Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,760 Year: 4,017/9,624 Month: 888/974 Week: 215/286 Day: 22/109 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   atheism
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 111 (6196)
03-06-2002 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by bretheweb
03-05-2002 11:51 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by bretheweb:
[B]//so how do you define god (bearing in mind that the bible said specifically that He created us in the image of Him)- is He white with a long beard, sandals, and a robe? Is he black? Is he brown skinned in a turban? Is he asian? Starting to get sticky, aren't we?//
I quite agree... I've asked this question for a while now and all I get are non-answers... "god is good, god is love, god is perfect, etc."...
I'd like someone to explain to me how god can be "everywhere", ie., omnipresent, and yet as a strong atheist, I have to go looking for him across the far corners of the known universe.
----God has "revealed" himself recently upon the Earth in various "miracles" ie. Fatima, Padre Pio and the stigmata, etc (from a Catholic perspective). Although you will mock these "miracles" as falsehoods, I see them as a manefestation of God's existence. God reveals himself in a manner that is commensurate with his will, not yours. Maybe you fail to "see" him because you truly are blind.
What I want to know is how god can be claimed to be omniscient, "he knows what you're going to do", and we can still pretend we have free will? What I want to know is how can an "all loving" (omnibenevolent?) god tolerate the cruelty and vileness that are embodied by some aspects of humanity?
---The fact that God already knows how you will live your life (omniscient) does not negate the fact that you have free will. It is humanity, not God, that engages in "cruelty and vileness".
//here's what i believe- the universe, or cosmos, which may be composed of millions of universes, is infinite... it had no beginning, and will have no end... thus it had no creation, and therefore no creator...//
Hmmm... You might want to pick up the April '02 issue of Discover magazine for the article "Guth's Grand Guess" pp32.
Inflationary theory is, based on recent observations, pretty much the dominant Big Bang theory right now.
I liked this line, "The primordial "stuff" of inflation, he and other cosmologists contend, is very likely a spontaneous creation, a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nontheless scientifically possible process."
And, "All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing."
---"The primordial "stuff" of inflation, he and other cosmologists contend, is very likely a spontaneous creation, a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nontheless scientifically possible process." And, "All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing."
I find it utterly amusing that atheists and "scientific" minds rely upon the aforementioned premise (or similiar "Big Bang" theories) as the beggining of the universe, a pure hypothetical based upon no "observable facts", yet they mock those that believe in a Supreme Being. One question I always pose to evolutionists is the simple principle of "something from nothingness"...ie one must concede (at least in my mind) that at some point in time there was absolute nothingness (if you except your premise that God does not exist) and from that nothingness life suddenly "arose" or as your author put it "a no-strings gift that boiled out of absolutely nowhere by means of an utterly random but nontheless scientifically possible process" (huh?). How does science attempt to VALIDLY explain this issue?
//so why do we need a god?//
To comfort us in our fears and to try to explain the "unexplainable" to people unable to grasp complex concepts.
---One cannot grasp "complex" concepts, therefore one turns to God. That comment, in and of itself, exemplifies your extremely limited and biased view of those who think contrary to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by bretheweb, posted 03-05-2002 11:51 AM bretheweb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:32 PM leekim has replied
 Message 25 by nator, posted 03-07-2002 6:05 AM leekim has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 111 (6203)
03-06-2002 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by joz
03-06-2002 1:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
1)The problem with these incidents is that 100% of humanity didn`t directly experience them (did you yourself experience them?) therefore an attitude of doubt in the Cartesian sense "This may look convincing but it as I am relying on someone elses account how do I know they are not decieving me?"(Descartes actually employed the same doubt to phenomena he experienced directly through his senses...)) is perfectly justified...
---So, based upon your logic, 100% of humanity must "directly experience" something in order for it to be true? Please tell me that you truly don't mean this? I have read several accounts regarding Padre Pio during his lifetime and he did indeed have the "stigmata". Again, utilizing your flawed logic, have you ever performed and personally seen a QVF experiment (referenced below)? If not, you cannot comment on their validity.
2)Actually logically speaking this sort of divine foreknowledge implys predestination ergo no free will......
---Predestination only from the perspective that God is aware of the actions any and all matter will engage in during their respective life spans. That does not negate ones ability to have free will to engage in those actions which the Supreme Being has predetermined knowledge of.
3)The difference is that QVF is observable in a lab by anyone (anyone who has the requisite level of knowledge and experimental ability that is)....
---QVF in no way demonstrates or negates my premise that "something cannot arrive from nothingness" at the inception of time when absolutely nothing existed.
Can you say the same for special creation? Can anyone experience first hand God creating the universe?
---You are being grossly dishonest when you bring forth the premise that QVF is scientific prove of the origins of life / matter, etc.
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 1:32 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 3:14 PM leekim has replied
 Message 26 by nator, posted 03-07-2002 6:43 AM leekim has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 111 (6208)
03-06-2002 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by joz
03-06-2002 3:14 PM


I only address your third issue as I feel it is the more compelling topic
//3)Hmmm lets see particle occuring spontaneously in vacuum.....
How is this not something from nothing?
Ergo your statement is false....
Actually its gravely dishonest of you to include life in that statement QVF can produce matter not life....
Also QVF has been observed, special creation hasn`t ergo from a purely empirical standpoint QVF is a better bet...///
-----"The recent use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."
---"In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever."
---Joseph yciski has described well the confusion between actual nothingness and the concept of a vacuum in contemporary physics. Even in the absence of particles, "physical fields do not disappear, and their properties still can be characterized in the abstract language of mathematics."[ Joseph yciski, "Metaphysics and Epistemology in Stephen Hawking's Theory of the Creation of the Universe," Zygon, vol. 31, no. 2 (June 1996), p. 272.]
--- Robert C. Koons (University of Texas)
"Others have used the creation of virtual particles from the vacuum as evidence that things can begin to exist without a cause. If the energy involved is small enough, and the period of existence is short enough, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows particles to emerge from "nothing" and to disappear shortly thereafter. However, this argument fails to distinguish between something containing no energy or particles and sheer nothingness. In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not a nothing. It is the indeterministic cause of the temporary existence of the virtual particles."http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/lec5.html[/URL]
---The primordial vacuum is a physical state existing IN space and time. As Kanitscheider notes: "The violent microstructure of the vacuum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have connected with this legitimate speculations [sic] far-reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language, when they maintained 'creation of the universe out of nothing.' "From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic; it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process."William L. Craig, Cosmos and Creator, "Origins & Design", Vol. 17, No. 2, 1996
"use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."[William L. Craig, "The Caused Beginning of the Universe: a Response to Quentin Smith." British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (1993): 623-639.]
---A quantum vacuum is a physically necessary condition of a virtual particle coming into existence and, in this 'physically necessary' sense of causation, virtual particles may be said to have causes. A probabilistic definition of causality would also enable us to say that virtual particles have causes, for given a quantum vacuum there is a certain probability that virtual particles will be emitted by it."[Quentin Smith, "Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology," Essay VI., p. 179.]
---For starters, lol....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 3:14 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 7:37 PM leekim has replied
 Message 22 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 11:38 PM leekim has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 111 (6237)
03-07-2002 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by joz
03-06-2002 7:37 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B]Oh goody quotes!
Of course if you were to actually explain what the quantum vacuum is and what quantum vacuum fluctuations are and how they can`t happen before the end of the Planck era I`d be more impressed, stunned in fact....
---Quite frankly Joz, my goal is certainly not to "stun" and/or "impress" you. I can assure you that you have not done the aforementioned to/for me.
Heres some information to help you get started:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
---I am well aware of the processes inherent in qvf testing and the conflicting theories surrounding same. I only utilized " " for ease as I, quite frankly, don't have the luxury to devote the excessive amount of time you seemingly do to this site (no offense).
Note:
"The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level.
The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time (added by joz before you mention it this isn`t a problem as time itself only starts at the end of the Planck era). There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.
The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe.
In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence."
And:
"The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, does happen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur).
For example, radioactive decay occurs when two protons and two neutrons (an alpha particle) leap out of an atomic nuclei. Since the positions of the protons and neutrons is governed by the wave function, there is a small, but finite, probability that all four will quantum tunnel outside the nucleus, and therefore escape. The probability of this happening is small, but given enough time (tens of years) it will happen.
The same principles were probably in effect at the time of the Big Bang (although we can not test this hypothesis within our current framework of physics). But as such, the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum effectively guarantee that the Universe would come into existence."
---The time separation between a quantum event and its observed result is always a relatively short one (at least for the analogies under discussion). The multi-billion-year time separation between creation of the universe and of man hardly fits the picture. "Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (coincident with that of space, matter, and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as "creator."(Hugh Ross).
The primordial vacuum is a physical state existing IN space and time. As Kanitscheider notes: "The violent microstructure of the vacuum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have connected with this legitimate speculations, far-reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language, when they maintained 'creation of the universe out of nothing.' "From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic; it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process."[Kanitscheider, B. 1990 "Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning?" In Studies on Mario Bunge's "Treatise", ed. P. Weingartner and G.J.W. Dorn, p. 346-47. Amsterdam: Rodopi.]
So there ARE causal conditions of a quantum vacuum fluctuation though they are not fully deterministic, and we do not have "something from nothing".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by joz, posted 03-06-2002 7:37 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by joz, posted 03-07-2002 10:59 AM leekim has replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 111 (6241)
03-07-2002 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by joz
03-07-2002 10:59 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B] 1)Why bother debating the issue then?
2)Interestingly though you seem to ignore the fact that a quantum vacuum is spacetime with zero curvature, exactly what one would expect to find in the absence of a universe....
3)Yes time in the sense of observable time started at the end of the Planck era, 10 dimensions also dropped down to 4 so arguing that QM is invalid before the Planck time is a bit fishy, this line of reasoning would be valid if we aquired more dimensions at the end of the Planck era but we actually lost some....
4)Actually the quote says they are not deterministic fully didn`t enter into it.....
If your going to conduct your side of this discussion as an appeal to authority please:
a)Investigate the positions of the people your quoting before posting little soundbites which appear to support your argument...
b)Consider the authorities that support the other side as well, on the one side you have Hugh Ross an astronomer who spends a large portion of his time preaching, on the other Hawkings et al....
If you want this to descend into an argument of "my expert thinks this" "well my expert thinks that" I will be happy to oblige however I think it will be a monumental waste of both of our time...
For the record I don`t deny the validity of a causative God I just personaly don`t subscribe to that belief and think that QVF etc provides a perfectly acceptable alternative. Because events before the end of the Planck era cannot ever be observed no one can ever say with any degree of certainty if the universe had a deterministic cause or not, or even if that cause was God or not....
My wife (she is a catholic) happens to believe that God caused the universe I don`t say she is wrong, however she accepts that there exsists a possible non deterministic cause provided by QVF...
---Well enough Joz. I enjoyed the lively debate. Unfortunately I'm leaving now to go out of town (work related) until Monday. I'm sure we'll "run into" each other in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by joz, posted 03-07-2002 10:59 AM joz has not replied

  
leekim
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 111 (6560)
03-11-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Mister Pamboli
03-10-2002 9:26 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Of course there are differences in opinion, but does opinion mean anything in relation to right and wrong? Should Hitlers views be regarded as the same as Mother Teresa's?
Of course not. There are universal morals, whether or not an individual wants to recognize them makes no difference.

In some ways I hesitate to disagree with you in that I do believe there are moral standards which can hold universally. However, though I doubt that "opinion" forms part of the moral standard, I do believe that it could and does take different forms dependent on circumstances - that it requires a degree of relativism in order to be universal.
But in your attempt to put down relativism, you raise it inadvertently. You can rest assured I despise Hitler. Sadly I hold Mother Teresa's moral position quite troubling -
she strikes me as having been a quite appalling person who manipulated the poor and suffering for ends which quite likely included her own egoism and a misguided devotion to an institution rather than a moral code. But I wouldn't want to compare her to Hitler!
---Although this is a tangent, I think your absurd commentary on Mother Teresa needs clarification. An "appalling person"?, "manipulated the poor and suffering"? "her own egoism and a misguided devotion to an institution"? This is one of the most entirely non-objective commentaries on a subject which you clearly have a biased and non-knowledgable of...Mother Theresa did indeed tend to the poor, lepers, the elderly, the sick and did so not for self aggrandizement but rather out of the goodness of her heart. Although doing something in this manner may be a foreign concept to you (yes, this is clearly an ad hom attack), please don't defame Mother Theresa in the process. If your capable of it, please present your factual date and a logical explanation which "proves" that Mother Theresa was an "appalling person", that she "manipulated the poor and suffering" and "her own egoism and a misguided devotion to an institution"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-10-2002 9:26 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-11-2002 11:24 AM leekim has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024