Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth

On 14 Apr 2006 18:37:42 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AC wrote:
On 3 Apr 2006 20:18:49 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AC wrote:
On 20 Mar 2006 18:31:54 -0800,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AC wrote:
On 8 Mar 2006 17:29:40 -0800,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
On 6 Feb 2006 17:05:21 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:
On 23 Jan 2006 20:24:28 -0800, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Sure. Aside from a Supreme Being, how else could the singularity of
the Big Bang be created?

It didn't need a cause.

Everything that occurs needs a cause.

And you know this how?

Common sense. Don't think so?

Surely by now you must realize that common sense is, in fact, a very poor
way to understand certain fundemental aspects of the Universe. It was the
great insight of a number of physicists that the Universe doesn't have to
behave like common sense would indicate that has lead to the great strides
forward.

I can't, for instance, thing of a theory more in violation of common sense
than Quantum Mechanics, and yet it is a very successful theory.

You sure are keeping an open mind about everything, even in the middle
of a universe where 100% of observable events can be shown to have a
cause.

You better bone up on your QM, Jim. Look up "Casimir effect".

Yes, I was asked about the Casimir Effect in the preceding post. Not
knowing the cause, like we don't know about gravity, doesn't give us
the logical right to declare that there is no cause.

That's like an atheist declaring that there is no God because he has
never been able to detect Him, regardless of the fact that the atheist
would need omniscience to declare that there is God anywhere in the
cosmos.

Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that at the subatomic level, our macro view
of the Universe runs up against some huge problems. It's time you realized
that what you regard as common sense is meaningless.

What?!? Disregard common sense forever because some scientist says so?
I'll be open to change; but, allow me to hold onto my common sense for
now.

The evidence clearly defies common sense. But before you come back with one
of your standard pious replies, ponder that the machine you are posting on
works because QM so successfully models subatomic particle interactions.







OK. Show me one thing...just
one...that exists today without having an underlying cause for its
existence. Or...show me one thing that has changed without their being
any cause for its change.

The whole point of this is that the rules that may have governed the
earliest moments of the Universe do not apply today, and visa versa.

But you contend such a thing yourself, with your Prime Mover argument.
Inserting God is essentially inserting an uncaused entity. So, if I apply
your logic, why can't I say the Universe is uncaused?

Because the universe, including time and space, have limits. God
doesn't.

This is just a bald-faced assertion, Jim. I think you know perfectly well
that you are violating your own logic.

No, the previously defined nature of God is infinite. Logically, then,
I cannot say that God then has limits.

That's somebody's claim as to the nature of God. You can define him as a
galaxy-sized jelly donut, but it does little good.

Well, if there is a Supreme Being and He created the universe, then we
can infer a great deal about His nature from the universe which was
created. It would be just like analyzing the heck out of a painting to
determine what the artist was like when the artist was not available.

The best I can infer is that if there was some Prime Mover, he moved and
then moved on.









If there is no cause for an
event, then why did the event occur in the first place?

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

The Big Bang.

Circular reasoning. You have to show that the Big Bang had no cause
for you to then use it as an example as something without a cause. If
you cannot provide evidence for such an assertion, then your idea is
without merit and can be disregarded as wishful thinking.

Certain interpretations of Big Bang cosmology make the very question of
cause meaningless. Time, like the three spacial dimensions, came into
existence with the Big Bang, so how can there be a before Time?

Well, let me borrow a technique of theoretical postulation used to
create the the Big Bang singularity. Let me guess that time is not
needed to have events occurs. After all, if our understanding of the
laws of the universe don't apply to t=0, then why can't I say that our
knowledge of time itself doesn't apply.

You can say anything, I suppose, but in science, you need to have evidence.
All the evidence shows that Time is a dimension, and thus came into being
with the Universe.

Uh-oh! All the evidence says that matter exists in three spatial
dimensions and exists within the fourth dimension of time. If time
didn't exist and space didn't exist, then matter couldn't exist. If
all matter couldn't exist, then there would be nothing that could begin
expanding in the first place.

If all the energy and matter in the Universe sums up to 0, as some
scientists are beginning to suspect, then you have your answer.

Ah! Anti-matter, dark matter, etc. I'm not sure what that would have
to do with time, though. I'll try to read some more on the subject of
the universe having a net zero energy and matter solution.

Time is a dimension, Jim.




...Unless someone is willing to admit that this matter just popped into
existence and started expanding. Ah! And there apparently was no
cause to this matter just popping into existence.

There's apparently no problem with claiming some deity had no creator, so
why not?

Well, you do have a point there. However, the universe is not a living
Being.

What does that have to do with anything?




So, we have a universe which came about without design or purpose. We
have it coming into reality from nothingness and without cause.

That may very well be true, although it may be a very long time before we
can find out whether the universe is a singular entity, or whether part of a
greater metaverse. Mind you, even that discovery only pushes the question
further back.

True.



You know, if this were in a religious text, you all would not be
criticizing it because you'd be laughing so hard. But, because it
comes from "logical" science-minded folks, it's considered legitimate.
Seriously, and I am being serious here, do you ever ask yourselves if
you really are just making this up as you go along?

It's not being made up as we go along, Jim. We don't have the answers, and
silly arguments from incredulity and insisting that unevidenced beings who
themselves violate the very logic you claim solves it all doesn't help.

Fair enough. Maybe if you allowed for a Supreme Being in your
analysis, especially since our understanding of physics and chemistry
is admittedly insufficient in some areas, then there might not be as
much initial skepticism about these highly theoretical ideas.
Seriously. Just an idea.

Oh I say, so as long as we use the word God somewhere in a theory, you won't
have a fit about it. Tell me, do all theories require this for the
"skeptical" (which looks oddly like code for hyper-religous), or just Big
Bang cosmology?










What are the odds that the expansion of the universe seems tweaked just
so as to allow matter to coallesce over 14 billion years yet fast
enough to prevent the universe from collapsing back onto itself?

I think you need to study the subject, there are some mistakes in that
paragraph.

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?

In our universe it happened. That is all we can say.

Again, circular reasoning based on the unsupported assumption that the
universe came into being as you assert, which itself is based on
wishful thinking.

There's nothing circular about it, Jim. You seem to have fallen into the
Goodrichian habit of simply handwaving things away and claiming logical
errors on your interlocutors part, but in fact not demonstrating any such
error at all.

In short your evading.

I'm just waiting for some scientific answer other than "we know that
this is how it happened because we're here, aren't we".

The scientific answer may take some time in the coming, and thus we're back
to your trying to foist a God-of-the-gaps argument.

Well, at least you admitted that there is no real science behind the
conclusions, just best guesses. I suppose that's a start.

I never said there wasn't science behind it, Jim. All of this rests upon
our limited understanding of physical laws. It's just that some of the new
theories, like branes and strings, are simply not testable right now. But
please note, unlike your God hypothesis, they may be testable in the future.

Why would you say that the God hypethesis would never, or can never, be
tested in the future, especially since there is confidence that all
purely natural events and entities, like dark matter, will one day be
testable?

Because the being you say caused everything is omnipotent, and thus *all*
possible observations can be explained by invoking the being. There is no
possible observation that could not be. Haven't we been over this before?









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.

Pardon???

The strong nuclear force holds subatomic particles together, right?
Well, if that force were either stronger or weaker by perhaps 1%, then
most, if not all, elements other than hydrogen or helium could not
exist. Just a coincidence, huh?

I'm assuming by this that you have worked out the odds of it being some
other value? Care to enlighten us on how we determine the statistical
chances of the strong nuclear force?

They could be anything. I don't assume one way or the other that the
strong nuclear force must always be what it is today for all
permutations of possible universes. Because they could be anything,
the chances that they naturally wind up being what they are
statistically zero.

So we're back to fine-tuning, something you denied a few posts ago. Does
the universe require the strong nuclear force to be just-so for life to
exist or does it not?

Yes, within a very narrow range of values.

So God is constrained.

No. God wanted life to be constrained naturally. He designed the
inherent natural constraints Himself.

And for evidence of this we have... your prayers and dreams?


It would be like you're designing a building. You could use a steel
frame which would allow extremely tall structures. But, you decide to
use brick and mortar without any frame. Now, your building is
constrained to just a few stories by the load-bearing capacities of
brick and mortar. You constrained the building through your own
design. You weren't constrained by anything else, except maybe the
properties of steel. In God's case, of course, there are no design
restraints. Anything is possible. What we see in this universe is
just one design out of an infinite number of possibilities in the mind
of God.

That may be, so it renders any claims about the strong nuclear force
ludicrous. God can do what He wants.







As I've said before, and I think I've said it to you, Jim. You are leaning
on the strong Anthropomorphic principle, but surely you realize that this
creates a very big problem for any theist, as it essentially means God's
hands were tied. If only a small number of the possible universes (maybe
even just one (if we take your strong nuclear force example as seriously as
you do) is capable of supporting intelligent life, then the Prime Mover had
little room to maneuver.

Not necessarily. On one level, yes. If God had to choose from one or
a few of the untold trillions of choices of universes, then yes. But,
if God was the one who created the constants, laws, and even the
possibilities to begin with, then no.

If God is truly infinite, then He created the pool of universes itself,
not just got to pick the lucky one from the already existing pool. So,
if there is any "limit" on God choosing the universes which can sustain
life, then He was the One who designed that "limit" in the first place.

So the fine-tuning argument is meaningless. Is that correct?

No. Once the universe was created and running smoothly, the
fine-tuning argument has meaning. Before God designed it, the argument
is not applicable.

This makes no sense, Jim. We've gone over this again and again. If God can
do anything He wants, then fine tuning has no function. If God is
constrained, then fine tuning does have some meaning. You're trying to have
it both ways.

No, I'm treating God as a living Being which He is, not a natural
process. God fine tunes for maybe no other reason than pure pleasure,
not for lack of power or foresight. And given the mess that humanity
has created on this planet, I would think that some fine tuning of this
earth is necessary from time to time. Again, it is not because God
couldn't foresee what humans would do and compensate before the fact in
this design of the universe. It's not a power thing. It's a choice
thing. It's the way God does things.


It looks more to me like your simply making things up, Jim. You seem to
realize very clearly the major flaw in the fine tuning argument, but rather
than abandon it, you now insist that I have to not only accept your deity's
existence, but also your claims as to what he will and won't do, but
troubling enough, without any scriptural backing.




You've just toppled your own reasoning, Jim.



the likelihood that any physical laws that hold true during this epoch of
the Universe being what they are. You can sit here and formulate arguments
from incredulity about the relative strength of the nuclear forces to
electromagnetism to gravity, or any other variation on that theme, but
because there is no way of measuring the probability, it is simply
fallacious reasoning.

Without first establishing that the constants could have been any other
value, then scientifically speaking it is a stretch of inference, but
not fallacious reasoning.

But, let's be reasonable about this. If THAT is the standard for what
is fallacious, then the entire singularity with its inherent dismissal
of all current laws and reasoning is just as fallacious. After all, we
know nothing of the mathematics involved in the singularity. All laws
of the universe cannot be referenced. Time itself wasn't even in
effect apparently. So what are we basing our ideas on? Pure inference
with a healthy amount of science-based imagination.

Goddamnit Jim, do you ever read a f**king thing that's written? The
singularity is there because we don't understand how physics functioned at
the epoch. The singularity isn't a cause, it's a point where our
mathematical models break down.

That's fine. No problem. Then never let anyone say that this
singularity condition was without cause, since we don't understand how
physics functioned at that point.

Oh for f*cks sake, Jim. It isn't a *condition*. It isn't a *thing*. I
thought you knew something about mathematics.

Well, I was told that it was smaller than a dime. Then I was told that
it was something like 1x10^-34 inches in diameter. Then I was told to
not think of it as a thing, but as a condition. Now, it's neither. I
know that it's not considered the same as a black hole singularity.
But, if it isn't a mass, energy system, condition, or state of being,
then help me out here. Oh, and check some of the other responses given
about it having a size.

Jim, are you intentionally being this way, or just getting nasty? It really
is time for you to head to the library, I think.

Now, Jim, what is a singularity in mathematics?




You see? On the one hand, I have people, including you, explaining how
our current understanding of physics and chemistry cannot explain
things before and immediately right after the Big Bang expansion began.
OK. No problem.

But, then I have people telling me that there didn't have to be a
cause. I have people telling me that the singularity condition just
popped into existence per quantum mechanics. I was told that time and
space didn't exist. I am told that there doesn't need to be a Supreme
Being to make it all happen...because they know enough about the
singularity condition to determine no cause was necessary.

Some people may project their atheism, but if you recall, I told you that
the Universe has no cause is my hunch. I didn't make a grand proclamation,
and I sure wouldn't want to bet my lunch money on it.

Yes, you were honest about that. I can respect that hunch. It's just
that some others were more...certain about their conclusions. I didn't
think that their certainty was logically consistent. That's all.



How can anyone say such things if no one understands the physics and
chemistry that was occurring at the time? It really makes me question
if some of you really know what you are talking about and are being
truthful about what you know or don't know. Not necessarily you Aaron,
but others.

Well Jim, there's one way to cure your ignorance. Go to the library and get
out a few books by Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene. Hawking has done a lot
of work trying to unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and Greene
is probably one of the most important string theorists. In any literature
I've read by either one they make it very clear when they're wandering past
established theory, so you should have no problem.

I started getting a headache just reading the introduction to one of
Hawking's books. Just kidding. His ideas do get fairly complex. :-)

I have a few books by Hawking on my list of books to purchase next time
that I'm at a bookstore.

A Brief History of Time is a good start. Very readable.

--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... the Big Bang be created? ... The problem with common sense is that it is not very common. ... then show me something that occurs anywhere in the universe ... let once-disassembled matter combine to form stars and planets but fast ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Jim Spaza wrote: ... the Big Bang be created? ... Universe requires a cause, then most certainly the Prime Mover does is well. ... That is, much to physicists' chagrin, the definition of a singularity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... the Big Bang be created? ... way to understand certain fundemental aspects of the Universe. ... Jim. ... what are the odds that the strong nuclear force is just as we see ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang
    ... It is surely not energy itself since its ... Agreed that "this is what we have to see if the universe is ... We observe that the expansion ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Jim Spaza wrote: ... way to understand certain fundemental aspects of the Universe. ... That's like an atheist declaring that there is no God because he has ... create the the Big Bang singularity. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading