The Atheist revolution. Perhaps not as logical as first thought?

Ciaran500

There's no point talking pre big bang. Its something we know not about at all and we can't accurately theorise about since we have no laws or rules to base it on.

bonkey

joe_chicken wrote:

Ahh....

Ok, so the universe exists cuz the probability of it existing is non-zero, so therefore it exists?...

It's not a good argument.

Its a great argument, once you remove the circular reference and go back to what I was pointing out.

The universe exists. We can take that as a base assumption given that what we want to explain is why it exists.

What I was pointing out is that despite So Glad's aversion to the possibility that it could all be just from randomness, there is absolutely no reason why randomness cannot produce the universe.

I'm not saying it did. I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibilty, and arguments about how convenient, unlikely, complex, or whatever simply do not figure into it because infinities get around that problem.

For any given explanation of the universe, an infinite, unbounded randomness must be capable of producing the same effect. This doesn't say it is all just random...it just says that there is no way of ruling out that possibility. None.

Ultimately, all explanations of the universe come to rely on an infinite. We can dress them up nicely, but inside each and every explanation is at least one infinity just waiting to get out.

God, to me, is an generally an attempt to hide that infinity behind a layer of indirection, because we have severe problems dealing with infinities conceptually or formally.

joe_chicken

bluewolf wrote:

It's a case of working backwards, no? If it currently exists, the probability of it existing is 1... Since it does exist, there must have been some probability of it existing in the first place...?
It's been a while since I studied probability though.

I don't argue with the fact that the universe exists, or has a probability of 1 of existing, it's just that using that argument, doesn't really prove anything.

joe_chicken

bonkey wrote:

This doesn't say it is all just random...it just says that there is no way of ruling out that possibility. None.

Ok, well explained... thank you.

Crucifix

Ok, I'm not going to be able to keep up with this thread, but I'm just popping in to say:
Opposites attract

robindch

> Why does our universe have a non-zero probability?

Because it exists.

robindch

robindch wrote:

> Why does our universe have a non-zero probability?

Because it exists.

I tried that, they didn't listen =(

I don't argue with the fact that the universe exists, or has a probability of 1 of existing, it's just that using that argument, doesn't really prove anything.

It proves that it has a non-zero chance of existing, which was the original point

Dades

What I find great about this thread is bluewolf's sig popping up all over it - and summing it up every time for me.

joe_chicken

bluewolf wrote:

It proves that it has a non-zero chance of existing, which was the original point

bonkey has explained it has a non-zero probability of coming into existence.

Which I can see now, kind of makes sense, if you come at it from a purely mathematical point of view...

But then you've got to start believing in things like infinity and truly random processes...
Like bonkey said:

bonkey wrote:

God, to me, is an generally an attempt to hide that infinity behind a layer of indirection, because we have severe problems dealing with infinities conceptually or formally.

I think I'd prefer God.

/edit... made a little clearer

and just a quick question to bonkey...

How would we be able to define a zero probability event in your above argument?
The argument seems lacking if you can't!

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

I'm not saying it did. I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibilty, and arguments about how convenient, unlikely, complex, or whatever simply do not figure into it because infinities get around that problem.

For any given explanation of the universe, an infinite, unbounded randomness must be capable of producing the same effect. This doesn't say it is all just random...it just says that there is no way of ruling out that possibility. None.

God, to me, is an generally an attempt to hide that infinity behind a layer of indirection, because we have severe problems dealing with infinities conceptually or formally.

Infinite time x infinitesimal possibility = 1

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

joe_chicken wrote:

I think I'd prefer God.

God still involves an infinity. It just hides the infinity from view slightly.

No God-invoking explanation doesn't beg additional "but where did God come from" questions, which either require:

1) The "we don't know" answer that wasn't acceptable for the universe's creation in the first place
2) "God has always been there" answer, which suggests infinite existence
3) "God was created by..." which leads to an infinite regression.

You're free to prefer God....I just don't see that it brings us any closer to a meaningful answer.

How would we be able to define a zero probability event in your above argument?
The argument seems lacking if you can't!

Define, or given an example of?

Definition - something which cannot happen.
Possible example - simultaneous existence and non-existence of something, perhaps?

Whatevr about the defiition, I don't believe a solid example is necessary. The point is a refutation of the all-too-common "what are the odds of..." scenarios raised by many people who do not believe there can be a case of non-causality (i.e. those who believe the universe must have been deliberately caused, becaue it just can't be random).

There is no reason whatsoever that it cannot "just be random". There is no reason to say that there cannot be infinite unbounded randomness behind the existence of the universe. Thats all the argument is intended to highlight. It can be random in origin, and the "odds" of the universe being the neat, nice way it is don't have to matter one whit.

It could be an absolute fluke that the universe exists...that it is highly highly unlikely. But the universe does exist, so if its a fluke and it was unlikely, then the odds were defied.
It could be any one of an infinite number of things (gah...infinity again). All I was trying to show is that appeals to large numbers and likelihoods don't sway things either way...because if we're going to play with large numbers, they can support random-origin existence at least as much as they can refute it.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

God still involves an infinity. It just hides the infinity from view slightly.

Human nature abhors a naked infinity...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

When scientists say that the universe came into existence from nothing, they mean something very specific and particular to modern ideas.

If you think of an magnetic field, it can have different strengths ranging from 0 up to a finite (very large) strength, strength being measured in Tesla.
Obviously the state of lowest energy (ground state) for the field is the state where it is 0 Tesla, i.e. there is no magnetic field.
Due to quantum mechanical corrections a magnetic field can jump from a 0 Tesla to A Tesla, where A is some number.

Similarly, in General Relativity, space is a field like any other. The ground state of this field is when there is no space around at all and like the previous case space may jump from a state of 0 space to a state of A space, where A is some volume.

Ergo, the universe appears out of nowhere.

Dave!

joe_chicken wrote:

It's strange the choice of words you use. Why not say, "we've decided that we don't know"?

I think a lot of atheists think like this, it's hard to imagine a world that we cannot understand (either by using God or "Logic") they take comfort in the fact that, "we might not know now, but we will know sometime".

I'd say that's based on the fact that the scientific method has explained most everything else which we have encountered over millions of years. It just takes time, and more time the more complex the problem is. Thankfully there are people out there working on these problems and trying to explain them rather than throwing their hands in the air and asking god why there's holes appearing in the ground.

professore

So Glad wrote:

I deduct that this universe isn't accidental because an accidental or random generation rarely (the odds are astounding on this one) produces even and symmetrical designs.

What about a normal "gaussian" distribution? Crystals? Snowflakes? There are lots of examples of order arising from chaos. It's like picking 6 numbers at random and then going on for ages of "what were the chances of picking those 6 numbers - millions to one! how amazing!

Tzetze

So Glad wrote:

Lately, there has been a HUGE influx of Atheism & Agnosticism around the world. People more than ever are using their heads to convince others that, In Dawkins' words, "God is a delusion". It would seem logical to arrive at that conclusion, once one is certain that one has no importance in the universe, and our mind is a device of trickery and treason (and on that thought, the same mind that tricks itself that God exists, can also convince itself that God doesn't exist, more trickery perhaps?). Although I am not saying that Atheists are themselves deluded, I am asking them to have a closer look, and not to hear half-arsed arguments from crazy American, fundamentalist, evangelic Christians with no brains and take it for the only argument.

I think Dawkins is all for people to criticise what they are expected to believe as fact, including his own work.

So Glad wrote:

I believe in God. Not a Christian God, nor a Islamic God, nor a Hindu God. I believe in the existence of one God nameless but unto the universe that it is (I can God "it" because no one can really say). What does it matter which flag or name God comes over? Call him Jim if you want, it's the same thing. I think that God is the expanse with which our universe is made of. The scientific laws that hold it together, the mathematical constants that organize the universe so symmetrically and purposely that for all of this to be a convenient string of billions upon billions of sub-atomic cosmic accidents seems to me, crazy. God is also consciousness for it is amazing for me to sit here knowingly at a computer and discuss everything around me. How does an "accidentally formed" universe with no consciousness produce creatures that are fully conscious enough to dictate their surroundings?

I Are Universe. We Am God. I share what seem to be very similar views. I also consider myself an atheist because I am not religious. God is just a nametag.

So Glad wrote:

Richard Dawkins in my opinion, is a smart man. He is one of the many great, intelligent, free thinking people out there that will help man establish peace among themselves. But, I feel that he makes a lot of his "no God" conclusions based on the activities that human beings have done in the name of God, and there is no doubting the violence a debauchery that man has committed to itself in the name of a so called, "loving" God.

He makes a lot of it, I think, because it's a very convincing argument. One of the best weapons in his arsenal. I don't think it's his predominant argument though, he arrives at the 'no God' conclusion in other ways. Ultimate Boeing 747 comparison, Natural Selection and Evolution, Probabilities, etc.

So Glad wrote:

I've no doubt that most Atheists have seen the film "Jesus Camp"? That film is probably the most barbaric religiously orientated film I have ever seen. I couldn't stop feeling sorry for the kids. For Christ sake, they had the children on their knees crying their eyes out repenting their sins...surely an all forgiving & loving God would forgive a child, no matter how many times they missed church? For these reasons, Dawkins is in every right to slam religion as being the root of all evil, but nobody should think God doesn't exist because of this.

I haven't seen this, can't comment. Sounds appalling though.

So Glad wrote:

If you asked an Atheist scientist "What is energy?" he would reply "It has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once.". If you asked a God worshiping person from any religious sect what God is, he/she would most likely reply "God has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once.". Thus, I think that God is the infinite field of energy that everything solid, liquid & gas is composed of. The same energy that creates our consciousness. Maybe we are putting forks in the same road again? Are we talking about the same thing, or is it just because we name it differently we don't want to recognize them as the same thing, even though, they are.

Agreed. The pantheistic idea that creation is it's own God. As Dawkins explained, the same God that Einstein referred to, and was then misinterpreted as being a religious man.

So Glad wrote:

The main steak in the heart of every God worshiper employed by the Atheist (or Agnostic) is the "If God created the universe, who created God" thing. Well, thats a tricky one. But I'd say we are not at the specific point in our evolution to even consider the workings of a supreme being, or what goes on beyond our limited 5 sense reality. Does that mean we should opt for the Big Bang accidental theory, simply because we cannot conceive such possibilities? Let us consider the Big Bang as what actually happened, and take it as a big mathematically perfect sub-atomic accident. What created the Big Bang, and what was the catalyst for that? What sparked the Catalyst? Etc.

It surprised me how Christians that I've spoken to can't take onboard the idea that only the universe (the known and the unknown) has always existed.
"The universe was created, but the creator always existed."
There's a theory that the universe will reach a limit of expansion, and begin contracting again to where it was before the big bang, and that the big bang will happen again. With this theory, there is no need to separate God and Creation. They are the same thing. Doesn't answer the question of a time of origin though.

So Glad wrote:

To say the universe is accidental is pretty profound, in my opinion. If you were to study the mathematical constants that form our universe into handy, symmetrical, entropic solar systems and also the workings of the sub-atomic world of quantum physics, you would understand that the universe works quite knowingly. Did you know, that any two (or more) atoms can instantaneously (yes, instantaneously) converse with each other and move each other? How could this be? If the universe is an accident?

Where did you read that the universe is accidental? Are you referring to chaos?

So Glad wrote:

Another point made to prove God doesn't exist is "How come there is pain in the world? Why would any God inflict pain among its own creation?" and the simple answer for that is, it's not God's fault, it's your fault. How do you expect a person who dwells in fear and negativity to feel happy? Why does he/she feel done upon by God? This is your world for the making. To be happy, be happy. If you think sad, you become it. It's the big sand-pit of life, you'll reap what you sew. Sure, people get maliciously injured for apparently no reason, but it's just another case of man's inhumanity to man. Wrong place wrong time.

I suppose the pantheistic 'God' developed pain through natural selection and evolution as an almost mechanical method of survival among living organisms.
Fire looks intersting, move towards it, PAIN, move away.
I realise that you're referring to emotional pain, and pain inflicted onto others in a chaotic universe by chaotic humans, I think it's the same process at play in intelligent minds. The very basic definition of pain above is all that's needed really, it's purely accidental that evolved into the types of pain that we 'experience' today.

lostexpectation

So Glad wrote:

Lately, there has been a HUGE influx of Atheism & Agnosticism around the world. People more than ever are using their heads to convince others that, In Dawkins' words, "God is a delusion". It would seem logical to arrive at that conclusion, once one is certain that one has no importance in the universe, and our mind is a device of trickery and treason (and on that thought, the same mind that tricks itself that God exists, can also convince itself that God doesn't exist, more trickery perhaps?). Although I am not saying that Atheists are themselves deluded, I am asking them to have a closer look, and not to hear half-arsed arguments from crazy American, fundamentalist, evangelic Christians with no brains and take it for the only argument.

I believe in God. Not a Christian God, nor a Islamic God, nor a Hindu God. I believe in the existence of one God nameless but unto the universe that it is (I can God "it" because no one can really say). What does it matter which flag or name God comes over? Call him Jim if you want, it's the same thing. I think that God is the expanse with which our universe is made of. The scientific laws that hold it together, the mathematical constants that organize the universe so symmetrically and purposely that for all of this to be a convenient string of billions upon billions of sub-atomic cosmic accidents seems to me, crazy. God is also consciousness for it is amazing for me to sit here knowingly at a computer and discuss everything around me. How does an "accidentally formed" universe with no consciousness produce creatures that are fully conscious enough to dictate their surroundings?

Richard Dawkins in my opinion, is a smart man. He is one of the many great, intelligent, free thinking people out there that will help man establish peace among themselves. But, I feel that he makes a lot of his "no God" conclusions based on the activities that human beings have done in the name of God, and there is no doubting the violence a debauchery that man has committed to itself in the name of a so called, "loving" God.

I've no doubt that most Atheists have seen the film "Jesus Camp"? That film is probably the most barbaric religiously orientated film I have ever seen. I couldn't stop feeling sorry for the kids. For Christ sake, they had the children on their knees crying their eyes out repenting their sins...surely an all forgiving & loving God would forgive a child, no matter how many times they missed church? For these reasons, Dawkins is in every right to slam religion as being the root of all evil, but nobody should think God doesn't exist because of this.

If you asked an Atheist scientist "What is energy?" he would reply "It has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once.". If you asked a God worshiping person from any religious sect what God is, he/she would most likely reply "God has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once.". Thus, I think that God is the infinite field of energy that everything solid, liquid & gas is composed of. The same energy that creates our consciousness. Maybe we are putting forks in the same road again? Are we talking about the same thing, or is it just because we name it differently we don't want to recognize them as the same thing, even though, they are.

The main steak in the heart of every God worshiper employed by the Atheist (or Agnostic) is the "If God created the universe, who created God" thing. Well, thats a tricky one. But I'd say we are not at the specific point in our evolution to even consider the workings of a supreme being, or what goes on beyond our limited 5 sense reality. Does that mean we should opt for the Big Bang accidental theory, simply because we cannot conceive such possibilities? Let us consider the Big Bang as what actually happened, and take it as a big mathematically perfect sub-atomic accident. What created the Big Bang, and what was the catalyst for that? What sparked the Catalyst? Etc.

To say the universe is accidental is pretty profound, in my opinion. If you were to study the mathematical constants that form our universe into handy, symmetrical, entropic solar systems and also the workings of the sub-atomic world of quantum physics, you would understand that the universe works quite knowingly. Did you know, that any two (or more) atoms can instantaneously (yes, instantaneously) converse with each other and move each other? How could this be? If the universe is an accident?

Another point made to prove God doesn't exist is "How come there is pain in the world? Why would any God inflict pain among its own creation?" and the simple answer for that is, it's not God's fault, it's your fault. How do you expect a person who dwells in fear and negativity to feel happy? Why does he/she feel done upon by God? This is your world for the making. To be happy, be happy. If you think sad, you become it. It's the big sand-pit of life, you'll reap what you sew. Sure, people get maliciously injured for apparently no reason, but it's just another case of man's inhumanity to man. Wrong place wrong time.

Anyways, I hope I've proved some point. I'm sick of writing!

Thanks,

Dav.

wow atheist logic broken by a rant well blow me down.

Hivemind187

So Glad wrote:

Lately, there has been a HUGE influx of Atheism & Agnosticism around the world. People more than ever are using their heads to convince others that, In Dawkins' words, "God is a delusion". It would seem logical to arrive at that conclusion, once one is certain that one has no importance in the universe, and our mind is a device of trickery and treason (and on that thought, the same mind that tricks itself that God exists, can also convince itself that God doesn't exist, more trickery perhaps?). Although I am not saying that Atheists are themselves deluded, I am asking them to have a closer look, and not to hear half-arsed arguments from crazy American, fundamentalist, evangelic Christians with no brains and take it for the only argument.

I believe in God. Not a Christian God, nor a Islamic God, nor a Hindu God. I believe in the existence of one God nameless but unto the universe that it is (I can God "it" because no one can really say). What does it matter which flag or name God comes over? Call him Jim if you want, it's the same thing. I think that God is the expanse with which our universe is made of. The scientific laws that hold it together, the mathematical constants that organize the universe so symmetrically and purposely that for all of this to be a convenient string of billions upon billions of sub-atomic cosmic accidents seems to me, crazy. God is also consciousness for it is amazing for me to sit here knowingly at a computer and discuss everything around me. How does an "accidentally formed" universe with no consciousness produce creatures that are fully conscious enough to dictate their surroundings?

Richard Dawkins in my opinion, is a smart man. He is one of the many great, intelligent, free thinking people out there that will help man establish peace among themselves. But, I feel that he makes a lot of his "no God" conclusions based on the activities that human beings have done in the name of God, and there is no doubting the violence a debauchery that man has committed to itself in the name of a so called, "loving" God.

I've no doubt that most Atheists have seen the film "Jesus Camp"? That film is probably the most barbaric religiously orientated film I have ever seen. I couldn't stop feeling sorry for the kids. For Christ sake, they had the children on their knees crying their eyes out repenting their sins...surely an all forgiving & loving God would forgive a child, no matter how many times they missed church? For these reasons, Dawkins is in every right to slam religion as being the root of all evil, but nobody should think God doesn't exist because of this.

If you asked an Atheist scientist "What is energy?" he would reply "It has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once.". If you asked a God worshiping person from any religious sect what God is, he/she would most likely reply "God has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once.". Thus, I think that God is the infinite field of energy that everything solid, liquid & gas is composed of. The same energy that creates our consciousness. Maybe we are putting forks in the same road again? Are we talking about the same thing, or is it just because we name it differently we don't want to recognize them as the same thing, even though, they are.

The main steak in the heart of every God worshiper employed by the Atheist (or Agnostic) is the "If God created the universe, who created God" thing. Well, thats a tricky one. But I'd say we are not at the specific point in our evolution to even consider the workings of a supreme being, or what goes on beyond our limited 5 sense reality. Does that mean we should opt for the Big Bang accidental theory, simply because we cannot conceive such possibilities? Let us consider the Big Bang as what actually happened, and take it as a big mathematically perfect sub-atomic accident. What created the Big Bang, and what was the catalyst for that? What sparked the Catalyst? Etc.

To say the universe is accidental is pretty profound, in my opinion. If you were to study the mathematical constants that form our universe into handy, symmetrical, entropic solar systems and also the workings of the sub-atomic world of quantum physics, you would understand that the universe works quite knowingly. Did you know, that any two (or more) atoms can instantaneously (yes, instantaneously) converse with each other and move each other? How could this be? If the universe is an accident?

Another point made to prove God doesn't exist is "How come there is pain in the world? Why would any God inflict pain among its own creation?" and the simple answer for that is, it's not God's fault, it's your fault. How do you expect a person who dwells in fear and negativity to feel happy? Why does he/she feel done upon by God? This is your world for the making. To be happy, be happy. If you think sad, you become it. It's the big sand-pit of life, you'll reap what you sew. Sure, people get maliciously injured for apparently no reason, but it's just another case of man's inhumanity to man. Wrong place wrong time.

Anyways, I hope I've proved some point. I'm sick of writing!

Thanks,

Dav.

Lol ... I get it ... its a Joke

... right? It is a joke right? You dont seriously expect ANYONE on either side of the argument to accept any part of this clap trap?

Obo

So Glad's "Like attracts Like" and "think bad things and bad things will happen to you" sounds a lot like that "The Secret" rubbish.
I started to watch some video on it after someone recommended it as being 'inspirational'. My head nearly assploded after a few minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8

Zillah

Hivemind187 wrote:

Lol ... I get it ... its a Joke

... right? It is a joke right? You dont seriously expect ANYONE on either side of the argument to accept any part of this clap trap?

Thats exactly what I was thinking. Some truly awful arguments there.

MooseJam

Obo wrote:

So Glad's "Like attracts Like" and "think bad things and bad things will happen to you" sounds a lot like that "The Secret" rubbish.
I started to watch some video on it after someone recommended it as being 'inspirational'. My head nearly assploded after a few minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b1GKGWJbE8

give me back my 5 minutes please, what a load of nonsense

Fanny Cradock

Son Goku wrote:

When scientists say that the universe came into existence from nothing, they mean something very specific and particular to modern ideas.

If you think of an magnetic field, it can have different strengths ranging from 0 up to a finite (very large) strength, strength being measured in Tesla.
Obviously the state of lowest energy (ground state) for the field is the state where it is 0 Tesla, i.e. there is no magnetic field.
Due to quantum mechanical corrections a magnetic field can jump from a 0 Tesla to A Tesla, where A is some number.

Similarly, in General Relativity, space is a field like any other. The ground state of this field is when there is no space around at all and like the previous case space may jump from a state of 0 space to a state of A space, where A is some volume.

Ergo, the universe appears out of nowhere.

That simple, eh?

Son Goku

Fanny Cradock wrote:

That simple, eh?

Sorry, didn't notice this until know. It's not quite as simple as I make out. If you actually do the maths there is some fuzziness as one single universe won't uniquely appear. There will simultaneously be several purely spatial universes (universe's without time in them) that appear along side our own. Eventually though they fall out of existence.

Magnetic fields exhibit the this kind of fuzzy phenomena all the time.
Any questions just ask.

JC 2K3

Meh, if the universe was formed differently there could be forms of "life" incomprehensible to us, "arguing" about the same thing.

Put it this way: the universe had to happen some way(or even not at all), it happened the way it did. The details of our universe are only intricate and perfect because we perceive them to be so.

bonkey

Son Goku wrote:

There will simultaneously be several purely spatial universes (universe's without time in them) that appear along side our own. Eventually though they fall out of existence.
...
Any questions just ask.

Yeah...how can you say "eventually" when referring to a non-temporal universe?

Son Goku

bonkey wrote:

Yeah...how can you say "eventually" when referring to a non-temporal universe?

I say eventually with respect to a parameter that isn't actually time itself.
It's a mathematical parameter. Basically in Quantum Mechanics there are these things called path integrals that give you the probability for some event to occur. It's possible to evaluate a Path Integral that makes no reference to time, but the path integral still has it's own internal parameter that can be used with words like later and before.

If you know what a wavefunction is, then 90% of the wavefunction is dominated by a temeporal universe like our own. So the universe is most likely in a temporal universe state.

This is the Hawking-Hartle No-boundary proposal. It matches quite a few observations, so it's far from a purely mental excercise.

Zillah

I love abstract mathematical super science.