Questions for Atheists

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

What is the cause of the difference between the six types of quarks and their corresponding anti-quarks?

---

What does this have to do with atheism? Are you saying that god is the difference?

quote:

---

What is the nature of Dark Energy, and how did it evolve?

---

Why does the existence of god affect the nature of dark energy and who said it evolved?

quote:

---

What would happen if a quark would knock into another quark?

---

This is generally handled by the Standard Model. What does the existence of god have to do with it? Only atheists can describequantum mechanics?

quote:

---

Would it be cut in half?

---

Huh? Interactions between quarks are described by the Standard Model. What happens depends upon which kind of quark you're dealingwith. Quarks are generally unstable outside of their triplet state when combined with gluons to form baryonic matter, but there are some particles that are made of pairs called mesons:Quarks

quote:

---

If quarks can be cut in half, what would you call a half of a quark?

---

Scientists are very clever at coming up with names. For example, "quark." After all, it was thought that you couldn't divide an atom and then it was found that atoms are actually made of sub-atomic particles: Protons, electrons, and neutrons. So then those became the smallest units until we found that they were made up of quarks and gluons. If we find that quarks and gluons are made of up of even smaller bits, we'll come up with new names for that.What does the existence of god have to do with this?

quote:

---

What would you call half of that?

---

Same thing. We'll come up with new names. At the moment, we have been unable to create any free quarks...they like to stick together. The theory of asymptotic freedom explaining why quarks splitting apart from their groups results in a stronger attraction from the strong nuclear force was given the Nobel Prize in 2004.One of the possible things that the new LHC might be tried to carry out is the creation of quark matter.Why does the existence or non-existence of god change this?

quote:

---

If the whole universe could theoretically be broken down into the most elementary thing (force, energy, matter, anti-matter, wave, partical, time, space, or concept)

---

This is literally nonsense. Many of the things you mention are the same thing.But what does this have to do with the existence of god?

quote:

---

how would this simple thing possibly do anything without interacting with another thing (same as before)?

---

Huh? You seem to be indicating that interactions require interaction and are amazed by this tautology, as if physicists had never considered the possibility despite the fact that Newton's Third Law of Motion is precisely that: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Too, the entire concept of conservation is that everything has to go somewhere.But again, what does this have to do with the existence of god?

quote:

---

Why do laws of physics breakdown during the Big Bang?

---

Well, they don't because the physics is the physics. What breaks down is our model of the Big Bang.But what does this have to do with the existence of god?

quote:

---

What laws did nature follow?

---

You've got the question wrong. Nature is the law. It follows itself.But what does that have to do with existence of god?

quote:

---

And finally, how does gravity really work?

---

We don't know. This is in marked contrast to evolution, for which we have an actual mechanism that we can manipulate directly. And yet, nobody seems to call gravity "just a theory" or propose that we "teach the controversy" regarding the standard description of gravity and the "tiny, invisible rubber band theory."That's right: Evolution is more solidly grounded and better understood than gravity, and yet it's evolution that gets all the hyperventilation.At any rate, what does that have to do with the existence of god?You seem to be indicating that is science is accurate, that means god cannot exist. Why?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

a theist would admit that the world cannot be understood completely by human beings.

---

Says who? Don't confuse your theology with a universal trait. Your god may say that you can't know the world but don't you dare presume to speak for anybody else.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

It is obvious from reading an elementary textbook in physics that there are still some problems with the current ideas.

---

Yes...and? Why is this considered problematic? If there was nothing else to learn, science would stagnate.

quote:

---

What I meant to question was whether it is possible to put all the laws of nature into something understandable to the human brain.

---

Well, since everything we do know about the laws of nature was the result of humans using their brains, it would seem that your question is self-evident. But methinks you're looking for something like, "Because E = mc², everything else follows." Well, the world is much too complicated for that. Just as a practical matter, there is too much to know for a single person to truly be able to understand it all.

quote:

---

To start, I show that everything can be broken into smaller things.

---

But you haven't. You have asserted that quarks can be broken down into smaller particles, but you haven't given any evidence that they can or how.

quote:

---

And, any two things with different properties must have a cause for the difference in property.

---

You seem to be attaching philosophical significance to this "difference." Why are physical differences not enough?

quote:

---

Then I show how it is not possible to break everything down into a most elementary thing that would be understood by humans.

---

But if you know this, then you have just defeated your own claim.At any rate, you haven't shown this at all. Assertion is not proof.

quote:

---

I also want to show that if it is not possible to explain the entire universe in terms of physical properties, a force, not comprehendable to human logic must be used to explain it.

---

Um, do you mean that there are things in the world that cannot be explained by science? Well, of course. Science can tell you lots of things about an acoustic waveform: It's frequency, wavelength, modulation, shape, how much energy it has, how far it will propagate in various media, etc.What it cannot tell you is if it is music. And it doesn't even try.You're playing a game of gotcha, here, and I get the feeling you're trying to handwave past a troublesome part where you equivocate things that are amenable to scientific inquiry and things that aren't.

quote:

---

This lends itself to the theistic point of view.

---

And here it is: You are trying to say that because we don't know everything, this means we don't know anything, and there we find god.I dare say there are many people who believe in god who would disagree with you.

quote:

---

Theism does not attempt to explain the universe.

---

And yet, the very existence of this discussion board proves that claim wrong. Clearly there are those who believe in god who quite strongly insist that their theism explains the universe.

quote:

---

Rather, it uses logic to conclude that an all powerfull Being, not comprehendable to humans, must exist.

---

There are some who would say that.Others would disagree. As the cliche goes, "Proof denies faith."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

I don't think science can ever understand the cause of the Big Bang.

---

People have said that about a lot of things. What will you do when that becomes yet another false claim?This is what makes science such an effective field: It doesn't throw its hands up in the air simply because things seem too hard. It simply accepts that we don't know for right now and keep on plugging away, searching for new and different ways of looking at things.

quote:

---

Assuming the cause of the Big Bang was the all-powerful G-d, it can be assumed that G-d set forth the Big Bang with precise calculations.

---

No, it can't. Why would god necessarily set the Big Bang up with any sort of precision? Perhaps god was curious and wanted to find out what would happen. Perhaps universe creation is a random process and god wouldn't know what happened until afterward.

quote:

---

G-d would be able to know exactly what the out come of the Big Bang will be.

---

Why? This flies in the face of what we know about the nature of existence: It is inherently random. Newton and the rest of the 18th Century crowd certainly believed in the clockwork universe, but we have since come to learn that things are much messier.Einstein may have said in jest that god does not play dice with the universe, but Hawking jokingly replied that not only does god play dice, sometimes he throws them where we can't see them.

quote:

---

Since G-d wanted life to exist

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Why would god want life to exist? Again, perhaps god was just curious and life was just a happy accident. Does the phrase "emergent property" mean anything to you?

quote:

---

He would have set the Big Bang in precisely the exact parameters that would cause life to eventually form.

---

Why? Why would god necessarily have created a universe to create life? Why can't it have been a surprise?

quote:

---

In fact, G-d could set the Big Bang to exactly the correct parameters in order for anything to happen that He so desires.

---

Again, this is in direct contradiction to what we know about the universe: There is no way to do this for the universe is quantum.

quote:

---

All you need is for G-d to know all of the possible outcomes of the Big Bang, and G-d is actually controlling the entire world from its beginning.

---

But you can't know all the possible outcomes as the universe is quantum and doesn't play that way.

quote:

---

Also, since G-d must not be in the realm of time

---

This means that god is incapable of interacting with the universe for the universe is of time. As we know, interactions require interacting. Since we are of time, everything that interacts with us must also be of time.

quote:

---

G-d controlling the world from the beginning is the equivalent of G-d controlling the world right now.

---

Why? Where is the evidence that god was in control from teh beginning?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

You asked me which god I am referring to, and my answer to you is: The G-d that is written in the Torah.

---

And when was it decided that the Jewish god was the one that truly existed? I should think the Hindus, who have an older religion, might have something to say about that.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

The one about not requiring God is illogical because he pre-supposes there is no motive for anything, at all, despite the substance of anything - at all.

---

And the mere existence of atheists proves this to be true.Unless you're trying to say that atheists have no motive.

quote:

---

My washing machine doesn't require me to wash my socks, but there is a motive as to why the socks are being washed.

---

God wants you to wash your socks? Is that what you're saying?

quote:

---

But what is clear is that they don't own thought

---

Nobody said they did. But you have the reasoning backwards. Atheists have all the traits of theists but without the god and faith parts.Therefore, where do we find justification for the claim that god is required for whatever trait you deign to name?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Open MInd responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And when was it decided that the Jewish god was the one that truly existed?

---

​

You are argueing from ignorance. First of all how do you know that it was decided.

---

You're the one who brought it up. Therefore, it is your burden of proof. When asked about what you meant by "god," you were the one who said that it was the Jewish god.So when was it decided that it was the Jewish god that was the one that truly existed?

quote:

---

How do you know what the Hindu's have to say.

---

The ability to read the texts of the Hindu religion. Besides, what makes you think I'm not Hindu?

quote:

---

How can anything decide that any god is the true one.

---

You tell me. You were the one who brought it up. You are the one who needs to explain yourself. Your own words from Message 33: Since when did we agree that god meant the Jewish one? Why should we accept your definition?

quote:

---

Do you understand what I am trying to tell you.

---

I understand perfectly:You don't want to answer the question. You made assumptions about the nature of god and when it was pointed out to you that your assumptions are not shared by all, you're doing everything you can to avoid the issue.

quote:

---

If you want to have a debate, why not give your opinion in a nice thought out rebutal?

---

Because you're playing a game of "gotcha" and I don't play those games. Thus, I'm trying to get you to skip to the end where you reveal your "gotcha!" so that it can be handled directly. If your "gotcha" is dependent upon the setup that you're making, then it is sufficient to demolish your "gotcha" by pointing out that your setup is fallacious.So, help us out: Stop playing games and get to the point.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I realize that this may be risking that which I am warning against:Open MInd writes:

quote:

---

I dont have time for your biased warnings.

---

You do realize that you are talking to one of the administrators of the board, yes? If you truly wish to remain here and discuss your topic, it would behoove you not to piss the admins off or you will find your tenure here cut short. Demonstrating that you will not listen to warnings by the administrators is one way to piss them off.Of course, if you're just trolling, you may not care....

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

no one can establish whether physical causes alone present enough "purpose"

---

This assumes the existence of "purpose," which is what you're trying to prove. Logical error.

quote:

---

Physical purpose

---

What is this "purpose"?

quote:

---

Motives behind construction.

---

Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Logical error.

quote:

---

Don't forget, the claim is that everything we see, in all i's obvious brilliance, is just a chance consequent of a physical self-acting cause.

---

Incorrect. Think about what the claim actually is. The point behind parsimony is that if you don't need to add the chocolate sprinkles, then there is no justification to insist upon them.

quote:

---

the truism of design.

---

Doesn't exist. So far, nothing that has ever been brought forward as "irreducibly complex" has ever managed to withstand scrutiny.You are assuming that which you are trying to prove. Design can never be assumed. It must always be demonstrated. To declare it to be a "truism" to engage in the logical error of affirming the consequent.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Purpose is proven how I defined it.

---

But that's just it: You have never defined it. You have tried to give examples, but every one you have has been demolished.

quote:

---

Purpose of motive has been proven to exist in the physical universe.

---

What is this "purpose" of which you speak? Be specific.

quote:

---

I do not require the term "purpose" for my argument

---

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

quote:

---

This is logically correct because physical causes and effects can't NECESSARILY happen without a motivation.

---

And yet, the Casimir Effect proves this to be wrong. You can get something from nothing.

quote:

---

Parsimony isn't obstructed if we say that Jack had a motivation for ripping.

---

You're confusing psychology with physics. What do you mean by "motivation"?

quote:

---

You don't know if the universe has a motivational cause or not.

---

Perhaps, but it is not my burden to show that it doesn't. You're the one claiming that it has one, therefore it is your burden to show that it does. If it can be shown that it is not necessary, then your burden becomes that much harder.This requires you to define "motivation."

quote:

---

Instead of stating that I am incorrect, first understand what I am saying.

---

That requires you to define your terms. What do you mean by "motivation"? It appears that all you've done is shift one undefined word, "purpose," into another one, "motivation." What do you mean by these terms?

quote:

---

Nobody knows whether the universe requires a creator.

---

So you're nobody? "Purpose of motive has been proven to exist in the physical universe." That's what you said. Now you're saying that it isn't required. So which is it?It would help if you would define what you mean by "purpose" and "motivation."And perhaps you'll be the first to answer my question:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

I am referring to Aristotle's use of a motivational cause.

---

You do realize that Aristotle has long since been refuted, yes?

quote:

---

Why do we need to consider socks becoming clean in a washing machine?

---

Because we can see it happen right in front of our eyes.

quote:

---

It's just a coincidence because they are in an environment of watery soap where they are violently thrown around

---

Huh? It isn't coincidence. It's physics. It happens all on its own, though.Or are you saying there is nothing that happens on its own? Please be the first to answer the question:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

quote:

---

ofcourse there is no purpose in this physical process

---

What do you mean by "purpose"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Dash on the Darkside writes:

quote:

---

It seems that you are arguing the "Five Ways" according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

​

1. First Way: The Argument of Motion


1. Nothing can move itself.
2. If every object in motion has a mover then the first object had a mover.
3. The first mover is the immovable mover, God.

---

Of course, point c is contradicted by points a and b. If "nothing" can move itself, that also means god cannot, either.

quote:

---

2. Second Way: Causation Effect


1. Things exist that were caused by other things.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. There cannot be an endless string of things causing other things.
4. Therefore god must be the first cause.

---

Same problem: Point d is contradicted by points a and b. If nothing can cause itself, that means god cannot either.In both cases, if we allow that god can self-create and self-move, why can't the universe?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.