The Faith of Atheism

[Anathema]

Edric I was refering to this.

Logic goes to agnostics, athiests are just crusaders without a purpose.

Apparently TMA thinks that all atheists are secretly plotting to exterminate religion everywhere.

[emprworm]

well, edric, this is what I am trying to figure out:

"There was never a nothing.

The cause whas that there was either something or nothing, and it so happened that there was not nothing (for the chances of nothing is 1 in infinite, due to the previous logic of how much there is, assuming every amount has equal probability)."

This statement Nema is saying is that there was existence prior to the big bang, yet there was nothing prior to the big bang....huh? lol. In otherwords, the matter and energy that make up your right kidney pre-existed (in some form) prior to time and the universe itself. The problem with that view is that if something pre-exists the natural world, then it is no longer natural, and thus its existence is a supernatural one.

yet Nema also wants to have cake and eat it too by saying that there was nothing pre-existed the universe:

"I'm not just being really depressed, I mean that there was no time, no length, and so on, at the imaginary point we consider to be the start of the universe - a point we can call time=0.

There is a theoretical point at wchich it began - t=0, but there was no pre-beginning, no t=-1. "

So one one hand we have Nema saying there was nothing existing before the big Bang...and on the other hand saying that since there was SOMETHING (i.e. not nothing) existing prior to the big bang, this is what caused it. (causation requires prior existence and a prior event. causation of an event at time T is philosophically impossible without a t-1 since there is a change in state of something, there MUST be time. The only way you can escape t-1 is to postulate that the event is uncaused, which Nema apparently doesn't want to do.)

so Nema has postulated a logical contradicton: There was something, yet there was nothing prior. clarification would be in order.

[nemafakei]

Sorry, you have either misinterpreted, or I have not made myself clear enough.

I'm not saying that the existance of there being something caused the big bang, I'm saying that existance WAS the bib bang.

This something that either existed or didn't IS the universe. At t=0, its existed was decided (the box was opened), and the universe happened.

[emprworm]

This something that either existed or didn't IS the universe. At t=0, its existed was decided (the box was opened), and the universe happened.

this is precisely option 2:

Since there was no existence...then existence.

#2. The universe began to exist and caused itself (or effected itself- pick your term) from nothing.

[nemafakei]

Ok.

I'm just making sure you're quite aware it's not as simple as something-from-nothing, and that there was never nothing. For whatever happens is by definition the universe...

[emprworm]

but there has to be nothing. you are defining nothing as a 'something' which you cannot do. nothing is simply defined as the lack of something. Lets take a random photon in your universe at t=1. We can say that the photon has existed for 1 second. If I asked, "What was the state of that photon 2 seconds ago?" you would respond, "2 seconds ago did not exist. This photon did not exist."

"Then what caused that photon to exist? What force made it come into being?"

"No prior force existed to bring it into being, it just happened all at the exact same moment." (I am assuming this is your answer).

"Did any force or causual agent exist prior to that photon coming into being?"

"There is a lack of time even existing prior to 1 second ago, so there is no such thing as "prior" to 1 second ago. There is a lack of existence...a lack of time...a lack of concepts....before this photon came into existence is a misnomer...there is no time...there is no 'prior'...there is a complete lack of anything including logic....."

TRANSLATION: FROM NOTHING

[Anathema]

It's flawed to say that it was at one point there and before that not, because the universe contains everything, so even the time before the universe itself got into existence.

In the end, time is only a dimension. At t=0, all matter and energy were compressed into a single point. Dimensions, wether spatial or not, are curved by high gravitational forces. This is commonly accepted by many scientists(curving of light, like with black holes, doesn't occur because the beams of light are pulled but because space is distorted). There are also theories of additional dimensions (other then the four we know) curved up completely. This could have been the case with time and space before the big bang.

[nemafakei]

"TRANSLATION: FROM NOTHING"

I would not use that word because it has incorrect implications, but, so long as you do not misuse it (rounding error), feel free to abbreviate what I have said as this.

[emprworm]

what implications? nothing is the lack of all existence. that is the most pure unfettered definition you can have of it. i am not sure what implications you are referring to.

"a universe that began to exist uncaused from nothing" is probably the best, most accurate way to consisely state your view. it is a beautiful description- short and sweet- of everything you explained to me

[nemafakei]

There is the danger it will be misinterpreted as an unwarranted change in energy.

[emprworm]

lol. i think that is a perfect interpretation of it.

lack of energy --> energy

lack of time --> time

lack of existence --> existence

ya, there's a change going on here allright. yet no causual agent for them. Unwarranted? You bet. Scientific? Not in the least. Faith-based? Darned straight.

[nemafakei]

lack of energy --> energy

Under what circumstances was there a lack of energy? What is the '-->'?

You are now saying that there was a point in something (what, by the way?) in which there was a lack of time?

For change to take place, the must be a start point, an end point and the change in between.

There is no start point before time, therefore no change.

[emprworm]

"You are now saying that there was a point in something (what, by the way?) in which there was a lack of time?"

We can mathematically deduce, empirically, whether something has a beginning or not.

to anything that exists: if it has a finite age of existence, irregardless of any values for T, then it had a beginning. nothing is a complete lack of anything. "nothing" is a concept that cannot actually exist in this universe since this universe is something. yet nothing is a concept that can logically be applied to a conceptual point prior to the big bang- just like a conceptual point on a line- the point is infinitely small, not existing in reality, yet mathematically existing in concept (making it no less true).

the inescapable fact remains that according to your theory of the universe:

lack of energy --> energy

"lack of energy" is not a point in time, it is a conceptual point in existence.

this is inescapable because at time t=1 we can ask the question: "Where was this energy 2 seconds ago?" to which the only answer you can give is "there is only 1 second ago. all existence, time, matter and energy is only 1 second ago"

a linear line of events with a definitive beginning yet with no causual agent- is the definition of from nothing.

[nemafakei]

"it is a conceptual point in existence"

Ok, so long as you remember it is conceptual and there was in fact no net change of energy ,for in the conceptual point at or before the big bang, the amout of energy was undefined.

"this is inescapable because at time t=1 we can ask the question: "Where was this energy 2 seconds ago?" to which the only answer you can give is "there is only 1 second ago. all existence, time, matter and energy is only 1 second ago" "

Correct. There can be no answer to the question.

[emprworm]

"Ok, so long as you remember it is conceptual"

Ok, so long as you remember yours is a view of religious faith.

Logic is more fundamental than science. Science assumes logic before it can even begin.

Science is to Logic as the internet is to the TCP/IP protocol, or as a car is to wheels.

Not all logic is science, but all science must be logical. Similar to l"not all wheels have cars, but all cars have wheels."

Ok now my point:

We have reached the part of the thread where atheism is faith just like any religious person. Nema you present the argument that there is no "prior" to the big bang saying

"Ok, so long as you remember it is conceptual and there was in fact no net change of energy ,for in the conceptual point at or before the big bang, the amout of energy was undefined."

Basically, there is no application of logic that can be applied to the concept of "before the big bang" since the statement itself is a mis-nomer. Since logic itself cannot touch t=0, then neither can science. In fact, it never could....ever!

There is no natural law, there is nothing in science that could ever account for t=0...EVER. Since the very concept of t=0 is illogical, we can empirically and with great emphatic verbal force declare with utter certainty that science is both now and forever unable to explain the question of HOW (let alone the question of WHY) the universe came into existence. If it is beyond logic, it is beyond science- both now and forever, amen.

Thus summarizes the tremendous faith of atheism.

[SurlyPIG]

What can I say, emp, I don't think there's a human on the face of the planet that doesn't have faith in something, atheists included. A quote I remember... "Humans can live 3 weeks without food, 3 days without water, 3 minutes without air but can't live 3 seconds without hope"

I have faith in many, MANY different things. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, I have faith that my heart will still be beating a minute from now, I have faith that my cat will meow her little lungs out when I get home, and I have faith that Rasheed Wallace will continue to rack up technical fouls faster than anyone else in the NBA.

I would classify faith into three categories...normal, supernatural, and religous. Normal faith is the stuff that makes you get up in the morning, like the aforementioned. Supernatural faith is things like superstition, belief in the un-senseable, etc. Religous faith is the absolute extreme of supernatural faith. It is the absolute devotion of one's life to an unsenseable force, being, or cause.

I would say I have a lot of good ol' daily faith, little if any supernatural faith and no religous faith.

[nemafakei]

"Ok, so long as you remember yours is a view of religious faith"

Where did this come from? You asked for my wiews.

"unable to explain the question of HOW (let alone the question of WHY) the universe came into existence."

Up until this point you were ok.

The why is quantum physics. There could be anything after t=0. I have explained why there is something above. Read it again and tell me which bits you don't understand.

Once you understand, I'll discuss the viability. Until then, I'm not going to argue.

[emprworm]

I would classify faith into three categories...normal, supernatural, and religous. Normal faith is the stuff that makes you get up in the morning, like the aforementioned. Supernatural faith is things like superstition, belief in the un-senseable, etc. Religous faith is the absolute extreme of supernatural faith. It is the absolute devotion of one's life to an unsenseable force, being, or cause.

faith is simply belief in that which there is no proof for. of course there is differing levels of faith based on evidence: blind faith and intelligent faith. supernatural means simply "not according to natural law". Any atheist that proposes the theories Nema proposes is no different than theism. Each is proposing an origin to the universe that is supernatural (cannot be accounted for through natural law) with one exception: theism is more inline with the natural laws of the universe than atheism. Reason?

The universe is a set of finite changing things requiring a cause. Any set of finite changing things that require a cause is itself a finite changing thing requiring a cause. Atheists claim the universe itself does not need a cause even though all of its finite components do. They make an exceptional exception, yet have not even a shred of evidence...let alone exceptional evidence as such tremendous faith demands.

Theism states: "The finite set of changing things that require a cause also require a cause. There is no exception to natural law for natural things". This is a default position. The burden of proof is on the atheist.

"unable to explain the question of HOW (let alone the question of WHY) the universe came into existence."

Up until this point you were ok.

huh? Since logic itself cannot touch t=0, then neither can science. This makes your view untouchable to science, hence a faith-based view.

[Acriku]

Theism suggests supernatural existence, so how can it be more with natural laws? You are confused, what Nema is talking about doesn't NOT fit into natural law, because there is no natural law that we know of conscerning the universe itself.

Theism states: "The finite set of changing things that require a cause also require a cause. There is no exception to natural law for natural things". This is a default position. The burden of proof is on the atheist.

Theism wasn't here forever, it was created by man, to give explanation to their surroundings, so the burden of proof is on theism. You say there is a god, so prove it. And you can't. And you can't disprove it either, until you give it attributes that contradict eachother, which often happens when you do this. So burden of proof is useless, if there is no possible way to prove the existence of a superior being without attributes given to it, or disprove it.

Atheists claim the universe itself does not need a cause even though all of its finite components do. They make an exceptional exception, yet have not even a shred of evidence...let alone exceptional evidence as such tremendous faith demands.

Ok first off, don't say what atheists claim because you are being ignorant of the fact that all atheists do not agree with everything. Second, atheists that I know of do not "believe" in the big bang theory so deeply, as theists do with their "beliefs," so no tremendous faith is required. Your ignorance and arrogance keep you from forming arguments of any quality, so getting rid of them might be the first step towards reaching an understanding with someone.

[emprworm]

Theism suggests supernatural existence, so how can it be more with natural laws? You are confused, what Nema is talking about doesn't NOT fit into natural law, because there is no natural law that we know of conscerning the universe itself.

lol! ROFL! Something coming into existence without a cause is and forever will be supernatural.

If something can appear out of the void from nothing, then who's to say that Jesus Christ didn't do the same according to natural law? Heck, Zeus, according to your "undiscovered natural laws" popped into existence via fluctuating space-time foam. When the red sea parted...you think that is supernatural? Hogwash. Your same "undiscovered natural law" fully accounts for the red sea ex-nihlo uncaused suddenly parting.

In fact, your little "undiscovered natural law" which accounts for a universe popping into existence from the void, can also account for every supernatural claim ever uttered by man. Atheism is the most supernatural world view on the planet- because it can incorporate all religions.

[Acriku]

Emprworm do try to avoid misconceptions, it will help you get your point across. You obviously haven't been reading what nema said, or didn't understand it. I have no idea where you are getting these "tags" for atheism, when that is impossible. Like saying all black people are good cotton pickers, it doesn't make sense.

[emprworm]

no it makes perfect sense.

how can you tell a supernatural claim apart from a natural one?

When a guy says to you: "That magician made a rabbit suddenly appear in his hat. HE REALLY DID!"

This is a supernatural claim.....

or is it?

With today's modern atheism, this is no longer a supernatural claim. FOr things can pop into existence for no reason at all! It is perfectly "natural" for water to change into wine, or a ghost to appear suddenly. There is an "undiscovered" natural law that allows matter and energy to just suddenly start existing in and of itself.

ha ha ha. Amazing religion, for amazing faith. Thus, the supernatural claims of atheism.

[Acriku]

Amazing ignorance Emprworm. Simply amazing.

[nemafakei]

The why is quantum physics. There could be anything after t=0. I have explained why there is something above. Read it again and tell me which bits you don't understand.

Once you understand, I'll discuss the viability. Until then, I'm not going to argue.

[emprworm]

Amazing ignorance Emprworm. Simply amazing.

ignorance is your point of view. You put your faith in some undiscovered "natural law" that says matter and energy can arise uncaused, despite no evidence, despite no natural law, and despite logic, you still maintain this blind supernatural faith. Yes, it IS supernatural because nothing natural can account for it.

The why is quantum physics. There could be anything after t=0.

this doesn't say a thing. what about quantum physics? It does not answer WHY matter and energy can cause itself from nothing. quantum physics does not grant you liberty to violate the principle of causality. you now no longer have any rational basis to discount any supernatural claim. Who's to say that the ghosts and ufo's that some whacko saw last night didn't appear from the same "natural" law that caused your universe to appear?

Once you accept something from nothing that causes itself, you toss out all science and reason and enter the realm of supernature.