Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent. Full Story

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#174886 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mass, energy, momentum, stresses. In other words, the stress-energy tensor.
What is a stress-energy tensor???

Oh, ok, I'll just google it.

How does energy affect gravity?!?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#174887 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> None that you would accept because you rule out God from the get go in spite of the evidence.
Wait, what evidence?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174888 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
I would say no known cause is different from no cause.
And you are correct. There is a difference between no cause and no known cause. The results of the Arrow experiment show there is no cause.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174889 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> None that you would accept because you rule out God from the get go in spite of the evidence. Your impious claims to truth seeking stops dead cold at the door of God. It is at that point you forfeit truth in favor of bias.
So you refuse to show how the hypothesis that there is a God is testable? How would a system with a God look different than a system with a God? Why is the assumption of an eternal God better than the assumption that the laws of physics are eternal?
Nobody gives a rats as# about radioactive decay so they don't bother to look into it. That is why they are skeptical when atheists with stated agenda claim it is uncaused. They are looking for uncaused events to rule God out. They are hopelessly biased.
Scientists would *love* to find a cause, but that actual evidence shows there is none. YOU are the one that is biased and ignores the actual evidence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174890 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
What is a stress-energy tensor???
Oh, ok, I'll just google it.
How does energy affect gravity?!?
The stress-energy tensor is essentially a description of the distribution of mass, energy, momentum, and 'stress' in a region. On the other hand, the Einstein tensor describes, essentially, the curvature of spacetime. General relativity proposes that the Einstein tensor and the stress energy tensor are equal (up to a constant proportion factor). So, essentially, mass, energy, momentum, and stress produce curvature of spacetime. Curvature means that close by paths will either converge or diverge (depending on the type of curvature). This is gravity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174891 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, wait - wouldn't time be a function of the universe in question in the multiverse hypothesis?
Not necessarily. it depends on which models you use for the multiverse.
Is there a larger time, too? Like, if you have an infinite...er..."place " that doesn't correspond to the English word equivalent where universes are spawned, does that space have time?
Does outside our universe know that our universe is progressing through its own time? Is that a knowable thing?
Can we know about phenomena outside our universe? If there is no time outside our universe, or time is at a different pace, wouldn't that sort of constrain what is knowable from our point of view?
:)
:)
:)
I can ask more questions - always lots and lots and lots of questions!
And these are good questions. The obvious problem is that we do not have any actual evidence for a multiverse. But such always come up when you attempt to merge quantum mechanics and gravity. Since most multiverse models allow gravity to work between the universes, there is a possibility of testing the existence of other universes (there was even a controversial claim of observations that support this).

An analogy might help when discussing the different notions of time in the universe vs with multiverse.

Take a sphere. Imagine the latitude corresponds to time and the longitude corresponds to (one-dimensional) space. On this sphere, time 'begins' at the south pole and 'ends' at the north pole. There is, in essence, a Big Bang at the south pole and a Big Crunch at the north pole.

Now, imagine this sphere embedded in three dimensions (you probably already did that) with the north pole on top. Then, the height above the ground corresponds roughly to the latitude on the sphere. In that sense, the height in three dimensions corresponds to latitude in two dimensions. More accurately, the latitude is a projection of the height onto the sphere.

Now, it is *possible* that the multiverse, which has about 10 dimensions has a time variable (like height) that 'projects' onto time in our particular (four dimensional) universe just like height projects onto latitude. They are not identical, but they certainly are linked. This is, in fact, pretty common in multiverse models.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174892 Aug 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The rules of logic and math do not apply to a singularity
of infinite or near infinite gravity *time does not move,
so causality has no meaning, but quantum effects are not bound by time. So The universe can create itself with gravity alone.
Lets apply Hawking argument against God.

Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.

If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174893 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah?!? Well, what made the material radioactive in the first place? Huh? Isn't that the cause???
Huh?!?
:)
And this is one of the reasons I requested a definition of the term 'cause'. It is a very slippery concept as applied to many situations.

For example, suppose I push on the accelerator pedal of my car. The car goes faster. There is definitely a sense in which my pushing on the pedal is the 'cause' of the car going faster. But, more precisely, pushing on the pedal made a series of levers open up a valve that lets in more fuel, so there is a bigger explosion against the piston, which produces more torque on the drive shaft, which makes the tires spin faster, which makes the friction on the ground produce a force on the car, which makes it accelerate. If there was not fuel in the line, the car would not go faster. If the piston was not connected to the drive shaft, the car would no go faster. If any of the mechanics was stuck, the car would no go faster, etc. So the *actual* cause of the car going faster is the imbalance of the frictional force and the drag force on the car. My pushing the pedal was only one way among many to produce that imbalance. It isn't guaranteed to produce that imbalance (for example if the road is icy). But, if the conditions are right, and the car is built well, pushing the pedal does cause a sequence of events leading to the imbalance of forces.

Now, for radioactivity, the situation is a bit different. Take an atom of, say, uranium-238. The nucleus is unstable (meaning it will decay) in part because the number of neutrons is too high compared to the number of protons (also because the nucleus as a whole is too large). In one sense, that is a cause for the decay. But, an nucleus of U-238 can remain un-decayed for literally billions of years. And, unlike the car or the triggering mechanism for a bomb, there is NOTHING different about a nucleus that decays right now and another nucleus that decays in 3 billion years. There is no 'triggering mechanism' that determines when that nucleus will decay. The decay of a particular nucleus is *completely* undetermined: it is uncaused. Again, nothing is different 'just before' the decay from any other time. A nucleus of U-238 that decays today is absolutely identical to one that decays in a billion years. That is what I mean when I say the time for the decay is uncaused.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174894 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Lets apply Hawking argument against God.
Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.
If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.
Since that is NOT Hawking's argument, you are merely showing your ignorance.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174895 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
I don't really follow you here.
1+1=2 is abstract and is not time dependent. 1+1=2 would remain true even if there was nothing and not something. It transcends physical reality.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#174896 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Lets apply Hawking argument against God.
Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.
If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.
First of all I haven't ruled out a creator.
But lets examine this, Can you find gravity now?
Can you find or show evidence of a creator>??
We can find gravity, we can also understand what general relativity
mean to gravity and the space/time continuum.

We can identify how gravity can slow time and contract space into a singularity. These are measurable things, now show me the effects of your creator. Causality only makes sense to things bound in time. We know there are things not bound to time as we are, such as quantum effects and gravity. These effects are demonstrable and testable. Demonstrate the effects a creator has on time and gravity in our world in a testable and measurable way. showing on paper what it is. Then you have an argument, but as it is you have only a belief and no measurement or observation.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174897 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since that is NOT Hawking's argument, you are merely showing your ignorance.
Actually it is an expression of Hawkings core argument in deductive form. Unlike you, i don't know everything.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp...
Towards the end of the episode, Hawking asserted that “[t]he role played by time at the beginning of the Universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer and revealing how the Universe created itself”(“Curiosity…”). According to Hawking and other atheists, the initial moments of the Big Bang were supposedly similar to the nature of a black hole (see Miller, 2011a for a response to this idea). Hawking believes that due to the nature of a black hole, time would not have existed before the Big Bang. He asserts:

You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang, because there was no before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means that there is no possibility for a Creator, because there is no time for a Creator to have existed…. Time didn’t exist before the Big Bang. So, there is no time for God to make the Universe in (“Curiosity…,” emp. added).

So, according to Hawking, there could not have been a cause for the Big Bang since that cause had to temporally precede the effect of the Big Bang, and yet time supposedly did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Setting aside the fact that this theoretical black hole, which is speculated to have been in existence at the time of the alleged Big Bang, had to itself have a cause (according to the Law of Causality even if time did not exist before the bang), Hawking still made a blunder in supposing that a Creator could not exist if time did not exist.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#174898 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, wait - wouldn't time be a function of the universe in question in the multiverse hypothesis?
Is there a larger time, too? Like, if you have an infinite...er..."place " that doesn't correspond to the English word equivalent where universes are spawned, does that space have time?
Does outside our universe know that our universe is progressing through its own time? Is that a knowable thing?
Can we know about phenomena outside our universe? If there is no time outside our universe, or time is at a different pace, wouldn't that sort of constrain what is knowable from our point of view?
:)
:)
:)
I can ask more questions - always lots and lots and lots of questions!
The universe has a clock that started ticking 13.7 billion years ago. Just about everything within the universe has a clock ticking
these clocks can be made to run at different rates, but the universes clock as far as we know does not vary.
Whether there are clocks ticking outside this universe we can't say. Whether this universe's clock is within another clock, we can't say. But it is entirely possible they are.
Whether the universe is aware of the passage of time , is highly controversial , but that too is possible I guess.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#174899 Aug 18, 2013
Covert Stealth Ops wrote:
<quoted text>If Christians go to church on Sunday, then where do atheists go on Sundays.........wait for it......got it.....THE ZOO.
Jetskiing.
Thinking

UK

#174900 Aug 18, 2013
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.

That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Lets apply Hawking argument against God.
Causes must precede their effect in time (Except gravity)
There is no time prior to the beginning of time
Therefore the universe cannot have a cause.
If that rules out God then it must also rule out gravity. Atheists rule out God but do not rule out gravity.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174901 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.
That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174902 Aug 18, 2013
Thinking wrote:
BS. Few Atheists rule out the possibility of some form of god.
That said, I know 100% that no all powerful compassionate god can exist because we have evidence of avoidable suffering.
<quoted text>
BTW, your "know" is a belief, a personal conviction, and quite the evidence it is emotion based, which clouds rational thinking.
Thinking

UK

#174903 Aug 18, 2013
Calling you a wanker doesn't make you any less incorrect.
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of Topix self professed atheists don't know WTF they believe. But the name sounds cool, and it gives them a license to be obnoxious, they believe.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174904 Aug 18, 2013
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
Veiled accusations? Threats?? Lol, I'll bypass the drivel and focus on the one point. One can only explain things so many times to you without making a dent that one realizes the depths of your cluelessness.
Never underestimate the power of willful ignorance--

-- it is one of the few things humans can achieve an infinite capacity for...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#174905 Aug 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you qualified? Do you have doctorates in physics, astrophysics, or quantum physics?
Much more than the creationist could ever hope to be.

She dismisses **all** scientific fact without a second glance.

This alone disqualifies here from the discussion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 8 min Osmius 795,200
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 17 min AntiqueAnnie 607,181
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 19 min Student 39,656
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 20 min RoSesz 567,978
Scientific proof for God's existence 40 min HipGnosis 546
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 46 min Farstrider 5,418
Homosexuals are servants and human children of ... 1 hr Rick in Kansas 12
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr RADEKT 267,400
More from around the web