God or No God - that is the question (for atheists)

I can see why the admins had the forsight to put this topic in 'FAITH AND BELIEFS"Sometimes atheist can be just as dogmatic in they're BELIEFS as the most ardent fundy.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

It's an oxymoron!What exists before time?How is black white?What is higher than up?Draw a line. Here, I'll do it for you..---------------------------------->See the dot? That's the singularity. The line is time (okay, it's actually a ray). The arrow is the present. Everything to the left of the arrow is the past. What is further to the left than the singularity?It's actually even worse than this simpleminded example. The singularity encompassed all of time, just as it encompassed all of space (remember, they are related). Everything was a single point at the first moment, including time itself. There WAS no line. there was a point. There was no before, no after. Just an infinite present.Without a before, how can there be a cause?Let's try this another way. The future does not exist yet. We know that it will because time moves forward. The singularity was the same - no "future" existed yet, but there was also no past. Time had not yet moved forward at the Singularity, so there was no past to contain a cause. The same way that the future does not exist until the present moves into it, the past only exists after the present has moved past it. The singularity was the starting line. There was no before, there can be no cause.Using my ASCII visual aid, the singularity looked like this:.No future, no past. Just a dot. What came before? Nothing - there WAS no before. There couldn't have been, becasue time only existed at the singularity and after.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Well half that statement describes your position.
The problem is we do not know what time is.
We do not know if it is open or closed.
We assume that in order for they're to be time there must be space. And the point is the singularity is the point. No space no time. And you say "no time; no before.. no before.. no cause."Cool... except you are depending on time which is at present linked to space. But if current models of string theory pan out or Brane theory, or M theory .. then there are more dimentions in which to concider other than the ones that occupy our spacetime continum. More dimentions with curled up space within crazy shaped places.If there are in fact 11 dimentions within the within the within plankes size then who is to say what is before the before? We can not even comtemplate such a universe. So give it a rest, It is all speculation.
And just so you know one of the descriptions of God is a uncreated undiferentiated manifested reality. So no cause sounds good to me.

There are no "standard atheist positions", aside from a lack of belief in God. I'm sorry, was that supposed to be some kind of contentious position? Something I was supposed to disagree with?I don't understand the point of your post, other than a staggering display of your apparent ignorance of what it means to be an atheist. Well, nothing new, really. Ok, what was the cause?

And, thus, is an atheist. Oh? Reasoning according to the accepted definition of words is annoying to you?

So then maybe certain individuals shouldn't go mouthing off about the need for a cause and proof of God.Just a thought. "We don't know, therefore I'm going to assume (prove me wrong - oops you can't), therefore we know there's a God" isn't particularly compelling as the schema for an effective argument.

We have a decent idea of what time is. We know that it IS linked inextricably with space - see Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Except that String Theory is not yet mature. It's still in the early stages of development - and it doesn't, as far as I am aware, counter the general understanding that the Singularity existed as all of time and space compressed into a single point. It doesn't change the fact that there must be a "before" to have a cause. You're the one making speculations. You use a lot of "if" and "might" and "who knows?" I'm speaking very plainly here - current understanding of the big Bang shows that time, as a property of the universe, began at the Big Bang with the other dimensions that make up our universe. Nothing could possibly happen in the time before time began - it hadn't begun yet! "Before the beginning of time" is an oxymoron. Since a cause must preceed its effect in time, and there WAS no preceeding time in which a cause could have happened, there could have been no cause. That would simply be calling the Universe "God." That's all well and good, but it doesn't match the definition being discussed in this thread - it's simply a redefinition of a term. I could name my cat "God" and thereby prove that God exists - but that's not the type of God we are discussing here.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This is fun...never intended to awaken the wrath of crashfrog. I couldn't agree more. And if you do not mind if I add: the presumption that there is no cause. I agree 100% with this statement. All in all is what we are,, all in all is what we are...do you like Nirvana?
Hows that for a subject change?

Sure.

We know it is linked with space? And even Einstien was wrong once. Ok so if there is more dimentions outside of our spacetime and more space curled within these, then is there perhaps time outside of our time? is that kinda like there must be a universe for every possible wave function? Or there must be a substance like ether propagating light waves? Or there must be a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? Nothing in science is a must. Life is stranger than fiction. Rahvin, I agree with you that speaking of a before time is stupid. And I also concede that if there is no "before" then how can a cause occur? My point is it is being investigated that the singularity and other theories are making once simple concepts very blurry, the line you draw in the sand is one of your own making. I can not speak of that which I do not know. And your cat is god to any mice. And who is feeding this god?

Atheists have no belief in anything?What's going on in your head?All humans have beliefs.Atheists believe there is no GodAtheists either believe there is a God or there isn't.
You're totally butchering definitions of words.You're simply,
flatout,
wrong.Don't try to make your belief something it isn't, that's all it is,
a belief.atheism

quote:

---

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

---

This message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-16-2005 04:29 PM

"Which cause is it?" came across loud and clear. As 'cause' refers to a specific set of coordinates on a 4 dimensional grid, asking for the 'cause' of the 4 dimensional grid is asking for the coordinates on the grid, for the grid -- like, "What's the latitude and longitude of latitude and longitude?" It's a meaningless question. The only tool I have to determine which concepts match reality and which do not -- observation. I also have reasoning from observation, which determines when a concept is likely to match reality. The potential for unobservable evidence is irrelevant.

Did you actually read the definitions you quoted ?Did you notice the second definition ? "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" ?Unless a baby agrees in a God or gods is it not an atheist by the second definition ?

You asked how to propose that there could be a before the big bang. I did. You're welcome. Of course I cannot prove it, I don't see why I need to. Its just a proposition. That's debatable. Well, there's not really any evidence that the singularity ever existed either. It too is speculation. -------.-------->There ya go, now there is something before the singularity. The first '-' after the '.' is the big bang and the first '-' before the '.' is the last big crunch, which happened before singularity and was the cause of the singualrtiy.(more speculation btw) Idle speculation.

Better:
What exists towards the middle of a line segment, from the middle of the line segment?'Towards the middle' is only meaningful if you're not at the middle. Once you're at the middle, all directions are, 'towards the ends'. 'Towards the middle' is simply not a direction, so asking, "What lies in that direction," is meaningless.(Damn I'm good. I wrote that figuring that someone would see the potential for just extending your line; which Catholic Scientist just did, and took advantage of.)In case some of you can't figure that analogy out, 'towards the middle' = before/prior. 'towards the end (from the middle)'= after/later. The BB is at the middle. So, "towards the middle from the middle" = "before/prior to the BB."This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-16-2005 05:08 PM