From today I can call myself an atheist

Galvasean

boatbuilder wrote: »

ok my last last comment before my boss gets mad at me!:o

When I look at the utterly amazing complexities of life, I just can't believe that it completely happened naturally (i.e that no-one orchestrated it)
Even if you go back to explain how the first atoms came into existence...you get to a point where even an atheist has to say "well, it was just there". I would argue that "God was just there".
There are loads of unanswered questions, like "what is a thought physically made of?" Have you ever seen a thought with your eyes? You get the idea......infinite unanswered questions that humans will never be able to understand. Lots of things exist that are beyond the realm o our understanding and physics

That does not answer my query in the slightest! I'm not having a go at you, but why does a natural universe make less sense to you than one designed by a super being?
Is the totally natural universe too complex to be believable? if so then surely the super being who created it all is even more complex and therefore even less believable?

robindch

boatbuilder wrote: »

I just can't believe that it completely happened naturally (i.e that no-one orchestrated it)

So who or what orchestrated the thing that orchestrated the complexity you see?

Boulevardier

Quantum mechanics has been used to justify all sorts of un-scentific thinking - look at any selection of "new age" sites and you will probably see quantum mechanics invoked on some of them.

Anyway, it seems that Atheists are committed to the view that something can come of nothing. That is a very specific belief in itself, rather than a challenge to others to justify their beliefs. Quantum theory is a very volatile area of science. I would advise atheists against staking their colours to the present state of quantum theory.

Deists are probably the least popular people on religion-related discussion threads. Neither side can stand us, and each side lumps us in with the other!

MagicMarker

Something can come from nothing, which has been explained as recently as yesterday on this forum. Just because you choose to ignore doesn't make it any less true.

But let's say something cannot come from nothing, in that case where did god come from?

b318isp

boatbuilder wrote: »

Accepting evolution as the basis for which all life has come about is a result of not believing in God. (because this rules out any of god's involvement)

No, it's as a result of evidence, however, a deist might say that God initiated basic life on earth and then left evolution to take it from there. A pantheist may say that evolution is God.

boatbuilder wrote: »

You can accept some parts of evolution (all be-it orchestrated by God) and still believe in God though (because this does not rule out God's involvement)

That's fine, I think many religious people take this point of view.

Dades

boatbuilder wrote: »

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier... that non-believers will fall back on science (which cannot be relied on as 100% fact) as a result of their non-belief in any higher power.

Science is not a "fact" it is a method of enquiry. What's more, it is the only method of enquiry that doesn't involve people with agendas speculating wildly about things that can never be proven or disproven. Just because science cannot find evidence for God - don't just assume there has to be another valid method of enquiry that can.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Deists are probably the least popular people on religion-related discussion threads. Neither side can stand us, and each side lumps us in with the other!

Boulevardier, if you're unpopular on religion-related discussion threads it's because you post as if you have every other poster on "ignore". This is second time in a row you've posted you notion of atheists which has been shown - with reference to replies to your own posts - to be utter nonsense.

I'm going to lose patience if you continue to post as though nobody has already refuted what you are suggesting.

liamw

Boulevardier wrote: »

Deists are probably the least popular people on religion-related discussion threads. Neither side can stand us, and each side lumps us in with the other!

Here's your chance. Please coherently describe your deity, giving rational reasons for why you subscribe to each point of description.

By the way, stop fooling yourself into thinking all atheists believe that 'something came from nothing'. People are simply trying to explain to you that human intuition and what 'feels' right, doesn't make it true. Quantum mechanics/flucuations is a good example.

I, along with most others on the boards (as far as I'm aware) are simply content with saying 'we don't know'. A little humility please.

boatbuilder

robindch wrote: »

So who or what orchestrated the thing that orchestrated the complexity you see?

The thing was just there.

I could ask you the same thing about the origins of the universe.... how did it all start?

Turtwig

boatbuilder wrote: »

The thing was just there.

I could ask you the same thing about the origins of the universe.... how did it all start?

Did it start? Technically speaking it always existed.

MagicMarker

boatbuilder wrote: »

The thing was just there.

I could ask you the same thing about the origins of the universe.... how did it all start?

Well if you think ''the thing'' was just there, why can't the universe be ''just there''?

oldrnwisr

boatbuilder wrote: »

So here we have the root of the problem..a lack of faith, which I have been saying all along. It's a simple point of view really. Faith vs no faith.

The problem, such as it is, is that you have entered into a discussion by making comments about factual issues such as evolution and when challenged you retreated into making comments about faith.

"You're entitled to your own beliefs. But you're not entitled to your own facts."

Ricky Gervais.

oldrnwisr

Boulevardier wrote: »

Anyway, it seems that Atheists are committed to the view that something can come of nothing. That is a very specific belief in itself, rather than a challenge to others to justify their beliefs. Quantum theory is a very volatile area of science. I would advise atheists against staking their colours to the present state of quantum theory.

First off, it's scientists who have a view that something can come from nothing. Atheism isn't a worldview.

Secondly, the phenomenon of something coming from nothing is not a belief. It's a fact which is confirmed by experimental observation.


Experimental Observation of Interatomic Coulombic Decay in Neon Dimers
http://rds5.atom.uni-frankfurt.de/publications/files/Jahnke2004bPRL.pdf

Observation of New-Particle Production by High-Energy Neutrinos and Antineutrinos

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v34/i7/p419_1

b318isp

boatbuilder wrote: »

The thing was just there.

I could ask you the same thing about the origins of the universe.... how did it all start?

I think the only honest answer is that we don't know. There are quite a few explanations, and some are more likely (based on observable evidence) than others. I don't think there are many people (except those who believe in God) that believe there is a high accuracy model to explain it in any certainty yet.

robindch

boatbuilder wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

So who or what orchestrated the thing that orchestrated the complexity you see?

The thing was just there.

In this post, you seemed to say that complexity is required to produce complexity. That means that, in your view, something more complicated than the universe must have created the universe and the life in it.

So, what created the thing that created the universe?

When answering, bear in mind that if you say "Nothing did", then you're disproving the argument you've used earlier.

smokingman

Not the Polyfilla argument again!....<goes outside for a walk in the lovely sunshine to get away from all this>

Zillah

Boulevardier wrote: »

Anyway, it seems that Atheists are committed to the view that something can come of nothing.

OR, we don't know.

Turtwig

smokingman wrote: »

Not the Polyfilla argument again!....<goes outside for a walk in the lovely sunshine to get away from all this>

Stupid iphone.:mad:

ghostchant

oldrnwisr wrote: »

First off, it's scientists who have a view that something can come from nothing. Atheism isn't a worldview.

Secondly, the phenomenon of something coming from nothing is not a belief. It's a fact which is confirmed by experimental observation.


Experimental Observation of Interatomic Coulombic Decay in Neon Dimers
http://rds5.atom.uni-frankfurt.de/publications/files/Jahnke2004bPRL.pdf

Observation of New-Particle Production by High-Energy Neutrinos and Antineutrinos

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v34/i7/p419_1

No intention of taking anyone's side on this (because it seems you all agree on everything apart from the bit where you're left to guess/theorise) but neither of those papers say anything about 'something coming from nothing' (unless you have a different definition of nothing that is...do you consider energy to be nothing?)

Turtwig

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What is "nothing"?

kylith

dead one wrote: »

No sir you are wrong here,

You can listen it from mouth of a jewish rabbis


Think what is right.

I'm sorry, but I can't watch videos on this PC.

Regardless of what one rabbi and someone who appears to be an immam say you are mistaken: Judaism is about 4000 years old (http://www.patheos.com/Library/Judaism.html, http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/history.htm), Christianity is about 2000 years old (I don't think I need to post links for that), and Islam dates from about 622CE (or AD, if you prefer) (http://www.patheos.com/Library/Islam.html, http://www.allaboutreligion.org/origin-of-islam.htm) meaning that rather than Islam being, as you assert, the oldest of the Abrahamic religions, it is in fact the youngest by several hundred years.

And I'm not a sir. You can call me Ma'am, if you want

oldrnwisr

ghostchant wrote: »

No intention of taking anyone's side on this (because it seems you all agree on everything apart from the bit where you're left to guess/theorise) but neither of those papers say anything about 'something coming from nothing' (unless you have a different definition of nothing that is...do you consider energy to be nothing?)

Okay, I introduced the topic of virtual particles a couple of pages back, here.

Virtual particles, for those who don't already know are particles which pop in and out of existence without a cause.

One way of looking at virtual particles is Einstein's modification of Planck's formula:



The uncertainty principle dictates that space must never be empty. Thus even at absolute zero, space must have a minimum energy (1/2 hv above). This state of minimum energy, however is subject to vacuum fluctuations caused by pairs of particles flashing in and out of existence. Virtual particles cannot be observed directly but their effects such as the change in energy of electron orbits can be measured. Additionally, interactions of real particles can be viewed in terms of exchange of virtual particles.

You can find more information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

In my last post I also posted a link to a good summary article as well which I will repost here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

Finally, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have a good introduction to virtual particles in their book The Grand Design.

My last post was simply a couple of links to papers showing experimental observation of virtual particles to show boulevardier the error of his/her ways.

Zillah

^Is all of this not dependent on space, however? There's never been a point where we can experiment on 'nothing' (ie 'before' the big bang). The fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence within this space-time environment doesn't necessarily say anything about the cause/trigger/origin of the big bang.

ghostchant

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Okay, I introduced the topic of virtual particles a couple of pages back, here.

Virtual particles, for those who don't already know are particles which pop in and out of existence without a cause.

One way of looking at virtual particles is Einstein's modification of Planck's formula:



The uncertainty principle dictates that space must never be empty. Thus even at absolute zero, space must have a minimum energy (1/2 hv above). This state of minimum energy, however is subject to vacuum fluctuations caused by pairs of particles flashing in and out of existence. Virtual particles cannot be observed directly but their effects such as the change in energy of electron orbits can be measured. Additionally, interactions of real particles can be viewed in terms of exchange of virtual particles.
You can find more information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

In my last post I also posted a link to a good summary article as well which I will repost here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

Finally, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have a good introduction to virtual particles in their book The Grand Design.

My last post was simply a couple of links to papers showing experimental observation of virtual particles to show boulevardier the error of his/her ways.

I appreciate the links, though have covered it in detail (full disclosure: my degree is in theoretical physics and am near the end of my PhD (in theoretical biophysics/stat-mech though), and so could parse the articles you posted) but yeah I know you were talking about virtual particles, their 'popping' into existence is still based on effectively 'borrowing' energy for almost-infinitesimal periods of time (to keep the uncertainty principal happy), so I still wouldn't feel comfortable calling virtual particles 'something from nothing', and don't see how it furthers any arguments on the origins of the universe etc.

Nonetheless it's pretty amazing stuff on its own

(Also: Pair-production is not the same thing, the particles emitted from that are certainly detectable, but again there has to be enough energy to create them.)

oldrnwisr

Zillah wrote: »

^Is all of this not dependent on space, however? There's never been a point where we can experiment on 'nothing' (ie 'before' the big bang). The fact that virtual particles pop in and out of existence within this space-time environment doesn't necessarily say anything about the cause/trigger/origin of the big bang.

I'm not trying to argue for the role of virtual particles in the origin of the universe. I was merely responding to boulevardier's somewhat oblique reference to the common assertion used in first cause arguments that everything needs a cause and that something cannot come from nothing.

sink

ghostchant wrote: »

I appreciate the links, though have covered it in detail (full disclosure: my degree is in theoretical physics and am near the end of my PhD (in theoretical biophysics/stat-mech though), and so could parse the articles you posted) but yeah I know you were talking about virtual particles, their 'popping' into existence is still based on effectively 'borrowing' energy for almost-infinitesimal periods of time (to keep the uncertainty principal happy), so I still wouldn't feel comfortable calling virtual particles 'something from nothing', and don't see how it furthers any arguments on the origins of the universe etc.

Nonetheless it's pretty amazing stuff on its own

(Also: Pair-production is not the same thing, the particles emitted from that are certainly detectable, but again there has to be enough energy to create them.)

I'm not a physicist just interested, but can't virtual particles become real near the event horizon of black holes i.e. hawking radiation. Why isn't that considered something coming from nothing? Is it because the matter inside the black hole is annihilated by the captured anti-matter particles in equal proportion to the radiation emitted?

Gordon

irishconvert wrote: »

We are discussing haidth, which are not from God, they are written by men and can contain mistakes/fabrications. We believe the Qur'an is the word of God, 100% of it.

Good, just as well the Qu'ran doesn't have any contradictions in it then...

oldrnwisr

ghostchant wrote: »

so I still wouldn't feel comfortable calling virtual particles 'something from nothing', and don't see how it furthers any arguments on the origins of the universe etc.

I see your reservations about the use of virtual particles in a something for nothing context but I tend to think that in a lay sense that it is a useful point in refuting the "everything needs a cause" assertion of the first cause argument. This article is kinda what I mean.

ghostchant wrote: »

(Also: Pair-production is not the same thing, the particles emitted from that are certainly detectable, but again there has to be enough energy to create them.)

I stand corrected.

ghostchant

sink wrote: »

I'm not a physicist just interested, but can't virtual particles become real near the event horizon of black holes i.e. hawking radiation. Why isn't that considered something coming from nothing? Is it because the matter inside the black hole is annihilated by the captured anti-matter particles in equal proportion to the radiation emitted?

Things get messy when that happens, and I'm certainly no expert in that stuff. The virtual particle formalism works in terms of the mathematics of that phenomenon, but in the instance when a pair appear like that and one is emitted they must receive the energy required to 'become real' (ugh). The emission of hawking radiation is linked to the reduction in mass of the black hole, so at some level the loss in mass could account for the energy apparently 'created'

...

Actually that was a horrible and probably incorrect attempt at an explanation...a physics degree doesn't give me the right to talk crap I'd delete it and reply later but wouldn't want it to seem like I was ignoring you so I'll let it stand for now, hopefully someone else will sweep in and make a better one (but the bottom line: a particle out of absolutely nothing would violate the conservation of energy...and that's just not gonna happen!)

robindch

Gordon wrote: »

Good, just as well the Qu'ran doesn't have any contradictions in it then...

Interestingly, I believe that the koran genuinely doesn't have any contradictions, since amongst its clashing rules and doctrines, it specifies that the rule or doctrine closest to the end of the book should take precedence.

Gordon

Heaven help you if you only have time to read half way through.