Atheists Who Celebrate All The Good That God Causes.

Explain to me why you think there has to be any such thing as
an "outside" of our Universe.
There was a "Big Bang", right?
Why cannot there be just one {1} Universe?
Try this: There was one Universe that had the matter that went "Bang."

The fact that the matter went "Bang" does not mean that the matter that
went "bang" was not in the same Universe.

In other words, why can't there be just one Universe that:
~ existed BEFORE the Big Bang
and also
~ existed AFTER the Big Bang

Help me out here.

JAG

 

Either you can have free will libertarianism or the Kalam, by stating that everything that begins to exist has a cause you are accepting determinism in the very utterance of the sentence. So a theist must make his choice either they have free will or they argue for the Kalam. To hold both viewpoints is cognitive dissonance.

 

Argument from incredulity. Roger Penrose explains how a universe could exsaist without events in the Cycles of Time, try to understand it.
Penrose goes on further to state that over enormous scales of time (beyond 10100 years), distance ceases to be meaningful as all mass breaks down into extremely red-shifted photon energy, whereupon time has no influence, and the universe continues to expand without event →∞. This period from Big Bang to infinite expansion Penrose defines as an aeon. The smooth “hairless” infinite oblivion of the previous aeon becomes the low-entropy Big Bang state of the next aeon cycle. Conformal geometry preserves the angles but not the distances of the previous aeon, allowing the new aeon universe to appear quite small at its inception as its phase space starts anew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_of_Time

Answered above.

No to believe the above is true requires faith. To believe that it is a possibility requires an understanding of the physics and an open mind. We do not know is the only true answer.

 

Perhaps you can explain where Dawkins is wrong about the god depicted in the Old Testament?

Rather than attack Dawkins explain where he is wrong.

 

That isn't quite right. In our universe, space and time are connected. We have space-time. That's what Einsteing figured out. I'm not a physicist, but physicists point this out.

So, space-time is a property of this universe. Remember that you talk about god creating this universe. That's what I mean by being "outside" this universe. He didn't create this universe from inside the universe - that doesn't make sense.

So, we share this idea that there is our universe and there is what is "outside" of this universe.

When talking about whether there is an infinity, I believe that answer can't apply to ONLY the inside of this universe. After all, the creation of this universe came about "outside" of this universe. It's out there that is interesting.

I just mean at the point when time started - when the universe kicked off. The big bang does not answer for t=0. Physicists can't look back that far. The big bang does NOT include what you might want to call creation. At the very earliest that physicists can detect, the clock is already running - it's not at t=0.

No. Physicists claim to know little to nothing about what is outside our universe. But, I think we can agree that Kalam can't be limited to just what is inside our universe - especially if we can agree that one way or another, this universe was born in the environment that is outside the universe. If it is god, then there was some sort of environment that included god and then god kicked off this universe.

Well, terms like "before our universe", "outside our universe", etc. are a little weird given that the very concept of space-time is specific to our universe - not to this staging area where our universe got created. And, I think it's worth keeping that in mind.

Inside our own universe, the vacuum of space isn't just a void separating objects. There is energy that permeates space. There are objects coming in and out of existence. And, there is the fact that "pieces" of space are actually expanding. Distant objects are becoming farther away from us not just because of their movement, but becausee the intervening space is itself growing larger. This is the same type of expansion that the big bang talks about - just at a very different rate.

I don't have a problem with the idea that natural processes have resulted in mankind. Also, evolution continues - it was never an issue of creating mankind. Evolution can not have a target, as it just doesn't work like that. And, it hasn't stopped, including in humans.

OK - we differ on that.

We don't have to agree on everything.

However, I seem to remember comments about this in your cite of some number of arguments for the existence of god. At times it seemed to suggest that if there is an infinite, then THAT is god. Thus it isn't that there is no infinite, it's that if there IS an infinite, then it should be called god.

I'd have to study that a little bit to be sure I understood those arguments, but in general I think of a god as being more than just infinite. And, as a practical matter we should be careful of how we name things if we're at all interested in communication.

 

I would say there would need to be some sort of environment in which the requirements of the universe were "assembled". Maybe there is a quantum field of some sort.

The Genesis story does sound like all the components of the universe were swirling around and god existed inside this swirlng chaos before he made it more orderly.

But, there is work to do to match that model with what astrophysicists have figured out by looking at our universe.

The idea that the small region of stuff that expanded into our universe was all that existed (no quantum field, etc.) isn't very satisfying to me. And, I haven't seen that idea get any traction among theoretical physicists who work on this issue.

Whether there are multiple universes is really a different topic.

Let's remember that the big bang refers to a stage in the the very early life of our universe characterized by a huge rate of expansion. It wasn't an explosion. It is sometimes suggested that it defined something coming from nothing - which is not what the big bang is about.

 

You are not understanding what is meant by the term Universe in the Kalam, it refers to all material that exists not just "our universe" Craig points this out and ascribes certain properties to the cause that created the universe, it must be immaterial and timeless and with a certain amount of creativeness. It is what makes the Kalam so interesting, of course the idea is named in honour of the muslim who used this argument. It is not an argument for the christian or any other man made god, again Craig accepts this.

 

JAG previously Wrote:
Time is simply the units of measurement between events, right?
Space is simply the units of measurement between objects, right?

WillReadMore Responded With:

i don't understand how time and space being connected makes
my definitions of time and space not "quite right." ?

What other definitions of time and space are there?
What are the scientific definitions of time and space?

I'm willing to learn here.

■ Well then, you gotta believe in Heaven.
■ Well then, you gotta believe in God
■ Then there is another "little" matter, namely you don't even believe there
is a God --- so your claim that there is another Universe that is "outside" this
Universe is a Faith based claim and not science.

■ Yet you are claiming that it IS based on science, or you not?

■ This is very confusing.

I guess your "we" refers to atheists and Christians.

But don't forget that you have no science that demonstrates
that there is another Universe "outside" of the Universe that
we see all around us. Do you have any science on this?

I'm gonna send this one on.

More later , , ,


``

 

Your "inside" and "outside" this Universe is OK-Cool with me.
My view is that its the same, in principle, as me quoting John 3:16
Both are Faith based claims.
I don't think there is any science on the "inside" and "outside"
of the Universe.

Okay. Thanks for the explanation.

That would mean time started before the Big Bang.
That'd mean there were events before the Big Bang.
I'm sticking with "Time" being the units of measurement
between events.

I'm feeling Faith in the air here.

I see a mixture of religion and science in your posts. Its difficult to
actually get rid of God. He always seems to surface.
When He disappears for a brief time, He always reappears.
Its very difficult to get rid of the imagined actions of the
God-That-Does-Not-Exist

"where our universe got created"___WillReadMore
Created?
Created?

My view is that "energy" IS an object. Because energy is still matter.
Energy occupies space and has weight, does it not?
An example of something that is not matter would be Love and
Kindness.

I'd say that is 100% a faith-based assertion.
Its OK-Cool with me.
But it says that stuff is vanishing and being created.
Anything coming out of existence has been vanished off the Planet.
Wonder where it went?

Space is pretty much zero 000.000
My understanding of space is it is the units of measurement between objects.
If there is no oxygen or other kinds of matter in space, then space is nothing
as in 000.000
So?
So I see space as nothing. And I don't see how nothing can do anything.
My view is that space is dependent on what objects do.
Move your refrigerator one foot away from your wall and you have
created some additional space between your Fridge and your Wall.
Same with Planet A and Planet B.

{1} Evolution has no target means Evolution has no Goal and no Plan.

{2} Therefore Evolution is blind random natural processes working.

{3} Therefore blind random natural processes
produced YOU and @Swensson
both of whom are far more intricate and complex than
a working Rolex Watch.

So?

So if you can believe {1}, {2}, and {3} you can believe in John 3:16.
It takes MORE Faith to believe in {1},{2} and {3} than it takes to believe
that God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that
whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have Eternal Life.

Plus you get nothing from believing in {1}. {2}. and {3}

But you DO get something from believing in John 3:16 if you choose {A}
{A] believe and get Eternal Life
{B} perish

Few humans do.
Do you think there has ever been two humans that agreed
on everything? I wonder?

My view is that God is a Person, just like you are a person.
Of course He is the Supreme Person with, for example, an
Intelligence that goes "off the charts."
Consider this:
God is the original Physicist.
God is the original Mathematician.
God is the original Scientist.
God is the original Artist.
God is the original Cosmologist.
God is the original Inventor.
God is the original Designer.
God is the original Planner.
God is the original Philosopher.
God is the original Writer.
God is the original Metalworker.
God is the original Lover. {John 3:16}
God is the original Sufferer {John n3:16 again}
God is the original Warrior. {Revelation 12:7-9}

Perhaps you are a "religious atheist."
Why not?
That'd be cool.
That might "catch on" and find its way onto a Pew Research poll
question with a box to be checked for "Religious Atheist."

JAG


``

 

A good argument is an argument that is valid and sound, i.e. the premises are true and the premises lead to the conclusion. Whether you or I or anyone else is able to figure out whether an argument is good is neither here nor there (although it can be an indication). An argument can be good even if people fail to identify it as such, so no, it is not the decision of any person or decision making body.

I'm willing to agree that humanity and individual humans are unlikely to let go of certain beliefs, but that doesn't make the beliefs correct, that just makes them believed.

I would not use probability in the situations you've suggested above. An issue which has a 50% uncertainty in it is not 50% decided, it is not decided at all.

 

It seems to me unlikely. Secular humanism primarily does not claim to present a particularly true world view, it suggests a framework for how to construct a society in which it is unclear what is true. Your assertion that it is true does nothing to make it believable, but it does reinforce the idea that you don't really know how knowledge is reliably formed.

I am aware of that, the question is whether that is a good reason to believe it is true. So far, it seems not.

 

Well, maybe the normal interpretation is wrong. I wish people would seek me out when I am in need, so the golden rule demands of me that I seek out others in need. It seems to me the only way out of that is to simply disregard the golden rule, either by recognising that it doesn't always apply, or by simply not thinking far enough.

 

What you provided isn't an argument though. Unloved children may be better at dealing with adversity, but you omitted the premise that people "ought" to act to that effect. So certainly, argument can support anything if you don't actually construct them right. I'm not suggesting that self-sacrifice is evil, I'm inviting us to examine what it is about it that makes it good.

 

Who gets to decide if the premises are true or false?
Its easy when you're talking about argument as simple as this:
{1} All men are mortal.
{2} Socrates is a man.
{3} Therefore Socrates is mortal.

But you don't concern yourself with such simple issues. Life
is not about such simple issues.

Probability is all you have to go on in all these highly controversial
philosophical issues. You most certainty do not have 10 + 10 = 20
certainty. Take the so-called "Social Issues" and "Political Issues" as
examples:

Abortion
Homosexual Marriage
Pornography
Free Speech
Racism .
Pollution
Homelessness
Climate Change
Overpopulation
LGBTQ Adoption Rights
The Iraq War
Dozens more ,

If we can't figure it out --- then no conclusion can be reached
just as there are never any conclusions reached between
millions who bicker, haggle, and argue back and forth on
that list of Social and Political Issues up-post.

Disagree.
If people cannot identify it as such, then , , ,
On that, it would be known only to God, and not ever
known to human beings.
On all these highly controversial philosophical issues it is
always people and organizations that decide what is, or is
not, a good argument. There is no possible way to escape
this fact.

The claim that there is out there somewhere a Truth-Reality
and that YOU are the one that decides when premises are
true or false is a FAITH claim. The very best you can say
is that eg. the Teleological Argument has not convinced
YOU there is an Intelligent Designer. You have zero
authority to issue a proclamation saying that "I Swensson
declare that the Teleological Argument fails. to establish
an Intelligent Designer for the Universe and therefore no
humans should believe it to be true."

It is people that decide if arguments are good or bad in
these highly controversial areas. Trees do not decide.
Dogs do not decide. You do not allow other people to
decide for you what is, or is not, correct premises.

You decide for yourself. You can be wrong. You can
be right. Just because you are convinced you are
right does not mean that you, in fact, are right.

Peter Kreeft says his arguments have sound premises.
I had an atheist tell me today that "all 20 of those
arguments were awful" -- as if his proclamation
settled the issue and dispensed with Kreeft's
arguments. Pfft gone.

When it comes to Epistemology most humans operate
on the false assumption that they are God Himself.
They assume by Faith that there is a Truth-Reality
out there and that THEY know what it is and that
THEY have it.

Bob: You are wrong Tom and here are my reasons in support.
Tom: No Bob you are wrong and here are my reasons in support.

Bob: You are wrong Tom and here are my reasons in support.
Tom: No Bob you are wrong and here are my reasons in support

Bob: You are wrong Tom and here are my reasons in support.
Tom: No Bob you are wrong and here are my reasons in support
On and on it goes , , ,

Some human has to decide if they are, or are not, correct.

Regarding the issues that highly concern say the Republican
Party, do you think they will agree to allow YOU to decide?
Why wouldn't they? You made a decision about the Kalam
Argument. Therefore no atheism for you right now. So
you can and do make decisions regarding arguments.

If there is a Truth-Reality out there somewhere and YOU
have it --- then why would not the Republican Party allow
YOU to decide which arguments are correct with regard
to their up-coming political platforms? I mean you either
have access to that Truth-Reality or you do NOT have
access to it. Which is it?
Or , , ,
Maybe you have it, but they just don't know you have it. LOL
Maybe you don't have it.
Maybe you think you have, but don't have it.
Maybe you think you have, and do have it.
Maybe I have it.
But you don't know that I have it.
Maybe Peter Kreeft has it.

Well you have to use some kind of scale to grade Probability.
How about this one?

Lowest Low Probability.
Medium Low Probability
Highest Low Probability.

Lowest Medium Probability.
Medium Medium Probability
Highest Medium Probability.

Lowest High Probability.
Medium High Probability
Highest High Probability.

Remember some human being has to pick one
of those up there -- and we can be certain that
you are NOT going to let anyone but YOU pick
one for you.

And that is true for most everybody.
So? So we have a huge enormous
conglomeration of a confused befuddled
intellectual mess where people who hold
contradictory views all declare that it is THEY
that have access to the Truth-Reality on issues
such as these:

Donald Trump
Nativism
Xenophobia
Trans gender issues
Misogyny.
Abortion
Homosexual Marriage
Pornography
Free Speech
Racism .
Pollution
Homelessness
Climate Change
Overpopulation
LGBTQ Adoption Rights
The Iraq War
Taxes
The Republican Party
The Libertarians
The Democratic Party
Human Rights
Black Lives Matter
And dozens and dozens more , , , ,

JAG

``

 

None that I would personally accept.
But out there somewhere there are those that would love them.
And would say they were good arguments.

If what I said was true, then the "ought" could logically
follow.
Question:
Was what I listed true?
Is there any truth in any of it?
If so, then we have an "ought to."

____________

Mothers ought NOT to love their children.

Support:

{1} Children who grow up without being loved are
more likely to develop tough hard constitutions
which will enable them to better cope with adversity.

{2} Children who grow up without being loved are
more likely to reject emotion based decision making
because love is an emotion.

{3} Love is highly over-rated and has proven to be a
disappointment in marriages as evidenced by high
divorce rates. Children need to learn this by not
being loved by their mothers.

[4} Love is a major theme of religion and religion is
dangerous and children need to be influenced
against religion by not being loved by their mothers

Some human has to decide if we did, or did not,
construct them right. We must never forget that.

There is no Truth-Reality out there that can be
accessed via Secular Humanism with regard to
these highly controversial philosophical issues.
So? So you might as well come on over to the
Faith side of things --- that's exactly where you
are now --- its just that now you are exercising
Faith in Secular Humanism instead of in
John 3:16 ---And Faith is Faith.

I understand.
Very interesting.
What about the "greater good" motive?
On Christianity the self-sacrifice of God and the Lord Jesus
resulted in Eternal Life for trillions and trillions. {I am a good
Postmillennialist and believe that the human race is in its
infancy and that human history can run for a million years
hence, thus allowing time for trillions and trillions of humans
to be born and salvaged.}

JAG

``

 

[ed. removing "WillReadMore Responded With:" only because what it references is missing.]

Well, I'm not a physicist and I suspect I've gone outside of my paygrade already, though I've tried.

I would strongly recommend reading the entry for spacetime on wiki. It isn't tough reading. And, it isn't debatable - its the model accepted by all physicists around the world. It is hugely tested EVERY DAY. It affects how GPS works. It affects how satellites work. There is a known issue with it whne it comes to quantum theory, but I think we can put that off for a little bit! However, this spacetime and gravity issue is key to figuring out how to fix the common model of physics, so there is a LOT of work being done in this area. Physicists all over the world see this area as on the short list of stuff that is important. Einstein's work has been monumentally resiliant to more than 100 years of constant serious assault.

I've tried tpretty hard to keep this within the realm of science, noting when it becomes theoretical physics which can not curently be tested.

Nothing I've said precludes there being a god. NOTHING!!

More generally, NOTHING that scinece can test can address the question of god's existence. Science CAN NOT test god.

So, we don't have to worry about that one!!

I'm not claiming there is another universe out there. There certainly are a lot of theoretical physicists who think there might be, but they readily state that it can not be tested. Also, if there are multiple universes it doesn't suggest there is no god - god could have multiple universes if he thought that was interesting, right?

I am NOT here to attack your belief in god. But, I do not see an adeuate justification for believing in heaven or god.

 

Well, I think god would be more important than that!

The thing is that humans do not have all the answers.

When I point out that there is something that we don't know for sure, you can claim that is god.

But, I'm going to suggest that it is the fact of human ignorance. And, humans being ignorant is not an argument for the existence of god.

And, I'm not going to be shy about what we don't know. I think what we don't know is exciting! Think how boring it would be if we knew everything!

There is an equivalence. E=mc^2.

With that equaivalence comes the possibility of moving between energy and mass.

There is huge evidence that energy is present in all space.

Evolution doesn't have an objective or plan. It is basically a set of very natural rules.

There are random events that produce and destroy various relationships between atoms.

There are selection criteria - such as survival of the fittest.

Life forms have become increasingly good at surviving using different techniques. Some get better at being able to see, so they are more likley to survive because those that see better can find food and avoid danger better - a natural selection process.

Humans win by having crazy powerful brains. But, brains are really expensive in terms of energy, so over the last 20,000 years human brains have shrunk by about the size of a tennis ball - reducing their expense in terms of calories required for survival. (At the same time, our brains may have imporoved in other ways to make up for the size loss.)

So evolution does include random changes, but it also includes selection processes that are NOT random.

We improve agricultural products through evolution. Some human carefully selects and isolates plants or animals that are "better" in some way. Then that is done repeatedly for generations and we get wheat, apples, dogs, and all the other stuff that humans made using evolution.

I suspect you are attaching the label of "god" to those things which are good (by some measure) or are beyond our knowledge.

But, again I am not here to object.

 

It was interesting.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Okay.

Dead set against there being a God?
Don't even want one little crack in the door?
"NOTHING"__WillReadMore
That's strong.

Agreed.
Neither can science test those things that are most important to YourSelf
such as what will happen to YourSelf as the Aging-Disease-Death
process proceeds. Who will give a rat's butt about "time and space" when
they are laying on their Death Bed and their doctor shakes his head and
walks away? What then? Where will your "good buddy" Science be then?
Think Science will "be there for you" then?

Okay.
But it sure did sound that way.
Go back and read your posts and you'll see why.
But no matter. Its all OK-Cool either way.
It doesn't matter to me if there are a billion Universe's out there.
I hope there are. That'd be super cool. I have a very BIG conception
of the God that created you & me.

What happened? Along the way? Did God not give you the pony you prayed for?
You had a lot of exposure to Christianity. You decided not to believe in God.
"I am 100% atheist" you said. Not 99%? How about 97% Don't want to
even allow 3% possibility there is a God?

Right.

Thank you.
That makes you different than most thread-atheists on
the Internet At large.

Maybe later on.

Best.

JAG

 

You may have misinterpreted this. I'm saying that science can not disprove ANYTHING about god.

Science can not question god. That's what the absolute is about.

I believe truth will be there.

The fact that heaven is an enticing thought, it's not a justification for believing in heaven.

Reember that I suggested ignoring the multiverse thing. It's not really central to aything we're discussing here.

I agree that I should not have given a %. That was ridiculous. I'd point out that your god is not asking you for a mere 99%, either.

Yes, I did have a change of mind about the existence of god. It was not because of any perceived trauma!

I'd like to skip that, as again I am not interested in changing your mind about your religion. And, anything I say would just turn into that. I know you say a lot about your beliefs, but I'm totally fine with that. Given the discussion it's pretty much required for you to do so to at least some extent.

Best to you as well.

 

Thank you for explaining.

Okay.

What truth?
JAG Wrote:
"Neither can science test those things that are most important to YourSelf
such as what will happen to YourSelf as the Aging-Disease-Death
process proceeds. Who will give a rat's butt about "time and space" when
they are laying on their Death Bed and their doctor shakes his head and
walks away? What then? Where will your "good buddy" Science be then?
Think Science will "be there for you" then?"___JAG

So what truth is going to be there for you?

What would it take to get you to believe?

Okay.

No it wasn't ridiculous at all.
You were saying you're fully committed to atheism.
I just wondered if you were 100% committed to it?
Have you ruled out Faith totally?
Maybe later on , , ,
Father Time changes all of us.
Father Time is very unkind.
He has no mercy.

Remember its NEVER to late.
Even Death Bed repentance is possible. It has happened many times.

Well it is the Religion Forum.
Thanks for the kind words.

JAG

 

There is only one truth. It's the same for everyone.

My view is that humrans are no different than all other life forms with respect to death. Wheat, cows, apes, whales - we have more complex brains and thus are more aware of the circumstances of life. But, that doesn't change the circumstances of life.

I dont' see atheism as something that one could possibly be "committed to". It's not a religion. One does have to be committed to a religion, as religions (at least those with a god) express requirements, usually believed to come from the god that is central to the religion.

 

Okay.
But what is it?
What is the truth that will be there for you on your Death Bed to
help you?
Say you're dying from cancer. You're in the last stages.
What do you do? Just lay there and die with no help?
Like your cows and apes and whales down there?

So on your lights your death will be the same as the death of a bug?
Or a house plant? Or a toad frog? Or a road kill? Or a mosquito?
I mean in principle. No difference in principle, right?

It doesn't bother you to believe that when you die you will cease
to exist? On your lights you cease to exist, right? Like a bug
ceases to exist that crashes into a windshield and is smashed
into bug-goo? You will have the same ultimate end as a bug?

Okay.
But it functions like one on some points.


``

 

/chuckle
I went over there and looked at your article.
That's some of the toughest reading I've ever done.
I'm glad you can dig it.
Here is a section of your spacetime article:
Check it out and see how tough you think it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Galilean_transformations

__________

By the way, where do you think Old Albert is right now?
Einstein I mean.
Where is he right now.
What do you think?

JAG


``

 

The truth doesn't change by me wanting it to change.

I know religion has features to offer, and I fully believe those features are present for a believer regardless of whether there actually is a god. If you hold to your belief it will comfort you at the time of your death.

Whatever happens after that is the truth.

I'm not here to change your belief.

 

I'm impressed. I wasn't thinking you would get into it so seriously!!

I was thinking more of just the intro stuff - a general undersading of where we are today.

Good for you!