|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 16, 2018 12:34:34 GMT
Something= Matter Nothing= the absence of something. Everything= The universe and the origin of life. If "something" is matter and "nothing" is the absence of something, can I assume that you are defining "nothing" as vacuum? I know what you’re trying to get at. Here’s a segment from an article which efficiently explains the problem with it. “Is it really true that entire universes can appear from nothing? This "science" is based upon the real science of quantum mechanics, which has shown that particles can appear from "nothing" and disappear into "nothing." Atheist scientists say that "nothing" is unstable and spontaneously produces somethings. Although the statement is true in a limited sense, atheists aren't telling you the whole story. Why is that? Although these virtual particles appear based upon some probability statistic, they also disappear spontaneously, based upon the same probability. In other words, these particles are not stable and do not behave like the stuff we regularly encounter in our macroscopic world. One would never expect a tennis ball to spontaneously appear or disappear, although it is theoretically possible. The reason why a macroscopic object would never behave like a quantum particle is that so many unlikely events would have to transpire simultaneously for such an event to occur. The fallacy that Victor Stenger and other anthropic principle antagonists promote is that probabilistic quantum events apply to the macro world. They never provide any evidence that such an assumption is true.”www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_is_there_something.html |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 16, 2018 13:34:47 GMT
If "something" is matter and "nothing" is the absence of something, can I assume that you are defining "nothing" as vacuum? I know what you’re trying to get at. Here’s a segment from an article which efficiently explains the problem with it. “Is it really true that entire universes can appear from nothing? This "science" is based upon the real science of quantum mechanics, which has shown that particles can appear from "nothing" and disappear into "nothing." Atheist scientists say that "nothing" is unstable and spontaneously produces somethings. Although the statement is true in a limited sense, atheists aren't telling you the whole story. Why is that? Although these virtual particles appear based upon some probability statistic, they also disappear spontaneously, based upon the same probability. In other words, these particles are not stable and do not behave like the stuff we regularly encounter in our macroscopic world. One would never expect a tennis ball to spontaneously appear or disappear, although it is theoretically possible. The reason why a macroscopic object would never behave like a quantum particle is that so many unlikely events would have to transpire simultaneously for such an event to occur. The fallacy that Victor Stenger and other anthropic principle antagonists promote is that probabilistic quantum events apply to the macro world. They never provide any evidence that such an assumption is true.”www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_is_there_something.htmlFrom which the simple lesson is learned: that things currently existing began from the quantum level and not tennis balls. Nothing new there. Things still work as described above in the quantum level; but as we know, we still have a working reality built on what is, frequently, indeterminism at the smallest level. And there is still no logical reason why something permanent should not always reside in nature at this level, as opposed to introducing a whole new level of supernatural reality to explain things, especially when the devoutly-challenged themselves offer up this type of 'brute fact' as a facet of their purported god. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 16, 2018 13:49:27 GMT
If "something" is matter and "nothing" is the absence of something, can I assume that you are defining "nothing" as vacuum? I know what you’re trying to get at. Here’s a segment from an article which efficiently explains the problem with it. “Is it really true that entire universes can appear from nothing? This "science" is based upon the real science of quantum mechanics, which has shown that particles can appear from "nothing" and disappear into "nothing." Atheist scientists say that "nothing" is unstable and spontaneously produces somethings. Although the statement is true in a limited sense, atheists aren't telling you the whole story. Why is that? Although these virtual particles appear based upon some probability statistic, they also disappear spontaneously, based upon the same probability. In other words, these particles are not stable and do not behave like the stuff we regularly encounter in our macroscopic world. One would never expect a tennis ball to spontaneously appear or disappear, although it is theoretically possible. The reason why a macroscopic object would never behave like a quantum particle is that so many unlikely events would have to transpire simultaneously for such an event to occur. The fallacy that Victor Stenger and other anthropic principle antagonists promote is that probabilistic quantum events apply to the macro world. They never provide any evidence that such an assumption is true.”www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_is_there_something.htmlThat whole line of argumentation is incredibly stupid. Either everything always existed or at least some things can spontaneously begin to exist where they hadn't previously. Those are your choices, and positing a God changes nothing at all about the fact that those are your choices. It's not as if positing a God somehow avoids those two counterintuitive possibilities. You're stuck with them as the only two possibilities no matter what you do. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
 
|
Post by Lugh on Aug 16, 2018 14:03:28 GMT
The concept of nothing in the traditional sense of the term is nonsensical (see Parmenides). The only way it makes sense is if you define it the way people like Laurence Krauss define it. Existence is spatiotemporally infinite.
Any other theory is a logical impossiblity.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Aug 16, 2018 17:54:52 GMT
I can't speak for all atheists but I know exactly the sort of thing would compel (not coerce) immediate conversion. Limbs growing back at Lourdes immediately after prayer for instance. But that would not necessarily be outside the realm of possibility under the commonly observed laws of the material universe, as we know them today. There are known creatures that can grow back damaged organs. Even we humans routinely repair damaged skin and other organs and tissues. It takes longer in some creatures than in others; what appears to us humans as "immediate" is eons to a microprocessor. If we don't destroy civilization and ourselves beforehand, we may one day discover how to manipulate/rearrange the building blocks of matter so that we can make things seem to appear from nothing. Our ancestors of two centuries ago could not conceive of projecting sound and visual messages from Earth to the Moon. Nor could they have conceived of recording and retrieving information such as we can with holograms and computers and 3D printers. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Aug 16, 2018 17:58:28 GMT
If it’s so crucial why do the overwhelmingly vast majority of Christian theists remain firm believers in adulthood. Is it for the same reason that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Hindu theists remain firm believers in adulthood? And the same reason that the overwhemlingly vast majority of Muslim theists remain firm believers in adulthood? And the same reason that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who group up in atheist families remain atheist in adulthood? |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Aug 16, 2018 18:01:16 GMT
Why is it that nothing cannot create something, Cody? Excellent question. Current answer: "something" can come from "nothing". I googled "something from nothing quantum" and got plenty of links. I'm not a physicist, so maybe I lack background; but the following explanation makes sense. Everything in the Universe is either matter ("something" according to Cody™ ) or virtual matter ("nothing" according to Cody™ ). Virtual matter can form matter. Can be googled. Conclusion: Something can come from nothing, and together, they are everything. No gods are needed in this picture. No need to go down that road, phludowin. If a god must exist because all that exists or has existed must have been created by something, what is the something that created god? It's the age-old primordial question that theists never can answer and which completely obliterates their whole line of argument. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 16, 2018 18:12:18 GMT
Your argument seems to severely underestimate people’s reasoning capabilities in adulthood. That’s true, it does. But I have reason to proceed under the assumption that most adults have limited reasoning capacity in issues that they’ve been indoctrinated into their entire lives. Christianity, and Islam are belief systems that do not encourage “reasoning”, or even questioning. In fact they actively discourage it; it’s built into the framework of the religion to prevent you from doing that. For the reasons I just laid out. That is what childhood indoctrination does. That combined with the inherent limitations the religion places on “questioning”, and the emphasis it places on “faith”, the answer seems obvious. If anyone who questions the beliefs and practices of their faith is labeled as WEAK in faith by the religion, and threatens them with hellfire should they stray away from said religion, then what possible motivation would there be for most of you to ever reason anything? None! That’s true you could. But then what point are you making there? Atheism is not a philosophy or religion (it is the lack of one). Secularism encourages learning through science (and things that can actually be tested using the scientific method). It doesn’t require belief at all, nor does it promote it. It promotes testing, and relying on facts and evidence (things that religion ignores). So yeah, if you don’t grow up being brainwashed to believe in God, or Jesus, or Allah, or Vishnu, the you probably wouldn’t accept such things without evidence. It requires no faith at all to be an atheist. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 16, 2018 19:39:46 GMT
Cody™Do you believe that the earth was created 6K - 10K years ago? Or do you agree with science that it's actually billions of years old?
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Aug 17, 2018 0:46:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 20, 2018 12:17:55 GMT
I can't speak for all atheists but I know exactly the sort of thing would compel (not coerce) immediate conversion. Limbs growing back at Lourdes immediately after prayer for instance. But that would not necessarily be outside the realm of possibility under the commonly observed laws of the material universe, as we know them today. There are known creatures that can grow back damaged organs. Even we humans routinely repair damaged skin and other organs and tissues. It takes longer in some creatures than in others; what appears to us humans as "immediate" is eons to a microprocessor. If we don't destroy civilization and ourselves beforehand, we may one day discover how to manipulate/rearrange the building blocks of matter so that we can make things seem to appear from nothing. Our ancestors of two centuries ago could not conceive of projecting sound and visual messages from Earth to the Moon. Nor could they have conceived of recording and retrieving information such as we can with holograms and computers and 3D printers. As such a fully attested and evidenced event would be seen by the faithful and (now-convinced) atheist alike as a miracle, I think worrying about whether it obeys commonly observed laws would be moot. |
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Aug 20, 2018 12:27:02 GMT
Btw one can easily apply same argument against atheism. I can just as easily say a great deal of atheists disbelieve mainly due to their secular upbringing or society they grew up in. That and the pesky lack of evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 20, 2018 12:28:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 20, 2018 12:30:55 GMT
Cody™ Do you believe that the earth was created 6K - 10K years ago? Or do you agree with science that it's actually billions of years old? And answer came there .. none. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 20, 2018 17:09:02 GMT
Cody™ Do you believe that the earth was created 6K - 10K years ago? Or do you agree with science that it's actually billions of years old? And answer came there .. none. Well he can’t answer without lying, because a truthful answer will reveal how unscientific and therefore unreasonable his beliefs are. That’s why he avoids questions like this. Typical Christian cognitive dissonance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 10:35:35 GMT
Yet another Cody thread where he poses his "gotcha" questions, only to be given reasonable explanations that he can neither refute nor answer. Exit Cody, claiming victory because "LOL".
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Aug 21, 2018 15:45:51 GMT
From my interactions I’ve found many atheists with this line of reasoning. It’s not just that they disbelieve because of unconvincing evidence. They actually don’t want there to be a God. The very idea of it horrifies them. Well, that can be a reasonable reaction. Most of them likely have the christian god in mind, after all, and he's the most horrific evil character in all of fiction. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a universe where such a being existed. Fortunately for them, the evidence really is unconvincing so their desire lines up with the reality. I'd say it was more a reasonable reaction because God is described as "beyond our reality" and "unknowable". If you could define the God depicted in the Bible empirically, then it wouldn't be the Christian god. I could see being convinced, via firm proof, of a being so powerful and advanced that it may as well be a god. But that wouldn't be the Christian god. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 16:49:08 GMT
Well, that can be a reasonable reaction. Most of them likely have the christian god in mind, after all, and he's the most horrific evil character in all of fiction. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a universe where such a being existed. Fortunately for them, the evidence really is unconvincing so their desire lines up with the reality. I'd say it was more a reasonable reaction because God is described as "beyond our reality" and "unknowable". If you could define the God depicted in the Bible empirically, then it wouldn't be the Christian god. Fair point. I'd add that if a being exists who is "unknowable", then there's really not a lot of point in considering it. Even if the existence of such a being could be proved, that would be the end of the discussion. There would be no point discussing its properties or what it might want or care about. Another good point. Another question to ask is what if such a powerful and advanced being decided to pretend to be the christian (or other) god? Take Q from Star Trek. There's nothing the god of the bible does that Q couldn't and doesn't do, from making things appear and vanish through to creating his own versions of reality. Q can remould entire planets with a thought, transcend space and time, etc. He's also something of a trickster. So Q could easily come to Earth and pretend to be the second coming of jesus, say. There's absolutely nothing that human beings could do to demonstrate that he wasn't really jesus. He could perform all sorts of miracles which are indistinguishable from actual miracles. So even if any proof were presented, how could we differentiate between a "real" god and a being of great power who was just pretending to be god? We couldn't. Similar issues apply to many aspects of religion. Say there are examples of accurate prophecy (which there aren't). How is that proof of god, rather than for example, proof of time travel by humans taking future knowledge to biblical times? The only answer religious people have to arguments like these is incredulity. "Ha! You believe in time travel! That's ridiculous!" And yes, it is ridiculous by normal standards. But then, the idea of an omnipotent god is just about the most ridiculous explanation there could be - inherently more ridiculous than time travel, since god includes the idea of transcending time. All that said, I don't require absolute proof. I'll accept that god exists if I see good evidence - it doesn't have to be perfect evidence. And I'll keep "maybe it's just a being indistinguishable from god to me" in mind as a possible alternative explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 21, 2018 16:55:27 GMT
We cannot fully comprehend God but He is personally knowable.
Unbelievable the lengths you unbelievers will go to undermine and discredit the Christian God that deep down most of you know likely exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 21, 2018 17:16:12 GMT
Unbelievable the lengths you unbelievers will go to undermine and discredit the Christian God that deep down most of you know likely exists. Your idiotic delusions about non-believers are so cute. |
|
