Jack ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Jack Dominey wrote: ... that the universe itself can be considered ... Think of radioactive decay Jack ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... no cause for one particular atom decaying at a particular time. ... the decay of a particular atom is ... We know that the energy state of the atom ... Heisenberg's uncertainty principle provides, described in ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... no cause for one particular atom decaying at a particular time. ... the decay of a particular atom is ... We know that the energy state of the atom ... Heisenberg's uncertainty principle provides, described in ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading